Yet as time progresses and gaming as a whole becomes bigger, larger, and more powerful, top of the line computer hardware seems to be losing its purpose. There was a time when hardware was what the PC gaming experience was all about – you either had the hardware to run the latest games, or you didn’t. PC gaming was about tweaking, modifying, and adjusting the games to get them running on your rig at a playable level, and boy, once you did, you were in for a treat. In reality, it was rather elitist. Very few people could thoroughly enjoy many games without endless hours of work – games were “system breakers” in the same vein as Crysis was (and many cases still is). For years, this has been the “bane” of PC gaming. We’ve been hounded by our console brethren over the fact that high-end gaming PCs are, in fact, quite expensive. “U needz a NASA compooter lolololzlolz!1!!!111shift+1,” they’d laugh, while joyfully dropping a disk into their x-stations or play-boxes and carry on their gaming.

My friends, those days are over. The days of ludicrous system requirements are behind us. While I personally will miss the days of system-crushers, I’m optimistic about PC gaming’s future – and here’s why.

Computer hardware is more accessible to gamers

Hard to believe this was once a system crusher.
Where has the time gone?

It wasn’t all that long ago when a rig capable of running the latest and greatest games playable at high settings would have set your average gamer back two to three thousand dollars. And yet, I helped a gamer friend put together his first gaming rig about two months ago for $550.00 (including shipping), and it blasts through anything currently on the market. Gaming ready hardware isn’t a dream anymore – it’s a reality. Any kid who can pick up a decent grunt-work job over his summer break can easily save up enough to build a competent gaming computer (likely with some cash to spare for games!). It’s a hell of a lot easier to find your parts, too. With the Internet at our disposal and with excellent vendors such as Newegg here to serve us, it’s easy to find the best prices on performance hardware; you’re no longer limited to what brick-and-mortar vendors sell in your local area.

Gamers can “do their homework” like never before

Benchmarking computer hardware has been around for a long time. In the old days, it used to be that a gamer could only get his fix of the latest hardware performance through print media such as magazines – and obviously, these mediums have limited space. This meant that much hardware often would go unreviewed, unbenchmarked and unknown to many consumers. With the Internet, that isn’t the case at all. Just about every piece of hardware imaginable, from processors to graphics cards to fan controllers, has been reviewed by someone, somewhere at some time. Of course, it’s important to note that there are many sites out there with superior reputations to others, and it’s important when doing your research on computer hardware to stick with reputable sources.

Game developers are getting some brains!

“Okay, we’re going to develop this game to be so graphically intensive that only 2% of our potential audience will be capable of running it!” Doesn’t sound like such a smart business plan, eh? It wasn’t very long ago that developers went into computer gaming with a very similar mindset (okay, maybe they weren’t intentionally alienating their audience, but still…). Look, the fact of the matter is that games are a big expenditures now, and that they simply cannot risk failure. These aren’t two-man jobs in some guy’s garage anymore; there’s a lot of money at stake for these developers, and they have to try and design games which fit into the largest portion of their potential audience – which, more often than not, are people with subpar PCs. Stardock, Blizzard, Valve, and Maxis are a handful of big names in the industry. They make everything from strategy games to MMOs, to shooters and casual games. What’s the only thing these companies have in common, aside from kickass names? They design their games to fit the lowest common denominator of hardware possible. And the successes of all of these companies just hammers home the next point.

Games don’t have to be graphical powerhouses to be successful

I know I talk about Team Fortress 2 far too much in my articles (this is the last time for a while, I promise!), but I just cannot resist using it as an example. Team Fortress 2 is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the best multiplayer shooter in the past five years. And graphically, you could easily run it on the same five-year-old hardware that you had when you last great multiplayer shooter was released! Graphics have grown to the point where the average developer has the resources to produce games which don’t hurt your eyes to look at – and honestly, that is all this gamer cares about. I personally enjoy it when games take a stylized approach to their graphics. Not only does it keep system requirements low in contrast to “hyper realistic” graphic design, but additionally it keeps the games looking good and fresh for years after the “realistic” looking games stop looking realistic.

