January 2011

This civilization-building game designed by Antione Bauza (Ghost Stories) will task you with taking your randomly-selected ancient city from nothing to dominance in three ages (rounds). From three to seven players can participate (the game also includes an advanced 2-player option), but no matter how many are actually playing you are really generally concerned with three until the final scoring: you and your immediate neighbors.

Also independent of the actual number of players is the time it takes to complete a game; generally a half an hour is all you need, although a few learning games are to be expected that might take as many as forty minutes if someone is particularly prone to analysis paralysis.

The quick play time is due to simultaneous execution of actions each turn. An age consists of each player playing six cards, one at a time. A card can either be built as the indicated building for its indicated cost (if any), used as part of your city’s Wonder if you have access to the required resources, or discarded to gain three coins. Resources are generated by previously-constructed buildings (each city has an inherent resource available as well) or purchased from a neighbor for two coins; some buildings allow you to build a specific building or two in the following age without paying its cost, which can be very useful, although it is worth remembering that you cannot have two copies of the same building in your city. Each player is dealt seven cards, but it wouldn’t be much of a game if you just had to choose six of them and play them out — which is where the real fun of 7 Wonders shows up: drafting.

Of the seven cards you are dealt, you will only play one; the rest are passed to one of your neighbors (to the left in the first and third ages, to the right in the second). After everyone plays the card they selected, you pick up the passed cards and select your next, repeating this process until the sixth action when you choose one of the final two passed cards to play and discard the other one for no effect. Being aware of what resources and/or free buildings are available to the neighbor receiving your passed cards is a key strategy (and one of the few times non-neighbors are even remotely relevant to you); “eating” a key card as part of your Wonder or for coins can be very useful. This can also be important when considering the green “science” cards, which score based on completing sets of  them (including both sets of one of the three types as well as sets of all three types) and can be devastating if someone is allowed to collect them unchecked.

Interactions with your neighbors are not just restricted to commerce and strategic card denial. At the end of each age, neighbors wage war with each other by comparing the number of shields they have in their city. Whoever has the higher total across each neighboring border earns extra points (one in the first age, three in the second, and five in the third), while whoever has the lower total loses a point; ties score no points. Losing a battle is always just a single-point penalty, so arms races are rarely worth the effort — although a six-point penalty (three losses each age to each neighbor) could be crucial, as scoring is often tight. Every three coins is also worth a point at the end of the game, although it is almost always better to spend to build cards (by buying resources from neighbors) rather than hoard cash.

As the game progresses, the available cards change. The first age is mostly basic resources and a few small bonuses. The second age has essentially double the potential resources, while the deck for the third age contains no resources at all but instead contains a randomly-chosen subset (two more than the number of players) of ten “guild” cards that provide bonus points (mostly) based on what your neighbors have accomplished. The number of players also dictates which cards are present in each age’s deck; each card has a number from 3+ to 7 on its face, indicating how many players allow that card to be used, and removing the invalid cards is the only real set-up required. This makes some cards rarer than others in certain configurations, but mostly exists just to balance everything out. Each of the cities’ Wonders have various benefits to constructing each level, although on Side A all Wonders’ first and third stages are identical (save cost); every city board is two-sided to provide more replay variety, and both sides are balanced to play against any combination of A and B sides.

7 Wonders occupies a curious borderland between “filler” and “main” game. Anything that can comfortably accommodate seven players is a useful addition to any gaming group, and the quick set up and play times ensure that it won’t overstay its welcome. The retail price of fifty dollars seems a bit much for 160 large cards, some cardboard, and a few wooden disks, but the true value of 7 Wonders lies in its versatility.

Qlione Evolve

January 14, 2011

Qlione Evolve is two games for the price of one. The games launch separately despite being bought as a package and are not available separately. I don’t quite understand why you can’t either buy them separately or they aren’t available as separate menu picks from a single integrated menu. This does work out for the trophy chasers out there, however, as Qlione and Qlione 2 have separate trophies and leaderboards. Unfortunately neither game features a decent tutorial, but a little time spent with the game remedies that. Qlione feels like Geometry Wars with multiple bomb types and no gun while Qlione 2 feels like Geometry Wars crossed with Flow. Qlione 2 is far and away the more interesting game, and for $10 for the pack I’d rather have demoed both and then paid only for Qlione 2

In Qlione 1 you kill enemies by creating waves in the background mesh that run into and disturb the enemies. You have access to two types of bombs, concussive and vacuum. Concussive bombs create waves that move out to damage enemies and vacuum bombs suck enemies toward them. Combine the two to corral enemies close together and drop a couple concussive bombs to take them all out simultaneously. When enemies are defeated they drop orbs, and orbs can be combined using the same bombs that you use to beat enemies. And it’s worth doing, an orb made up of two smaller orbs is worth more toward an extra life than picking up each of those orbs individually. There is no score other than the time it takes to complete any given stage. This makes collecting orbs important because sometimes the best strategy is to round up a ton of enemies, kill them, and then sacrifice yourself.

