Battlefield: 

Having played Battlefield 2 for approximately 5 years (My Stats), now, and having before that been an avid player of Battlefield 1942, when I learned that the 2008 Mod of the Year was awarded to a Battlefield Modification, I had to try it.  I have enjoyed the FPS since Wolfenstein, and of all of them that I have played, the Battlefield series seems to consistently deliver the most adrenaline pumping, cinematic, fun action sequences (Though the Action Quake and Action Half-Life 2 games provided a really, really good romp, too).  That being said, my only criticism of most FPS games is generally a lack of realism (Which is why I don't play BF2142 very much even though I have most of the unlocks).  I hate having to shoot a guy 3+ times on average for him to drop, and BF delivers in this sense.  Project reality promised to make sure that this wouldn't be the case, even moreso than BF2.  I was in.

Project Reality:

What is Project Reality (Trailer, Youtube)?  It takes Battlefield from being a "game" to being closer to a "Simulation".  Not completely, fun gameplay elements are kept, but, it moves it towards combat simulation.  Tactics actually matter in this game, and, while it is sometimes disappointing that I can't rely on myself to charge into a room and kill a whole squad, the added lethality of Project Reality increases the necessity for good teamwork and common sense.  This game is not for people with short attention spans or impatient individuals.  The fun of playing Project Reality is the sense of accomplishment that comes with successfully capturing an objective, wiping out an enemy squad, or even assisting another squad in doing so by giving them a helicopter ride.  

The game adds layer after layer of complexity to the game, erasing many of Battlefield's copious "abstractions".  Gone are the ever-present mini-map and UAV scans, easily dropped in mortars, always visible crosshairs on screen, and kill spam.  These are replaced by their real-life equivalents, communication, target lasing and coordination with the commander (Check out the JDAM), iron sights and scopes, and the realism of not knowing whether or not the guy you shot at 200 meters away actually died or not when you saw his turban fall below the hedge he was firing from.  Also missing from PR is the health bar, which has been replaced with a realistic injury model that allows soldiers to be shot and bleed to death.  Very cool, because now that medic is really, really important, since spawning right back up in the battlefield is not quite so easy, and fighting while injured is a difficult task.  

Some more interesting differences between BF2 and PR: 

Project Reality soldiers won't be bunny hopping, dolphin diving, and C4 suicide running (well, the insurgents might do this last one).  Instead, they'll be hiding in windows, outflanking you, landing on rooftops, establishing firebases, and planting IEDs.  You won't find 10 snipers on the enemy team, nor be faced with constant grenade spam.  Kits are limited, and getting close enough to throw a grenade is something you WON'T generally want to try to do.  One man becoming an insurmountable force in your team's tank that he hopped in just before you got there is NOT an element of PR.  You can't use enemy tanks (you don't know how, soldier), and tanks and APCs require 2 people at a minimum to operate properly (the turrets even take about 20 seconds or so to "warm up" and make ready).

One of the first big things you'll notice will be the size of the maps, and the revamped sounds.  Gunshots in the distance give a realistically muffled thunder, while nearby gunshots deliver a loud crack.  Automatic gunfire will resound through an area and tip you off that there's a battle going on in the distance that you might need to be aware of.  Helicopters can be heard from really far away, so, their landing position has to be carefully chosen to avoid ambushes.   You can see far enough into the distance that people look like little ants running around (and this is very well done and adds greatly to the feeling of realism, as, being able to see a whole forest from a mountaintop is both useful and realistic), something that very rarely happens in BF2.

Because assets are worth tickets as well, individuals won't be bee-lining for them and "one-manning" them over to the enemy base just to get blown up.  Server admins will kick you for doing this because it injures your whole team.  Vehicles don't respawn quite so quickly, and, the maps are often 1-4 kilometers in size, which means if you strand your team by wasting vehicles, there's a good chance you've lost the match for them.  As a Project Reality soldier, you'll come to appreciate deeply the efforts of expert helicopter pilots, who follow protocols and understand that their work is often the difference between winning and losing an engagement.  This is a far cry different from the typical "use it till it explodes" mentality of regular Battlefield.  