Despite being far from “realistic”, Mirror’s Edge looked great!

Hardware is following console trends

I was hesitant to include this in my list, because I didn’t think that it was something good for PC gaming. Yet, after thinking it over for a bit, I realized that this is actually an excellent phenomena for the consumer. The advancement of PC gaming hardware, as well as the demand for higher performing hardware, seems to have a correlation with the release of each new tier of consoles. For example, when the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii were released, the hardware requirements for your average game increased. Not massively, but just enough to coax many gamers into the “time to order new parts” mentality. This, of course, was met by the production of new hardware that was faster, stronger, and better than before. PC hardware is always improving, and yet with consoles acting as an inhibitor for the required hardware new games demand, it gives the PC gamer “breathing room” between upgrades. Instead of doing a constant stream of minor part upgrades like in years past, PC gamers only have to spend money on hardware every four to five years. Pair that with the previously discussed game optimizations and lower performance-level hardware costs, and the “extreme” gamer barely has to spend any money upgrading!

A lot of people complain that PC gaming is being “killed” because consoles are limiting its potential. While consoles may be killing the “system breakers,” they’re only helping the industry as a whole. If you were to hop into a time machine and head back nine or ten years ago and tell any hardcore gamer they could play the latest games for five hundred bucks, they’d have laughed you back to 2009. But nowadays, PC gaming truly is no more expensive than console gaming. And while we may be losing exclusive focus from many developers, we’re also getting more refined, optimized, and polished products – even if each new release doesn’t revolutionize graphics like in years past. After all, at the end of the day, what you really remember about games are the story and gameplay. Graphics can be outdated, but fun and intuitive gameplay never goes out of style.

Giant mech warfare for free? Hell yes!

This isn’t exactly a new concept, of course. Many developers have released older titles onto the Internet for fans to enjoy. It truly is a blessing, especially if you’ve been trying to hunt down that one specific obscure title that is impossible to find on eBay or at retail outlets. Personally, I’m a big fan of this mentality from developers. If the game isn’t generating any substantial profit anymore, then why not release it for free? Really, what does a developer have to lose on releasing a game for free once it has quite literally run its shelf life?

To me, it seems like a great way to generate some free advertising. I remember before Tribes: Vengeance was released, Tribes 2 was released for free. It’s an effective method to get people pumped for a new iteration into a series, without having to spend any real money on marketing or advertisement. It’s a win-win situation for everyone; the developers get more people interested in their upcoming titles, and the fans are happy because, well, they get something for free! And free things always put angry computer nerds into a euphoric mood.

And then you have the anomalies. Not to beat a dead horse, but I find it amazing that StarCraft is still selling substantially enough in Blizzard’s eyes to charge twenty dollars for the StarCraft Battlechest. The game has been out for eleven years? Sure, the game is fantastic, and sure the Battlechest comes bundled with the expansion… But would it kill Blizzard to charge ten or even five dollars for an eleven-year-old game?

That’ll be $19.95, please.

I don’t see some titles ever being released for free. The previously mentioned StarCraft, along with the other popular Blizzard titles, which is a real shame, because if Blizzard were to release these titles for free, there would certainly be a huge influx of interest in upcoming StarCraft II and Diablo III. I also don’t see Valve ever releasing the original Half-Life for free, even though they’ve sold it at pretty-much-free prices through Steam.

I think it’s important to note that developers may be thinking twice about releasing games for free, now that services such as Good Old Games are sprouting up. I can’t help but wonder if the service is making developers think twice about releasing their older titles for free. Especially when there is potential to make a new profit with these older titles, and get interest in their old franchises rolling again.

Unless you’re a PC gamer who has lived under a rock for the past ten years, then chances are you’ve heard of StarCraft – one of the most popular and influential strategy titles of all time. You’ve probably heard even more concerning StarCraft’s developer Blizzard Entertainment, who are responsible for the likes of the WarCraft strategy franchise, Diablo franchise, and the behemoth known as World of WarCraft.