Qlione 2 trades lives for character revisions. You still have bombs, but instead of being locked into a single character you start out near the bottom of a branching evolution chart. When an enemy is defeated it will drop two orbs – one red and one green. Eat a red one and your bombs get bigger and more powerful – eat the other and your single bombs turn into cluster bombs. Both upgrades are useful, but as soon as one orb is eaten the other disappears so there is a strategy that must be employed and eventually you will come to either memorize what certain upgrades do or know generally what a red orb might do to your current character. And earlier I said that you start out near the bottom. There are some life forms that are only accessible by purposefully taking a hit to start with and evolving from there.

Qlione and Qlione 2 are pleasant diversions that you probably won’t be back to after playing them for a few minutes. On a system with digital releases like Lead and Gold: Gangs of the West, Zen Pinball, Joe Danger and now Angry Birds I just can’t see myself starting one of them up again. I played my few hours, had some fun, and then wished that each title was available individually (so I could only buy the second one) and that they were either Minis titles (so I could play them for quick bursts on PSP) or available on smart phones where I am more concerned with quick fun than a long-lasting experience.

Qlione Evolve is interesting, but I don’t think it warrants the price tag – especially when I can only play it on my TV where I have so many other larger, richer gameplay experiences available to me.

Pros: 2 games for the price of 1, interesting growth mechanic in Qlione 2

Cons: Feel like Minis/Smartphone games, no tutorial in either game

 

X-Men Arcade

January 13, 2011

An HD port of 1992’s arcade version, X-Men was released with upscaled sprites, re-recorded audio and online/local drop-in play, along with adjustable multiple difficulties, matchmaking and the ability to select either the American or Japanese version of the game. 

As your typical beat-’em-up, you select one of six X-Men and “beat up” all of the enemies that show up on-screen, until you reach a boss fight: Wolverine, Cyclops, Nightcrawler, Storm, Colossus and Dazzler. Each character has a Mutant Power that makes them unique, though activating it results in losing HP. The major feature that separated X-Men from other arcade titles was the capacity for 6 players to participate simultaneously, and the game supports it online (and locally on the PS3). 

X-Men Arcade wasn’t really created for unlimited play, and it shows. It’ll take you less than an hour to burn through the game’s 8 stages. While the American version of the game gives you a bonus Mutant Power (which is stored like an item) after every boss fight, the Japanese version has both health and Mutant Power items that you pick up through each stage. However, because the game gives you an infinite amount of credits, there’s nothing stopping you from just using mutant powers over and over and respawning to refill your life.

X-Men is worth your money if you either unabashedly love old school fighters, the X-Men series, or have friends to play the game with over and over, whether it’s via online play or locally. Aside from a few easy achievements, there’s not much replay value to it other than to hear the game’s infamous dialogue over and over.

 

Not only is Mass Effect 2 heading to the PlayStation3 on January 18th, but it’ll be available day and date on PSN. No word has been given on PSN pricing, but this is good news for those who prefer to download games, rather than buying discs. READ MORE

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In our second installment, we look at the world of digital distribution: its past, present and future.


In support

Mike Clark: There’s a variety of reasons as to why physical distribution is superior. First, there’s the fact that we have a physical item in our possession. Something that is a part of a comfort zone, as digital distribution has only been around for a very short time compared to the millenia of acquiring physical things. It’s harder to conceptualize that one owns 40 digital games than it is to look at their shelf and see 40 physical copies.

Then, the matter of purchase. Not everyone has the ability to buy digital items. Like myself, some people are forced to use physical currency to buy things. And in that same area, one cannot resell digital games. All sales are final, no refunds. Bought a bad game digitally? No money back. A physical game? Bring your receipt and return it, pawn it off, or keep it for years then sell it. It’s real, it’s there, and you can still redeem it for some kind of worth if you want to get rid of it.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: While I can’t deny how good it feels to physically own software, whether it’s on a shiny Collector’s Tin or a sealed console game case, there’s something that can be said for how convenient digital downloads have become. Thanks to services like Steam and Good Old Games, I’ve been able to find and play games that I’d have a hard time hunting down a physical copy, minus any costs involved in shipping said games to my location or the high prices that go with acquiring games that are either rare or had low print runs. While I’ll still opt for a physical copy of a title I want to acquire, Digital downloads have changed the way I purchase games, more so than the used game market. 

 

In support

Graham Russell: Clearly it has. The last few years have seen a resurgence in creativity and innovation, and it’s been driven by the kinds of small games that wouldn’t have seen the light of day before the advent of mainstream digital distribution mechanisms. These tiny companies are putting out all these fresh ideas, but taken on their own, they’re incredibly unpolished and not ready for primetime. That’s why the larger companies have seen success in rounding out these ideas and incorporating them into the things they’d do anyway.

Ultimately, it’s good for both parties.

Then there are the nice side-effects of the industry shift. Digital-only games have made more go online, which helps those communities and allows for fun multiplayer experiences. They’ve pushed game prices down some, which helps the consumer, and they did it by reducing overhead, which means that (with some exceptions) it doesn’t hurt the game makers much in the process.

In opposition

Lillian Harle: If you step back and look at the numbers, digital distribution both helps and hurts the gaming industry. On the one hand, developers can basically ship out an infinite number of copies of their game to a multitude of people for little cost. It gets the company name out, plus it makes it so they don’t have to split costs with a retailer. On the other hand, not all customers can access digital distribution routes, and most of the time, this distribution is at cost, or consumers won’t buy thus said product unless it’s at cost.

A good example would be Steam sales. Though more product is being moved, it is at such a low cost that very little headway is actually be made to make the game profitable. Add on the fact that, even though memory is fairly cheap nowadays, the market for physical copies of games is still very strong, and to take away this strong market would only be a detriment. 

 

In support

Shawn Vermette: Maybe I’m crazy to suggest this, after all, I didn’t exactly wow my teachers in my business classes in college, but I believe that having a sell-back or re-gifting system in place would actually help sales of digital games rather than hurt them.

First, demos are fine and dandy, but not all games have them, and they are oftentimes a poor representation of a game. Due to this, I am hesitant to use them as a measuring stick of the worth of a game that I am stuck with, for good or ill, after I purchase it. Second, if I know that I’m stuck with a game, whether I like it or hate it, I am less likely to take a chance on a game that I’m not 100% sure I’ll enjoy. With physical games, if I feel I’ll probably like the game, I’ll usually take a shot at it, since I know I can get a decent amount of money back for it if I don’t care for it. With digital games? I have to be pretty close to 100% sure in order to buy it. 

The big reason this doesn’t exist is that publishers are afraid to lose money. Fair enough. However, one advantage of digital is that it is easy to record how much someone paid for a game. Thus, it’s easy to make sure that you always refund only a percentage of the game’s purchase price and give it in Steam Bucks, or Microsoft Points or PSN cash, allowing both sides to win.

 

In opposition

Graham Russell: Digital titles have forced prices down, and a lot of the reason publishers let it happen was the assurance that one sold game meant one sold game. The industry is reeling from the used game boom, as when GameStop sells you a pre-owned title, they don’t see a dime. The other way publishers have tried to combat this? Ventures like Project Ten Dollar, where they hold parts of a game hostage to those who buy used. Generally, people don’t like this, but it’s understandable for a company to want to make money when its product is sold. I’d much rather see the digital route become more common, as prices can beat pre-played boxed versions and the developers still get their share.

Besides all that, there’s no reason for online stores like Steam or XBLA to refund players for purchases. If you want to try before you buy, that’s what the demo’s for. Playing through a whole game? You’ve gotten your money’s worth out of that. If someone else wants to play it, there’s no reason they should get a discount for a “used” digital copy (as it’d be identical to a “new” one).

When Steam and other places have such a lenient policy on use for multiple systems and a tendency to sell at a large discount, I just don’t see why there’s a push to make them give up the few advantages they have for publishers.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Downloadable games will eventually become the dominant future for gaming simply because publishers want to cut costs and developers want to be able to try new options. We’ve already seen a larger focus on the downloadable space with games this generation, and bigger publishers pushing for less and less focus on boxed games. Ubisoft has eliminated instruction manuals, eco-boxes have become prevalent for most major companies; it’s only a matter of time before the boxes are gone altogether.

Well, not altogether, but they will become less of a focus when the next consoles hit. New consoles will have bigger hard drives and focus on promoting downloadable games and content even more so than now. This will also be a huge blow to stores like GameStop that thrive on used games sales, something publishers like EA have been trying to do for the past year or so.

Physical copies of games will continue to be available for a long time, but they will slowly start becoming less of the focus for developers and publishers. It would take some getting used to, and it is a future I personally do not want to see, but it’s also one I feel is inevitable. Maybe not in five years, or even ten, but it will happen sooner than some may realize. 

In opposition

Justin Last: I’m going to start strangely – I love Steam, XBLA, and PSN. I think they are great services, and I buy quite a bit from each of them. That being said, there’s a trade-off to be made. 

Things have to be dirt-cheap before I’ll buy them because once I do I’m stuck with them forever. There is no secondhand market for digital distribution purchases so I’m less likely to take a chance. No demo, no purchase has become my motto for PSN, and I’m sure I’ve missed some good games because of it, but that’s my $15, and after I hit “purchase” there’s no going back like there is when I buy a dud from Best Buy and trade it in to GS a week later.

Given the choice, people like to own things, and that makes sense. My books are never inaccessible due to battery failure, my disc-based games are never toyed with when Good Old Games pretends to close its doors, and I can sell or loan that physical thing to a friend. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I don’t want to live in a future where I can’t loan Batman: Arkham Asylum to my best friend..

We’ve weighed in. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.