Being shot really sucks, even almost being shot really sucks, which is a very cool thing.  This makes covering fire useful.  Bullets bouncing off of the ground or walls near your head will cause your screen to blur and darken as you become stressed out from the battle (Check out this video for an example of how it works).  This gives you incentive to not keep your head out in the open, and a good player will even learn to use this to his advantage.

A single guy in a jet no longer scores 100 kills in a match and locks down the entire enemy team, as in Battlefield 2.

Reviving a fallen comrade is no longer just a quick shock.  Now you have to actually stick him with an epipen and apply bandages until he stops bleeding, a process that takes about 30-40 seconds... sometimes you even have to "resuscitate". 

Another cool difference is that the squad leader is a bit more important now.  He's no longer a roaming spawn point.  He and two others must establish a spawn point somewhere in the field.  But, there's more to him than that, with access to the "officer" kit, the squad leader can actually deploy structures, and with the help of his squad, establish foxholes, machine gun nests, sandbag walls, and the like, all of which can be put to use to devastating effect in the hands of a talented squad leader.  This is cool, because now instead of having just 1 commander and 32 guys, you end up with a commander, 5-7 squad leaders, and a collection of people working under each of those, each filling a useful, fun to play role.  

This all comes together and results in a more rich, deep gameplay, that is equally more rewarding. 

Battlefield vs. Project Reality  

Ultimately, does Project Reality REPLACE Battlefield 2 in my gaming collection, or do I still play both?

Well, that's a tough question.  I am excited to see what changes they have made in 1.50 for BF2, it's rumored to fix many of the small grievances I've lived with for 5 years in the series.  Ultimately, for the past 2 weeks, yes, it has consumed my gameplay, pulling me away from BF2, Counterstrike, and my various other source mods and MMO gaming (even pulling me out of a couple coveted closed betas that I'm in right now, yeesh).  So, for me, they have taken a great thing that I am seasoned with, and made it wholly different in enough ways that I am excited to play again, so, the PR team gets mad props for that (did I just say "mad props"?  Hello 1997).  I do warn, however, that the game is NOT for everyone, as there is a relatively steep learning curve that will seperate serious gamers from casual gamers fairly quickly (Training servers are constantly running and you are encouraged to go there to train, learn how to fly, learn the kits or how to request them, to lase, to drive tanks, etc).

There are of course, a few glaring problems here and there, such as how the kits work and the timers involved which could be worked on a little, and maybe just a couple more transport vehicles here and there on some of the larger maps (there are lulls in the action, unfortunately) would be welcome, but overall, I haven't had this much fun gaming in years.  

It's easy to think that "more realism" = "less fun", but that's not true.  More realism, done the way Project Reality has done it, is definitely more fun.  While it's cool to play Battlefield 2's more "action movie" version of warfare, the gut-wrenching, "keep your head down and return-fire", covering-fire-is-useful, "oh-my-God pop smoke and get the fuck out of here!", "Let's sneak around the side of this mosque while they're engaged from the west!", "Enemy fire incoming from heading 2-2-5!!!" version of video game warfare is so much more rewarding to be a part of, that I'm not sure if I'll ever click that little "2" on my desktop again.

How to Play:

It's easy (But make sure your microphone works, it's really important in PR!):

1) Make sure you've got BF2 installed and patched up (not 100% sure if it works with 1.5 beta at time of this writing).

2) Go over to www.realitymod.com and click "downloads".  MAKE SURE YOU GET BOTH CORE AND LEVELS DOWNLOADS.  They are each in the 1.5 gig range for a big 3 gigabyte download, but, if you stick with the game and make it over the learning curve, it's worth it.  (I suggest Orbit Downloader for use with any browser, as it will greatly speed up the download for you.)

3) Run the Core installer, then the Levels installer.

4) Click the icon that the levels installer put on your desktop, click training, pick a server, and start learning.  

5) When you're ready (probably an hour or two later after step 4), click on deployment, pick a server, and get in the game. 