Needless to say, Blizzard isn’t exactly a little guy in the mind of most PC gamers. I’ll admit, I am a big fan of Blizzard. I have enjoyed every one of their games that I have played since the release of WarCraft II. Blizzard just seems to understand the requirements for a fun game formula to an extent which very few other developers can replicate. The original StarCraft was most renowned for their incredible triangular balance between the three playable factions. Additionally, StarCraft had that “easy to learn, difficult to master” feeling of any great game. Paired with charming graphics and a kickass soundtrack, as well as one of the most engrossing RTS campaigns to date, it really was quite a formula for success.

Now fast-forward to 2009. StarCraft II is on the horizon, but not everyone is perfectly happy. Back in October 2008, Blizzard announced that the game would be split into three separate retail parts; each installment would contain an entire full-featured campaign for one of the three playable factions, as well as add additional multiplayer maps and units to the game. While Blizzard has not announced any official pricing plan for the StarCraft II trilogy, many fans believe that Blizzard will demand a full fifty dollar price tag for each installment.

More recently, Blizzard announced that StarCraft II, along with the upcoming Diablo III, will not have any LAN capability. Blizzard cites various reasons for the removal of LAN play, most notably stats tracking, and to combat piracy. Many people purchased both StarCraft and Diablo II for the multiplayer components exclusively. Pirates, with the assistance of virtual networking software often exploited LAN functionality to maintain online multiplayer access. However, despite Blizzard’s reasoning, many fans are up in arms over the removal of LAN play. Why on Earth would Blizzard, a company that has always been so extremely focused on the end-user’s experience, stab the players in the back like this? Especially when it’s taken into consideration that the original StarCraft allowed you to literally create “spawn” copies of your installation, which could only be played over a LAN, for the sole purpose of encouraging LAN play and ease of use.

Blizzard vs. LAN: Guess who won?

The general tone I got from fan feedback is a pretty hostile one. “All Blizzard cares about anymore is money!” seems to be the general consensus. Isn’t that really what any business cares about? Just as I explained in my Left 4 Dead 2 article, businesses aren’t here to cuddle you and sing you lullabies. They are here to make money, simple as that. And even then, Blizzard is one of the very few developers I actually feel I’m getting my money’s worth. I have no issue putting down fifty dollars per StarCraft II installment, simply because I know I’m getting fantastic quality for each purchase. Unlike various other developers, Blizzard has a commitment to their games unparalleled in the industry. I would much rather pay a little more in the long run (albeit graciously spread out) for the most compelling game, story and campaign to be crafted by the folks at Blizzard, than I would to save a couple bucks and play a consolidated game that doesn’t live up to Blizzard’s vision. I trust Blizzard, because they haven’t let me down yet.

Even then, I encourage people not to make rash judgments on Blizzard or StarCraft II just yet; especially concerning the pricing aspect of the three installments. While Blizzard has made no official statement of the pricing of each release, many fans seem convinced that simply because they mention each expansion is a full retail product, that each will come with a full retail price tag. Personally, I do not see Blizzard going this route. Of course, at this point and time it’s all guesswork. I just encourage you not to swear off Blizzard just yet, especially considering the amount of commitment and loyalty they have brought to PC gamers with all of their titles.

Admittedly, the loss of LAN play is rather disappointing, although I cannot say I’m surprised. It seems as if most gamers sweep piracy under the rug and pretend it’s not there, but the truth is that it is there, and it is a problem – especially for AAA titles which garner a lot of attention, such as those released by Blizzard. How often do you use LAN play, anyway? What was the last recent game you purchased based solely off whether or not it LAN capability? For the majority of gamers my guess is that LAN functionality was rarely, if ever, used. Blizzard is catering to such a large audience, that no matter what they add or remove it will upset people, in some way, somehow. There is no way for them to get around this, and honestly, it’s kind of sad to see people swearing off Blizzard already when the game is still many months away from release.

My personal stance is a pretty stoic one: just wait and see. I remain neutrally optimistic about both StarCraft II and Diablo III. I really do think that splitting StarCraft II up could potentially give the end-user a more satisfying gaming experience, even if that raises the overall price of the product. The loss of LAN functionality is admittedly disheartening, but not enough to make me forget my many hours of enjoyable gaming bliss with StarCraft. At times like these, PC gamers really have to be supportive of the very few PC-centric developers we have left. Amongst the few North American developers, Blizzard stands out as a beacon for quality and genuinely fun entertainment, and as long as they continue to do so, this gamer will buy into whatever wacky pricing scheme or anti-piracy measures they may throw at us.

I still play Team Fortress 2 a lot to this day, yet without quite the same level of fervor and dedication as in the past. However, now when I play Team Fortress 2, I don’t find myself hopping on to create beautiful works of gib-art from the exploding corpses of heavies and soldiers. Rather, quite the opposite, I find myself becoming frustrated with some of the gameplay changes that have taken place. Yet despite these minor complaints, I find myself drawn to the game purely by the social aspect; by the sense of community the game supports. I’ve managed to suck more fun out of Team Fortress 2 simply by talking, laughing, joking, coordinating, planning, strategizing, and shooting the shit with my fellow gamers than I have by any gameplay element or story hook woven by any other game. It’s bizarre to think that the most fun I’ve had in a game hasn’t really been the game at all – rather, the people who play the game that mold and form the amount of enjoyment I carry away from each and every play session.

Team Fortress 2 really supports – wait for it – teamwork!

Of course, this isn’t exactly new. Gaming communities have been existent since gaming first dipped its feet into the endless depths of the Internet. However, with the advent of in-game voice communication, this sense of community and camaraderie has only been  intensified. Communities and friendships in games are formed on a far more personal level now, and it’s quite the stark contrast to the ‘ye olde days’ of gaming in which in-game chat and IRC were really the only ways of actively communicating with one another. And, let’s face it, who wants to stop dead in their tracks in an intense multiplayer game to type up a message?

I had a chat with a non-gamer friend recently, and he asked why I liked to spend so much of my free time playing multiplayer games. He argued that games were entirely repetitious, and that modern games were no less repetitious than, say, Pac-Man or Tetris. Of course, I promptly responded with a proverbial “STFU!”, yet as the words slowly sunk in, it really made me realize that he was right. Games, or at least multiplayer oriented ones, are repetition. In World of Warcraft, you’re doing essentially the same quests over and over again. In Team Fortress 2, you’re always trying to capture the same points, and in Demigod, you’re always trying to destroy the enemy citadel. Sure, the outcome may differ upon multiple play-throughs, but how you arrive to the ultimate conclusion involves the same methodology every time.

And yet, I wouldn’t have games any other way.

Let’s look at sports for example. Like multiplayer PC games, they’re also based around repetition and  heavily influenced by social interaction. After all, you can’t form a team without having communication, right? Now, because of the static “repetitious” nature of both sports and gaming, strategies are allowed to be derived and evolved by participants. This sense of coordination and teamwork really builds friendships; and when those friendships are large enough and far-stretching enough, the friendship becomes a community. A lot of people complain about the linearity of games; and yet, if games lacked linearity, there would be no true incentive for friendships, teams, and communities to develop!

A good example of a multiplayer game totally lacking in linearity is Second Life. I myself have never played the game so I may be off base with my assumptions, but from what I’ve seen and read, the Second Life world seems to be a cold, lonely place. Flying penises aside, the game doesn’t support the social growth of friendships and communities simply because of what it is.  There is no goal, there is no objective other than that set by the individual player himself , and as such, there is no incentive for players to form friendships, groups, teams or communities with one another.

I have no clue what is going on in this image, but it doesn’t look like it’s building friendships or communities.

Not to say that there have never been friendships formed through Second Life, as I’m sure there have, but I’m also sure they have been through the targeted completion of some goal or objective set by one or more of the players themselves. Again, this links back to the need of linearity and goals in games to produce viable long term social networks amongst participants.

This isn’t all that surprising, really. Let’s think about real life social dynamics for a second. How did you meet most of your friends? I’d bet my game collection that you met the majority of your real life friends and acquaintances through the pursuit of completing some sort of goal or objective. On a sports team, in the office, during classes, whatever. I’m no psychologist, but from my personal experiences and observations humans tend to form much greater bonds and friendships through the pursuit of a common goal, as opposed to through any sort of abstract meeting or forced introduction with one another.

Gamers are never alone.

Even though in Team Fortress 2 I’m doing the same task over and over, night after night, week after week, I’m still having fun. And I’m not having fun because I enjoy seeing exploding cartoon corpses, I’m having fun because I’m engaged in a social situation with like-minded gamers, tackling a goal or objective with them and having a great time doing it.

I think we all ask ourselves at one point and time why we game. For each person, that answer may be different. But I encourage you, the next time you ask yourself this question, consider the friendships you’ve made through multiplayer gaming. Ask yourself if you’d still be playing games to this day if it wasn’t for the bonds and friendships you’ve made through multiplayer experiences. As for me, the multiplayer dynamic has really managed to stranglehold my interest in gaming. If it wasn’t for the numerous exciting and enjoyable experiences with fellow like-minded gamers, I doubt I’d be nearly as active a gamer as I find myself to be – nor would I likely be writing this very article.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go blow up some of my friends in Team Fortress 2.

All the hate and angst surrounding the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 at this year’s E3 has really gotten me thinking. What happened to the days when games were simply… Fun? When did gamers change from excitingly anticipating a new release, to hating on an innocent developer because they haven’t given enough away for free?

But easy there champ, before you fire up to write me some angry hate mail, hear me out. Left 4 Dead was a great game, and I don’t care what all the haters say. Yes, it had its flaws – what game doesn’t? But on the whole, the original L4D was a fun, exciting and enjoyable experience for the better part of this gamers’ past six months. And while that might not be that great of a lifespan when compared to, say, Counter-Strike or Team Fortress 2, it’s still a lot more than I can say about a couple other multiplayer-oriented titles I’ve purchased over the past few years.

Sure, some of the grievances of the L4D2H (Left 4 Dead 2 Haters) are fairly valid. Under their list of requests, which you can find at the official L4D2 boycott Steam group, they state Valve should continue to release periodic content. Did they ever say they wouldn’t? Just because Valve is in the process of developing Left 4 Dead 2, doesn’t mean they aren’t simultaneously working on Left 4 Dead content. Right now, the L4D2H’s are shooting blindly into the dark, and I’d put my money on it that they are missing their mark.

Let’s take the Half-Life 2 episodes, for example. Valve was developing Left 4 Dead whilst developing the Half-Life 2 episodes at the same time. By God, a developer working on two simultaneous titles at the same time? Preposterous! It’s unheard of for a developer to work on multiple games at the same time! Especially considering, you know, L4D & its sequel are developed by Turtle Rock Studios, who are owned by Valve.

Valve isn’t a five-man operation in Gabe Newell’s garage. As much as haters like to claim otherwise, a company with as solid of a business strategy and goal plan as that of Valve is fully capable of developing two titles simultaneously. Before you get your underwear all in a bunch, give Valve some time to make content worthwhile for release. How long after its release did Team Fortress 2 see its first content updates? Six months? Left 4 Dead has been out for a little over that too! Maybe we might be seeing more content released soon?

Keep in mind it’s much more complex to develop content for L4D, as it’s a linear game with a set beginning, middle, climax and falling action. How often do you see developers spit out extra content for single-player linear titles?

On L4D2H’s list of requests, their second demand states, “That Left 4 Dead 2 not be released as a stand-alone, full-priced sequel but as either a free update to Left 4 Dead or an expansion with full compatibility with basic Left 4 Dead owners. “

Alright, let’s see here… New weapons? Check. New Campaigns? Check. New setting? Check. New characters, items, bug fixes, graphical enhancements and general improvements? Check to the fifth power. I don’t know about you all, but that sounds like more than enough to qualify as a sequel. “But Tom! It’s the same game at its core, it’s just a different setting! It should only count as an expansion, not a fully game!” Oh, really? This is a new game.

Left 4 Dead 2 promises everything a sequel to a title should promise. It’s the same game at its core, albeit with additional content, story, functionality and more. The “it’s just an expansion pack” mentality is flawed. What about the Pokemon games, or any RPG title to ever exist? It’s the same game at its core, they just add some extra things and slap a “2” on it. Yet no one complains about how those should be free DLC! To hell with it, with this mentality, every shooter game ever made should just be priced as an expansion pack for Doom. You know, since they all involve the same “core mechanics” and what not.

And, last but not least, “Left 4 Dead owners be given discounts for Left 4 Dead 2, should it be released as premium content. “

No. Valve is a business. Like it or not, they aren’t here to play the role of superhero in the gaming industry, nor is Gabe Newell here to rock you to sleep. Want to know how businesses make money? By selling products or services. As far as I know, Valve doesn’t have many services they can sell, so they’re left selling products. And as a business, they want to maximize the amount earned. As previously mentioned, there is more than enough new content in L4D2 to qualify as more than expansion pack-level pricing. Why on Earth should Valve release it that way, then? Why should they give you half off on a game that looks to be more than worth the price of admission of other full-priced titles from shoddier developers?

As much as I disagree with the haters, I can at least sympathize with them to an extent. I’ve been in the same frustrated position with other game titles. But, I simply ask gamers to give Valve a chance. I don’t agree with some decisions they’ve made, but I have loved and cherish every title they have released. Valve has never disappointed me before, and I feel that if you give them adequate and ample leg room to stretch their creativity, they won’t disappoint you either. My only suggestion to the Left 4 Dead haters is that if you really, truly are against Left 4 Dead 2, then simply don’t buy it. Take the time-tested stance of voting with your wallet.

When they finally asked me what I had ordered, I simply replied, “A new mousepad”. Sliding the new mat out of the sea of packing peanuts, my family released an almost combined sigh. When they found out I had paid nearly forty dollars for said mouse pad, the expressions I received only conveyed the question of, “Are you nuts?”

I haven’t always been like this – rather, for the majority of my gaming “career”, I’ve been quite the opposite. I always found gaming accessories to be frivolous things for gamers whose wallets were a bit larger than their skill level. Until four years ago, I had never bothered to get a gaming-grade mouse (and the mouse which I had purchased, the Logitech MX518, wasn’t even the top-rung of the gaming-grade ladder). Yet here I am, with a fancy Razer Lycosa gaming keyboard, SteelSeries Ikari gaming-grade Laser Mouse, and a Razer Destructor mousepad.

Why the change? It’s taken me quite awhile to get to this point, but I finally realize that the devices a gamer interfaces with are just as important (if not more so) than the screaming hardware spitting out mad framerates from inside your case. I like to compare getting a nice and comfortable keyboard, mouse and mousepad to getting great tires and a comfortable steering wheel in your car – they may seem frivolous when you don’t have them, but when you do finally make the jump, you realize what you’ve been missing out on: driving bliss.

The primary concern here is comfort. I’m not going to advocate any gaming accessory as being superior to traditionally non-gaming peripherals, because really it all boils down to personal preference. Using the term “gaming grade” in reference to computer peripherals is quite the misnomer, because the reality is that any component is “gaming grade” – as long as you are comfortable using it. I highly encourage you to try before you buy any mouse, keyboard, or even mouse pad. Both from a health and comfort standpoint, it’s incredibly important for a hardcore gamer to make smart purchases that accommodate his or her personal taste, play style and ergonomic positioning. Ever buy a pair of shoes which felt great in the store, but a week later you realize they’re wreaking havoc on your feet and ankles? Getting uncomfortable, non-ergonomic peripherals is like that – but forever. Until you eventually just chuck the things and set out to buy new ones.

My quest for achieving peripheral nirvana began about six months ago, when my long lasting tried-and-true keyboard finally kicked the bucket. It was a Dell QuietKey, circa 1998 (affectionately named “Old Yeller” for its yellowish-beige tint). I had gotten it with a pre-built Dell PC back in ‘98 or ‘99, and had literally used it in every build since then. It was old, it was faded, it was dirty. But it was what I was accustomed to, comfortable with and trained to utilize to my fullest capacity.

After that keyboard kicked the bucket, I decided to splurge and get the Razer Lycosa keyboard. I got it mainly because I loved the feel of the keys, but some behind-the-scene features (such as anti-ghosting support and the pleasant blue back lighting) were added benefits.

Just a couple months ago, my MX518 took a trip to the great PC in the sky. I absolutely loved that mouse, but felt it was time to get a true “high end” – taking a tour around Best Buy allowed me to test out the SteelSeries Ikari, and its combination of incredible ergonomic modeling and pinpoint accuracy won me over.

Things were going great – I had an amazing mouse and amazing keyboard, and my gaming performance was shooting through the roof. However, things wouldn’t remain quite so optimistic; I rapidly began to notice that my new mouse was so sensitive and precise, that my current mousepad, a relatively no-name brand pad I purchased for 12 dollars several years ago, just wasn’t cutting it. The mousepad was worn down in spots, and the laser just didn’t like tracking on the very awkward surface. It would pop, skip or “dance” whenever I placed the mouse on the center area of the pad; and as any gamer worth his salt should know, this is just unacceptable.

So that brings us back to the beginning. After cracking open the new mouse pad, I almost laughed at how comically large it was. Seriously, the Razer Destructor could eat my old pad, and retain room for seconds! Still, I had the space, and the pad itself was oh-so-worth it despite the ludicrous size.

The change in performance was startling – almost frightening, in fact. While I have only played a handful of games since getting the new mouse/mouse pad combination, I have already seen my performance skyrocket – specifically on shooters. When I flick my mouse in any direction, the cursor lands just where I want it to, and not where I don’t. I can be as fast, precise or as steady as my gaming requires; and a lot of the time this simply was not possible with my old, cheap components.

All in all, you really do get what you pay for when it comes to quality computer peripherals. By no means do they have to be gaming brand, as long as they are quality made and suit your personal comfort preferences. Besides, you wouldn’t skimp on buying quality internal hardware, so why skimp on the external? These are devices which you interface with on an almost constant basis – they get dirty, get dropped, get bits of food or drink split on them. And to me, it’s worth the extra price, even if it means dealing with disappointed expressions from friends and family!

On the flip side, you have the desperate defender of gaming characters and stories – the ones who act like the plot in BioShock is the greatest fictional epic since Ulysses and that wish Lara Croft was their girlfriend. Still, is this the best our medium has to offer? Is the reason we’ve been relatively absent in the area of character development and complex stories is simply because most gamers don’t want that? Does it all boil down to a case of “Excuse me waiter, but there’s some character development in my games?”

Wing Commander III’s character development was a good start.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh. In recent years, developers have been attempting to make some headway into the realm of character development and story. I’ll admit that the atmosphere found in BioShock was excellent, even if the characters were as stale as last weeks’ plasmids. Half-Life 2 has perhaps created some of the most interesting and lifelike characters of recent memory, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. The typical problem most games face when it comes to character development is the dynamic nature that every games face – it’s not a camera sitting there watching a story roll out, but rather you, the gamer, controlling it.

We all know that one guy who mashes buttons whenever a cutscene pops onto the screen. He’ll play through the entire game, sometimes more than once, but if you ask him what the character names or the general plot of the game was and he’ll stare at you like you’re asking him to recite King Lear backwards. I think this is the core problem of getting rich, deep and complex characters and stories into games – gamers are really split right down the middle on the subject. Some gamers are playing simply for the fun factor. They just want to be entertained, to see some explosions and cool effects. On the other end of the spectrum, there are gamers who desire more fulfillment from games – who are playing games as opposed to reading a book or watching a movie. To them, an interesting story and setting are just as important, if not more so, than how cool the action or how fun the gameplay. I personally fall between these two extremes, with a slight tilt towards the latter. While I’ve had days where all I wanted to do was sit down and watch gibs of people flying everywhere in Team Fortress 2, I’ve had even more days where I’ve craved an interesting multi-faceted story and involving characters.

BioShock’s character development was a bad continuation.

The Witcher was a fantastic RPG. Role-playing games are typically associated with having the best stories and characters out of any genre, and indeed The Witcher succeeded in the realm of story. However, I felt almost no attachment to the characters – especially the characters which the protagonist can potentially “get his shag on” with if you play your cards right. The whole sexual notion presented in The Witcher felt like a total prepubescent joke, like some sort of peculiar minigame where after you screw that greatful barmaid she hands you a miniature portrait of herself that looks like it belongs on a centerfold in Playboy. Instead of using sex as a means to deepen the story and enhance character development, the game used sex as a gimmick. What is the point of sex in games if it has no substance to deepen or progress the story or characters in any conceivable manner? Without that, you’re left with two 3d models smacking themselves together in a virtual world – which is uninteresting (and not to mention slightly awkward) to watch.

Interesting and fleshed out characters should be the norm for single-player games, not the exception. I’m not asking for characters which redefine storytelling, but simply ones that are believable and interesting to the player. I would feel much more motivated fighting to save a character’s life if I had grown attached to them throughout the game than if I had to save them “just because” that is how the game goes. Not to mention you feel so much more accomplished and a much greater sense of fulfillment out of finishing a game in which you were emotionally invested into the characters, or at least I sure as hell do.

My dream for the future is simple – we will have characters and stories in games that are as interesting as those found in other mediums. Many gamers feel that because of the fact that a player is in control, games will never have completely fluid and engaging stories. But a gamer can dream, can’t they?

As reported by fellow PC journalism website Rock Paper Shotgun earlier this week, Capcom has officially joined the alliance. No, not that Alliance (for the horde!), but rather the PC Gaming Alliance – a non profit organization of hardware manufacturers, game developers and game publishers founded in 2008 with the official goal of ‘promoting and advancing the PC as a gaming platform’.

What does that mean to us gamers? Well, diddly-squat at the moment. While it is still relatively unclear exactly what end goals the PC Gaming Alliance has in store for PC Gamers, the alliance is backed by some big names in the computer industry and probably shouldn’t be taken too lightly.

“when you think of the PC platform, then Capcom probably isn’t a publisher that comes to mind right away.” says Christian Svensson, vice president of strategic planning at Capcom in the RPS interview, “Lost Planet was the first game to ship with DX10, and it had some of the code that became Steamworks in it. They had to peel out some of the code that we worked on for that game, to make what you see today on that platform. So we were forward thinking with all that kind of functionality. Since then we’ve released Devil May Cry 4 and Lost Planet Colonies. And MotoGP ‘08, NeoPets, Flock, Dark Void have all come, or are coming out, from the West. We also have Streetfighter 4 coming out from Japan on the near horizon, and Dead Rising 2 a bit further out. There’s more too, but we’ve not announced that yet.”

When asked what sparked Capcom’s decision to join the PC Gaming Alliance (as well as take a more aggressive stance in the PC gaming market), Svensson’s answer was quite simple. “Taking a very global view. We have brands that are very appealing, but the platform of choice in many countries is not a current-gen console. I’ll point to Russia, to Brazil, to emerging markets in the Middle East. India is an emerging market, even if it is a few years away from doing the kinds of things that we need. The PC is global, and it’s ubiquitous. And quite frankly, the more people who shy away from that platform, the bigger the opportunity. It’s not easy, however. The PC has a lot of moving parts, there’s a lot more testing to be done, there’s a lot of considerations about how to even get to market. You need broad understanding. We know it’ll take a few years of development and investment before we’re where we want to be.”

Svensson also states that Capcom is a strong proponent of digital distribution, and largely agrees that retail sales as a whole are falling out of touch and necessity of modern PC gamers.

While it is unclear exactly what IP’s Capcom intends to port or create on PC, it’s always refreshing news to hear of another developer opening their eyes to the PC gaming market. As for the PC Gaming Alliance, we’ll have to wait and see exactly what they can cook up with a newly acquired partner.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Thanks to Norm and Keenan for participating in this friendly match – everyone had a good time, and we hope you both did as well!

Special thanks to our own Chris “Havoc06″ Comiskey and Jeff “Snoman” Frost for the live commentary, and to NayRhyno for broadcasting the Ustream.TV live feed for everyone to enjoy!

Maximum PC Magazine
Game Central
The Punishment Portal Servers

We look forward to doing more live-broadcast commentated footage in the future!

Enjoy.