If you want to meet up with me in game, use the chat link to the right to find me.  I'm JK JudgeX in game, generally tagging along with JK Tenchi and/or JK Mikado.  We'll gladly train you up and accept you into our squad if you're a decent player.

I've waited for this game to come out for, ohhh, well, since I imagined they would create it as a natural extension and continuation in the Total War series, so, back when ROME: Total War came out.  The Total War series is amongst my favorite titles, and I own all of them, and most expansions, from Shogun up to Medieval II.

So, I was incredibly delighted to be informed by Steam that a demo for Empire was ready to be played.  I dropped everything I was doing and started the install process.

My Review: 

Immediately, people with a similar configuration to me will notice a very long (3+ minute wait) during the initial loading screen.  Why we are forced to wait for so long reading the "bink video" and "Total War" logo is a complete mystery, but, some of us do have this wait.  Directly afterwards, the menu system seemed familiar, but, WOW, this demo is limited!  You get two "tutorials", which are about 95% useless if you're a Total War veteran, and 2 "Single Player Battles".  The campaign mode is absolutely not represented in the demo whatsoever.

Anyway, a few really, really long loading screens later the tutorial is loaded. (What is it doing, Creative Assembly?  Seriously?  We change our video and control options, and then we have to watch a "loading" bar again... why?  That should have been changing like 10 lines in an INI file somewhere.  Stop taking the interface away from the player.)

Ultimately, if you've played Medieval 2 and made use of the bombards and gunpowder weapons in that game, the land-based tutorial and battle example aren't going to offer anything new aside from taking cover behind obstacles and in buildings (which, you don't get to take advantage of as much as the CPU).  The graphics are impressive, with very nice attention to detail on everyone, but the performance is a considerable bit behind Medieval II (probably about 40% slower before lowering settings), while there's not really much improvement in quality(Maybe a 10-20% improvement in graphical quality).

The default control scheme is different from Medieval, using the WASD as default camera movement, Q and E to rotate camera, and so on.  This can easily be remedied in the options, and most veterans of the series will probably revert to old input methods.  The new in battle interface is superior to the prior versions in some ways but also lacking.  The unit cards seem weakened, and gathering information about the status of your soldiers is not as evident as it was before, but it does have a much cleaner and more professional look.  Function ultimately wins over form, but the improvements to form *almost* make up for the loss of function.  Maybe it's just a learning and adjustment issue, time will tell.

The Naval Battles are pretty awesome.  Great graphics, and each ship in your fleet feels like its own entity capable of turning the tide of battle if used correctly.  This portion did not run so well on the test computer, but victory was still relatively easily had.  

Honestly, it may have been a bad move for Creative Assembly/Sega/et al to release this demo, because according to google, several people are already having performance problems with it.  With no Campaign teaser to whet the appetite for carving a new world, all we're left with is an impressive demonstration of the naval battle engine, and a lot more of the "same old, same old" overland battle from the rest of the series.  It probably should have highlighted more of the differences in ground battles in the new game in addition to the ocean tutorial and sample battle.  Furthermore, the campaign mode is what many players play the game for, so it wouldn't have been too much to ask for a small sample campaign to toy with.

Without multiplayer, also, the Demo took this game from my "must buy" list to my "maybe I should read up on the forums for a couple months before I purchase this one" column.  I am still excited to play the full game, and I'm sure it's packed full of awesome surprises (they've been working on it long enough!), but with the way it performed and no insight as to what campaigns will really feel like to play aside from a few review site vids, I think i'll take my time getting this one.

But, anyway, it's a free demo, so give it a shot!

Magic:

The first time I played Magic was during 5th edition.  A friend of mine introduced me to it by showing me some cards, and I observed a couple of games.  I took my money from my high school computer lab job and went about buying several packages of cards, and amongst my circle of friends, learning the rules.

This process should not be skipped by any Magic player, as it is educational, fun, addictive, and a very good reason to get together with friends.  Yes, there is ridicule from the dullards of society, but, what won't they ridicule?  Anything that requires intellect is under fire from the mentally inept around you, chess club, books, role playing games, video games, anime, all of it... It is a sad state when the collection of morons is so great that one must be bold to undertake an innocent and fun hobby, but, it is nonetheless the state we are in.  Regardless, if you have not tried it, GET SOME CARDS AND PLAY.

The game can be enjoyed on many levels.  As a collector, you'll find yourself trying to locate rares and interesting or thematic cards.  As a casual player you'll find yourself building decks that employ esoteric strategies to defeat your opponents and have fun while doing it.  As a competitive player you'll be throwing cards out of your deck and refining it with cutt-throat precision at each loss, and seeking new opponents regularly.  

The Problem:

Sadly, for all the fun of it, many players will arrive where I have with the game: Continuously frustrated.  I am part casual and part competitive player.  I enjoy having fun with the cards, but I like to win at least a solid percentage of the time.  Due to the nature of the game, being a collectibles game, occasionally a friend will "outbuy" you.  Rare cards are generally more powerful, and, more expensive, such that a well-made deck of rares beats a well-made deck of uncommons or commons.  This can lead to a bit of an escalation effect, where you will find yourself blowing large amounts of cash at a local hobby store and leaving with only a handful of cards.  Then, of course, your friends can always play against those cards by spending more money (or finding a devilishly cheap strategy that undermines you specifically).  This makes Magic amongst friends a very frustrating event, sometimes.  

A typical Magic Game in progress:

One of the biggest problems for casual players of the game is "Net Decking".  This is when your opponents use the internet to research strategies, read deck lists of tournament winning decks, and otherwise use knowledge of the game not of their own design in order to gain an edge against the people they play with.  This, being done by a player with ample spare cash to blow, will leave a very bad taste in your mouth if you play them frequently, as there is no answer within the game that can be made up by practice or logical deck construction.  It comes down to money and research time  on the internet, rather than strategy and creativity.

Your friends who play this way are not to blame alone.  Wizards of the Coast designs the game such that not all cards are created equal in order to drive revenues as people buy up boxes of "booster packs" looking for a lucky find of a good rare (or now "Mythic Rare") card.  This means that many of the cards that you get will be decidedly "Sub-Optimal"... or, easily replaced in your deck by a different card.  If you read the tournament deck lists, you'll find a solid collection of about 24 cards that appear in just about every top 5 decklist.  It forms sort of a pyramid of strategies that are available, where there are hundreds of deck types and strats at the bottom tier 30 or so deck types that are really solid, and then maybe 10 "tournament win capable" decks in any block.

Furthermore, the "Tournament Legal" card list is generally comprised of the latest editions and all "blocks" since.  This allows Wizards to conveniently phase out entire blocks of cards and force interested players to buy new sets each year, and the real catch is, the newer the set, generally, the more powerful the cards or the better the "answers" to strategies defined in prior "blocks".  They establish an arms race and provide the weaponry.  Smart business tactic, but, it leads to a very sour game, since it's almost a game of "who is willing to spend $100 on a single deck build?"  AKA, "Franklin decking".  

"I can't seem to locate my bitterblossom, guys, I think I lost it under my giant pile of money."

Now, several aspects of the strategies that need nerfed really hard to help fix the game could be delved into, but, I'll save that for another article.  There is a solution to this right now, though.

OCTGN:

For a long time, some developers have been creating a tabletop card game interface for use over the internet.  One of the games that can be played in said interface, amongst people who have themselves downloaded "card sets"... is Magic the Gathering.  Downloading card sets may or may not be illegal, I really don't know, nor care, honestly, but it certainly can enable the game to be played without the "money scheme" that's been built into it by Wizards.

Enter OCTGN.  Armed with this free client, you can play full games of MTG with all the newest sets, up to CONFLUX as of this writing.  It is a perfect tool for testing deck builds without spending hundreds of dollars.  The deck builder alone is a nearly invaluable tool, as it functions so quickly and smoothly, without waiting for card images to download or pages to refresh, that I can't think of a single tool that matches it for this purpose.  There once was an old program called Apprentice32 that was very much like OCTGN, but I don't know where that development path went to... if you know, please comment :).

Here's what OCTGN 2.0 looks like: