The $400,000 funding goal was met in one day. By the next night, the total had risen to over 1 million dollars. At this moment, there are 31,205 backers pledging a total of  $1,175,056, almost three times the initial goal. The pledges range from at least $15 all the way up to $10,000 and possibly beyond, as their are additional incentives that are "too rich" for Kickstarter. The extra money means the game can "appear on more platforms, be translated into more languages, have more music and voice, and an original soundtrack for the documentary, and more!"

Double Fine couldn't find a publisher for a game in a "dead" genre, so they skipped the middleman and went directly to their customers and fans, and it worked. The game is still up in the air, of course. Maybe it will be awesome, maybe it will be mediocre, maybe it will crash and burn and fail spectacularly. But the community of backers on Kickstarter will have input and insight into the development process along the way, and everyone will get an interesting documentary regardless of what happens to the game. I can't wait to see the finished products.

Although the funding goal has already been shattered, you can still pledge money for the next 32 days, until March 13th (which happens to be my birthday). $15 or more will get you the full game on Steam, an early beta on Steam, the video series, and access to the private discussion community. Higher tiers offer additional rewards including autographed posters, a portrait of you, or a character in the game based on you (for $50,000).

Disclosure: I pledged $15.00.

The Creation Kit can only be launched through Steam, which is mildly annoying, but not too bad considering Skyrim itself already has the same requirement. The new kit has some major new features mixed with scattered minor changes and improvements. Most obviously, the new Papyrus script has substantially more flexibility, with support for custom functions, loops, waits, multithreading and more. Quests have a new "Dialogue Views" tab with a branching visualization of the dialog. There are other changes related to AI, dialogue, quests, world editing, magic, characters (NPCs and creatures have been combined into "Actors" for example), scripting, and more.

Importantly, Bethesda has finally decided to fix the lip sync generation that they broke all the way back in Oblivion. The process was broken after an Oblivion Construction Set update and was never fixed. The process remained broken in Fallout 3's G.E.C.K. and the Fallout: New Vegas G.E.C.K. too. In fact the only way to generate the required files was to use the old Oblivion CS from before Bethesda broke it. The fix is long overdue, but appreciated.

The Steam Workshop looks mostly as I expected. The interface is good enough, but there seems to be very limited functionality (there isn't even a search function!) and some decisions destined to cause problems down the road. There is currently no method of manually downloading mods; you must "subscribe" to them. Your subscriptions will then automatically be downloaded, or automatically be updated if necessary. Sounds good on paper, but mods for Bethesda games are not always that simple. Automatic mandatory updates are fine for many mods; for many others, it may have serious negative consequences. Containers can be reset, updates can cause problems (or in rare cases irreversibly corrupt saves), not at all updates are always wanted (and there seems to be no way to add optional sub-files or anything like that), some updates require clean saves, etc.

Obviously, in most cases, mod authors will be aware of this and take appropriate precautions. But with the current set of features available on the Workshop, those precautions may be limited to uploading mods somewhere else. There is no support for optional files (except as entirely separate mods), no support for mod dependencies, no support for custom installation scripts, no support for conflict detection and/or resolution, and no support for asking users if they want to update or not. Those missing features wouldn't be an issue normally, but if you're trying to create a platform that automatically installs and updates mods for users, you're going to run into problems without those features. For example, even a "simple" mod like Lightweight Potions and Poisons has to direct users to SkyrimNexus if they want other weight options.

Despite all that, I will still probably be uploading any mods I create to both SkyrimNexus and the Steam Workshop when possible. Regardless of the problems, some of which will hopefully be addressed over time, the Workshop will be doing great work in expanding the mod user audience to people who have never even installed a mod before. The process may be messy but in the end a larger and broader mod community is a good result.

Of course, Valve being Valve, the very first mod available on the Steam Workshop was Fall of the Space Core, Vol. 1 created by "Aperture Laboratories."

There are already some other great mods available: Midas Magic, Weapon Retexture Project, and even an early version of Open Cities. Right now, Midas Magic is the most popular mod (deservedly so) with over 3000 subscribers and 10000 views. There are already over 300 other mods available.

Finally, the "surprise" that Bethesda teased was of course the high-res texture pack of which evidence was discovered 1 hour after the "surprise" was mentioned. I haven't had the time to explore enough to see how good the pack is, but it is certainly an improvement. You can check out some comparison shots, and read a more detailed analysis (including some mistakes you can fix) of the texture pack in another thread created by Brumbek.

If you're interested in trying out the Creation Kit yourself, it is available in the "Tools" section in Steam. You may have to restart Steam for it to appear there. For information and help with the Creation Kit, you can use the Creation Kit Wiki or the official forum. Bethesda has also released three video tutorials explaining various concepts.

Bethesda has also uploaded a "first look" video of the new Creation Kit showing off some improvements: new dialog display, render window controls that may not be awful, the new scripting language (Papyrus, no relation to the font, hopefully), and of course the Steam Workshop. Since the kit is coming tomorrow, the "second look" will be the Creation Kit itself.

On the other hand, Bethesda and Valve have still given almost no information about the Steam Workshop for Skyrim. We know it will allow one-click mod downloads/subscriptions and have some sort of upload method available through the Creation Kit, and we got a quick look at the interface in the first look video. Mods with nudity, sexual content, excessive violence, child killing, drug use, etc. will all probably be banned from the Workshop if Bethesda's past behavior is any indication.

Beyond that, everything is up in the air. Will there be any conflict detection or management? Will Bethesda's provided launcher still be entirely useless for any serious mod use? How will mod subscriptions work? Can mods only be uploaded through the Creation Kit? How will mod requirements be handled with the "one-click installs?" How will the Workshop work with 3rd-party tools (Nexus Mod Manager, Wrye Smash, BOSS, etc.)? How will the Workshop be moderated? What level of user/community participation is there? What are the terms of use/service? How much control do modders have over their mods and mod pages once uploaded? 

All these questions (and more) will be answered once the Workshop is open, of course, but it would have been nice if at least some answers had been provided ahead of time. But neither Valve nor Bethesda typically work that way, so it isn't too surprising. The official Creation Kit "information" thread on the official forums doesn't even have the latest information about the Tuesday release.

One good bit of information did come out, though: Bethesda asked a group of veteran modders to test out the new Creation Kit (and the Steam Workshop too, I imagine) ahead of the release. Whether their feedback will be addressed is another matter, but at least this time we may get a kit where lip-sync actually works, the script editor isn't missing functionality, and entering an .ESP description without risking a crash is possible.

Along with Pete Hines' random reveal of that Tuesday release on Twitter, he also teased a "special surprise" would be coming alongside the Creation Kit. 59 minutes passed before someone discovered that the special surprise is probably an official "HighRes" Texture Pack. So much for a surprise?

But the more important news was about the Creation Kit, the Skyrim version of the Construction Set (or G.E.C.K. from Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas). Although Todd Howard claimed that Bethesda wanted to release the Creation Kit with or very close to the release of Skyrim, the Creation Kit will not be available until sometime in January. Anywhere from 2-3 months past-release is "very close" to Todd, apparently, but if the Creation Kit is actually stable and fully functional this time, I'll be fine with the January release date.

At least the announcement also revealed the source(s) of the delay. In addition to a new Creation Kit wiki and some tutorial videos that will take some time, Bethesda announced that the Creation Kit will be integrated into Valve's Steam Workshop. The Steam Workshop is currently only used for Team Fortress 2 items, offering users the chance to submit items for possible inclusion and sale (with profit sharing) in the game.

Bethesda is typically sparse on the details. Read the full extent of Bethesda's provided info below.

"We’re excited to share news that we’ve been working closely with Valve to integrate Steam Workshop into the Creation Kit. Using the Workshop, you’ll have free user content with the push of a button. The Creation Kit will bundle your mod and upload it to the Workshop, where everyone can browse, rate, and flag mods for download. You’ll be able to do this from any web device, including your smartphone. Like a live Netflix queue, when you fire up Skyrim, mods you flagged will be automatically downloaded and installed. Everyone here is really excited about the opportunities and possibilities this opens up for our entire community."

Prefer to use existing modding sites? Not a problem. You’ll still be able to upload/share/access Skyrim mods on fan-created mod sites.

There is at least a partial confirmation that mods will be free ("free user content"), but nowhere is the possibility of mods being sold ruled out completely. That ambiguity is further compounded by a poor decision on the part of Bethesda and/or Valve. The only Steam Workshop legal agreement currently available was written for the Team Fortress 2 workshop, and so it repeatedly refers to selling user content, compensation, etc. The passage below seems to be getting the most attention.

Obviously, in its current state, that could easily be applied to user-created mods, assuming Bethesda was on-board. But it is unlikely that this agreement will be rewritten or altered once the Skyrim section launches. The current agreement doesn't even mention Bethesda or Skyrim once, referring only to "Valve games." The agreement could certainly end up being the same (or worse), but before all the information is available, everyone is just left to speculate.

I do doubt that Bethesda would try to charge for Skyrim mods. There are too many problems they would have to overcome. A mod good enough to be charged would inevitably gather many downloads and a lot of publicity before that point. So there would already be a mass of users who downloaded the mod for free. How do you then move to charging for the mod? Bethesda would also have to devote resources to testing the mod for problems; perhaps even fixing up and polishing the mod. The instant that Bethesda charged for a mod that turned out to corrupt saved games or ruin quests or anything of that nature would be the instant a mods-for-sale scheme collapsed in failure.

Even if all the initial problems were overcome, there are problems on the user-side too. It would be difficult to determine a mod's worth before purchasing it. Who handles tech support for the mod? How are updates handled? What if a future Bethesda patch or DLC or expansion interferes with the mod?

Then of course there are the more mundane issues. How are profits split? How would ownership disputes be settled? How aggressively would "piracy" of the mods be pursued? What about the potential negative publicity or backlash from modders and mod users?

So while I wouldn't find it hard to believe that Bethesda might be "testing the waters" by taking a more active role in the modding community, I would be shocked if they tried to sell user-created mods for Skyrim. For TES6 or Fallout 5 (maybe even 4) or some other future product? Maybe. But for Skyrim? I really do doubt it. Then again, this is the company that sold and still sells Horse Armor, so who knows?

The problem is that we really have almost no concrete information yet. No one knows how effective the Workshop's downloading and installation will be. Will there be load order management and manipulation? Conflict detection and/or resolution? Mod update detection? Mods for recent Bethesda games can be very simple but also very complex. The workshop may be able to handle a texture replacer, or a small content mod, or a minor set of tweaks, but what happens with mods that go beyond that?

Skyrim will have mods that require other mods or things like the Skyrim Script Extender. Will the Workshop handle these requirements? Mods will be created that require user-input and decisions for customization. What about compatibility patches with other mods, or complex mods such as FCOM or All Natural which will require the use of external programs like Wrye Bash? These types of mods are not going to be downloadable and installable with "the push of a button." Firing up Skyrim and having the "mods you flagged automatically downloaded and installed" could have disastrous consequences.

It's likely that the Workshop will not allow mods with nudity or sexual content, child killing, excessive violence, etc. Will there be a vetting and approval process to rule these out? That would quickly become prohibitively difficult. Valve has no background or experience here, and Bethesda has neither the time nor the resources nor the ability to examine the hundreds (thousands!) of mods that will be uploaded.

We don't even know how well the Workshop will be organized or how mods will be presented. The Team Fortress 2 section has very limited sorting: top rated or most recent in one giant list, or search by tag. Mods will need to display much more information than a new hat or item model. How will multiple files for a single mod be supported? Will there be any comment moderation at all? There is currently no "report comment" option.

In the entirety of Bethesda's communication after the announcement, we've really only had one concrete answer to a question so far. The Creation Kit will require Steam. That decision is annoying, stupid, and pointless, but since Skyrim already requires Steam it doesn't bother me too much. It is a little sad that the information was only provided in a single post in a single thread by a single Bethesda community manager (GStaff), but not surprising.

The announcement did end on a positive; the Steam Workshop will, at least for now, be an option, not a requirement. Mods can still be uploaded to third-party sites. I'll have to wait for more details to decide whether I will be using the Workshop or not. Given Bethesda's tight-lipped PR and history of avoiding answering questions, I'll probably be waiting until the Creation Kit is released and the Workshop is open.

But for the next month, people will continue to speculate, to panic, and to create elaborate conspiracy theories. There have already been nearly 1000 posts on the official Skyrim Mods board in a...heated...discussion about the announcement. The SkyrimNexus post on the subject has over 270 similarly heated comments, and the Bethblog announcement passed 1000 comments (not all about the Creation Kit, though) before being locked. Bethesda could probably answer some of the more common and important questions in a matter of minutes and put a majority of the speculation to rest. But they probably won't; Bethesda has never really communicated with its customers directly.

Of course, this is Bethesda, so that isn't possible. The patch breaks all elemental and magic resistances except the Elemental Protection block perk. Racial abilities, other perks, item enchantments, potions, and natural enemy resistances are all broken. They have no effect. You can kill a Flame Atronach with fire, your full set of shock resistance armor won't save you from a lightning bolt, and your 100% frost resistant vampire can be killed by frost spells. At the moment, many items and perks and abilities are entirely useless.

Update: Ianpatt, one of the people working on the Skyrim Script Extender, seems to have fixed the elemental resistances with the latest SKSE update. That was quick.

But wait, there's more! Dragon AI (the "rare" issue supposedly fixed) has gone haywire, with dragons flying backwards or not engaging targets or simply flying away. The much-appreciated bookshelves in houses are broken too, making removing or adding books impossible in many cases.

We're sttill not done. I haven't encountered these next problems myself (yet?) but I've read multiple reports for each issue. Users are reporting issues with the favorites menu or map closing erroneously, lockpicking controls not functioning at all, menu or container controls not working, vertical (Y-) mouse sensitivity changing for the worse, Xbox360 controllers not working correctly on the PC, and some visual effects (such as from spells) not displaying correctly or at all.

Most of those problems are probably the result of the "general functionality fixes relating to remapping buttons and controls," which were apparently too difficult for Bethesda to make without screwing up other things. Or, as now seems common with Bethesda patches (and games), there was inadequate QA and/or the patch was rushed out before QA could do its job or developers could fix the problems that were found.

These problems aren't new for Bethesda. An update to Oblivion's Construction Set broke its lip-sync functionality; that was never fixed and even persisted into the Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas G.E.C.Ks. I wouldn't be surprised if there is still no lip-sync in the Skyrim Creation Kit. Patch 1.1 for Fallout 3 broke mouse acceleration (now it's almost a trend) and broke V.A.T.S., the hyped combat system central to the game. Patch 1.5 fundamentally broke the way that .ESPs (mod/plugin files created by the G.E.C.K.) work. Users found and developed a workaround there, of course, since Bethesda had zero interest in doing so. 

When you add this to Bethesda's abysmal patching habits, it generally falls to modders to fix Bethesda games. Morrowind had 2 patches, plus 1 patch each with the Tribunal and Bloodmoon expansions, for 4 total, which wasn't too bad although a lot of bugs still remained. Oblivion had 1 beta patch, followed by 2 official patches. After Shivering Isles was released users (not Bethesda, of course) discovered, investigated, and diagnosed a fatal bug related to FormID generation, which resulted in 2 more beta patches and 1 official patch. Note that those patches fixed nothing except that serious bug, so there were really only 2 full patches.

Fallout 3 had patch 1.1 with a small amount of bug fixes and quest fixes, but it also broke VATS. Patch 1.4 was next; that one zero fixes and only added DLC support. Patch 1.5 fixed one issue from patch 1.1 and three other unrelated issues, but broke .ESPs. Patch 1.6 fixed 2/3 of the problems caused by patch 1.5 and added more DLC support. The final patch, 1.7, added more DLC support, and nothing else. So Fallout 3 had one real patch (which broke a major gameplay feature) and one minor patch (which fixed some of the first patch and 3 other issues but broke .ESP functionality).

Bethesda does not effectively support their games after the games are released. They throw out a few mediocre patches, toss modders the editor so they can fix everything else (leaving console users screwed), and move on to producing and selling DLC. Other game developers, both smaller and larger than Bethesda, release more patcher, better patches, and patches longer after a game's release. Bethesda has no excuse. Of course, they also have no substantial competition in terms of large-scale open-world RPGs, which is probably part of the problem.

The Stars Are Left promises a "Lovecraftian horror mystery-campaign that will send the player into the depths of insanity." Sounds good, and if the trailer is any indication, looks good. The expansion will also release today for a price of $4.99 $5.99, the same as slightly more than previous expansion Magicka: Vietnam. The new content can be played by anyone playing with someone who owns the expansion. I think most of Magicka's minor DLC is bad, but actions and content like this redeem everything.

Update: The price on Steam is $5.99, despite the earlier information with the trailer claiming the price would be $4.99. Oh well. Also, two additional mini-DLCs (Holiday Spirit and Horror Props item packs) are now available for $2 each, but they seem a little more substantial than some of the previous DLC.

The Stars Are Left features include:

As always, you can choose your price and how it is divided between the developers, charities (Child's Play and Electronic Frontier Foundation), and the Humble Bundle organizers. All the games are available on Windows, Mac, and Linux and are DRM-free, and they can all be redeemed on Steam. The two prototypes are Windows-only and obviously not Steam-redeemable.

Watch the trailer below and then head on over to purchase your bundle if you haven't already. Buying early is always a good idea with the Humble Bundle; bonuses tend to be added over the course of the sale. There are already over 100,000 purchases for a total of over $400,000, and there are still almost 12 days remaining. 

Campaign Review

I wasn't really expecting a masterpiece from Battlefield 3's campaign. This isn't Half-Life, where the multiplayer is tacked on and the focus is on crafting a good single-player experience. This is Battlefield; the single-player doesn't get as much attention, and it shows. 

Through the entire campaign (which spans maybe 5-7 hours depending on difficulty), I was hoping to get to the end. I barely cared about the characters, most of whom had no backgrounds or development or personalities. I was only vaguely interested in the predictable story of nuclear terrorism which has been done and redone and overdone in other games (and movies and books and other media). The dialog was mostly straight-forward; not badly written, but not really well-written either.

The campaign is almost 100% serious, dark (in theme) and straight-forward. There is none of Bad Company 2's humor or "fun" or off-beat characters involved. Every character is wooden, just doing their job or their duty. Any attempted jokes generally feel forced ("I keep forgetting they don't have schools where you come from.") and fall flat.

I might have been willing to overlook all that if the campaign was actually fun. It isn't. Your character spends almost the entire campaign waiting for orders and then doing exactly what you're told. If you try to deviate from what the game expects from you, you will be killed. Early in the game, your squad is pinned down by a sniper. Try to peak out to get a look? Get shot. Try to move to a new position? Get shot. Try to lay down suppressive fire? Get shot.

See, you actually have to wait to be told to pickup an RPG, and wait to be told to fire it at the sniper to collapse the building in a pretty set piece. There is no other way to complete this section, and situations like these happen again and again and again. You'll go through the doors you're told to go through when you're told to go through them. All other doors lead nowhere or cannot be opened. Pinned down by some enemies? Go flank them through this specific door that we just ignored earlier! Want to try something else? Too bad, that will get you killed.

The vehicle-focused levels aren't much better. In the single aerial mission, you are nothing but the gunner/spotter in a jet. Your experience in a jet involves firing guided missiles at some enemy jets while the pilot makes ridiculous maneuvers, then marking some impossible-to-miss glowing objects for bombing runs. You never fly the jet. You never fly a helicopter. Later, when you get to actually drive a tank, you're simply following along with other friendly tanks. Halfway through that level, you get stuck as the gunner while someone else drives the tank down a straight highway.

I played through the campaign on Hard. This was a mistake. Hard isn't actually hard; the higher difficulty just introduces more frustration. The enemy AI remains painfully stupid: standing still too long or running out into the open, taking predictable paths, and generally offering as much tactics or strategy as shooting gallery targets. But this same AI will have no problem consistently shooting the player through minuscule holes in cover, or hitting you in the head the moment you pop out of cover, or instantly diverting their attention from your invincible teammates to all fire at you. On Hard, it isn't uncommon to walk into a new area and instantly die to a single shotgun blast, or a single rocket fired from who-knows-where.

Add to this the poor checkpoint system and Hard will cause you endless frustration. Checkpoints are commonly placed before dialog, before non-combat sections, before transport sequences, or before stupid quick-time events. Being forced to play through these portions of the game is purely the result of poor game design.

Oh, and yes, there are quick-time events...lots of them. Every time the campaign wants to show your character doing something "cinematic" or "visceral" or whatever the buzzword is, quick-time event! Get into a fight with an enemy who decides to ambush you (but not just shoot you, of course), QTE! Rappel down a wall, QTE! See a rat, QTE! Climb a train? QTE! The majority of these events are painfully simple; the only way to screw them up is if you aren't paying attention. Why even include them, then? 

If I "lose" my fight with an enemy because I didn't press 'E' fast enough, reloading and hovering my finger over the E key this time isn't interesting at all. I'm perfectly fine with my character rappelling down himself without sitting around waiting for me to press Space. I don't want to press left-click, then E, then E, then E to have my character disarm an enemy. It contributes absolutely nothing to the gameplay and even distracts from whatever potentially impressive animations or visuals are going on at the time.

The campaign does have some good moments, but they're basically all just visually impressive set-pieces. Collapsing buildings, a HALO jump, the entire jet dogfight sequence, driving through the streets of Paris and New York City, etc. The actual gameplay moments I'll remember are rare. I enjoyed a firefight in a bank vault, watching money fly everywhere. Some parts of the tank mission were...okay. A chase on foot through Paris was tense. Exploring an amazing looking villa and its surrounding scenery was impressive, even with my less-than-Ultra settings.

There are also some flat-out stupid moments. Early on, your squad drives into an obvious ambush (after having a conversation about how there is probably an ambush). In Paris, you're warned about charging into crossfire moments before being made to do exactly that. And at the very end, when your character climbs out of a police car while wearing military uniform to fight quick-time event the generic evil bad guy terrorist villain in the middle of New York City, you can watch an entire crowd of bystanders do absolutely nothing while you press some keys on your keyboard.

I feel like the only redeeming qualities of the campaign overall are its sound and visual design. All the levels look and sound great. Paris and New York City are beautiful, the cities in Afghanistan and Iran are full of detail, the aircraft carrier and the jet mission feel almost "real." Bullets and rockets whiz by your head, suppressive fire is scary, and explosions are loud. When I put on my flight helmet in the jet mission and all the sounds were appropriately modified, I was impressed.



For the record, I play Battlefield 3 on somewhere around Medium-High settings. My desktop cannot handle Ultra. But even on these lower settings, the game looks amazing (it also runs quite well). The Frostbite 2 engine deserves praise.

When the campaign ended, I was relieved. The story was barely resolved, only one character was really wrapped up, and none of the aftermath was shown. I didn't care at that point; I was just happy to be able to put the campaign behind me and go back to multiplayer. That's not a good note to end on.

I can only recommend playing the campaign for the sake of...playing the campaign. Aside from the high-quality art and sound design, you wouldn't be missing anything by heading straight into multiplayer (or the co-op missions). The story, the characters, the dialog, and most importantly the gameplay are all forgettable. You'll probably get some enjoyment out of the campaign (especially if you avoid Hard mode), but the multiplayer is where the real fun begins.



Multiplayer Thoughts

Battlefield 3's multiplayer is where most players will spend most of their time, for good reason. Despite launch problems, balance issues, and some other serious flaws that need to be addressed, the multiplayer is a great experience. The combination of infantry and vehicular (both land and air) combat is really unrivaled, and the focus on objectives over kills (in most modes) is welcome, even if players don't always share that same focus.

The Conquest and Rush modes are the most commonly played, with Squad Rush, Squad Deathmatch, and Team Deathmatch available as well. Rush revolves around sets of M-COM (Mobile Command) stations that must be destroyed or defended, while Conquest requires capturing and holding flags at a number of control points. In Rush, the attackers have a limited amount of reinforcement (spawn) tickets; in Conquest, both teams have a number of tickets that can also be depleted if the other team holds a majority of flags.

Rush generally takes place in very linear segments of the maps (all modes can be played on all maps), with each successive set of M-COMs in a new area. I didn't particularly like Rush in the beta, when only Operation Metro was available, but with the full set of maps Rush has been growing on me a little. Some of the maps have far too many chokepoints, and some M-COMs are too easy or too difficult to attack, but I do occasionally enjoy a good round of Rush. Also, while 64-player Rush is possible, the mode really works much better with 32 or even 24 players.



Team Deathmatch is...bad, really. TDM is always infantry-only, the spawns are random and terrible, and the gameplay tends to be predictable and dull. At least it's there for the people that want that, though. Squad Rush and Squad Deathmatch are squad-based versions of the other modes; Squad Rush is 4v4 while Squad Deathmatch is 4v4v4v4. Interestingly, Squad Deathmatch does include a vehicle: one Infantry Fighting Vehicle (the BMP-2M or LAV-25).

Conquest is the "classic" Battlefield mode. While all maps support Conquest, the best Conquest maps are large, open, and non-linear: Caspian Border, Kharg Island, and Operation Firestorm (and to a lesser extent, Noshahr Canals and Tehran Highway). Maps like Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Damavand Peak, and Operation Metro have somewhat more linear conquest setups, with one "central" flag where most of the fighting occurs. Operation Metro in particular usually ends up as nothing more than rocket and grenade spam down the chokepoints.

But on those large open maps, Conquest is the best and "truest" Battlefield experience. Players on foot capture and defend flags while vehicle users battle for land and air supremacy. Flanking is easy and necessary, and there are opportunities for both defense- and offense-minded players. With 5 flags on most of the large Conquest maps, the fighting is constantly shifting around the map. In good matches, flags end up switching hands multiple times, with the best matches decided by only a handful of tickets.



DICE has done of a great job at offering points for all types of actions. Kills and flag captures/M-COM plants/disarms are the main focus, of course. But you also get points for assists, suppression assists, saving or avenging allies, spotting enemies (if they get killed), reviving and healing, handing out ammo, disabling and destroying vehicles, following squad leader orders (or giving out followed orders), repairing vehicles, etc. It's entirely possible to top the scoreboards and contribute to your team's victory while getting barely any kills (or even none at all).

As for squad leaders, disappointingly, issuing attack and defend orders is really the only action they can take. In Hardcore mode at least, squadmates can only spawn on squad leaders (or controlled points), but in normal gameplay squad members can spawn on any other squad member. In that case, squad leaders barely have a purpose. I would love for squad leaders to get some additional features, but I'm not sure what those features could be.

Battlefield 3 multiplayer is not without its share of flaws, though. As I mentioned, some of the maps simply don't play well in some modes or player-counts. In Conquest, Damavand Peak and Operation Metro are full of explosives spam, Grand Bazaar's "Alleyway" flag is a meat-grinder, and Seine Crossing is generally decided by whoever secures the bridges early on. Both Damavand and Metro have central flags that are almost always reached by one team before the other. In Rush, there are M-COMs that get blown up one minute after they become active and others that are practically unassailable. 64-player Rush is almost impossible for attackers to win if the defenders are remotely competent.



There are some worrisome balance issues as well. Engineers are simply too effective, and I say this as someone who plays mostly Engineer. Equipped with a carbine and either anti-ground RPGs or anti-air rockets (or a Javelin), Engineers can hold their own in infantry combat but also have the best method of taking out vehicles, short of other vehicles. Add either a repair tool to keep your team's vehicles in action or anti-tank mines to take out enemy vehicles, and the Engineer is even more of a necessity on any vehicle-heavy map. Oh, and those anti-tank mines persist after death, have no known limit (in amount), and with the EXPL specialization you have 6 of them per "life." The EXPL specialization also gives you 10 RPGs; 2-4 can take out an unrepaired tank, and the RPGs are also very effective at taking out infantry or destroying cover.

On the other hand, Assaults have more effective assault rifles, can heal or use a grenade launcher, and can revive teammates. Supports get machine guns for heavy suppressive fire, can hand out ammo, and have access to a mortar, C4, or claymores. Recons have the sniper rifles, and can set down radio beacons for remote spawning, and set down a motion sensor or use a SOFLAM to laser-designate vehicles or use a MAV to spot enemies from the sky.

Those roles all have their uses, but on the vehicle-heavy maps, they're at a disadvantage. Assault players with the M320 grenade launcher can do some damage to vehicles, Supports with C4 can blow up vehicles if they get close enough, and Recons can...laser-designate vehicles and then run away and hide and hope someone destroys the vehicles. With the danger that tanks (and IFVs) pose or the worry that your team might lose the fight for air control, there's almost no reason not to have a majority of your team playing Engineer with a mix of anti-air and anti-ground capabilities.



Personally, as an Engineer player, I can only think of a few solutions. Carbines should be nerfed, probably with a reduction in their effectiveness at range, or RPGs should be nerfed with a reduction in ammo (10 with EXPL is absurd) and/or effectiveness against infantry. Anti-tank mines also need to be limited in some way; almost every flag in large conquest maps is literally surrounded by mines by the end of a round.

In the smaller maps with more close-quarters combat, the class balance is actually much closer to what it should be. Engineers are still useful (RPGs are great for clearing out chokepoints), but Assaults, Supports, and Recons all have more opportunities that suit them and not as many vehicles to worry about. Unfortunately, I don't like these maps very much for other reasons (linearity and chokepoints); I've started leaving servers almost every time Grand Bazaar comes up.

But these gameplay flaws pale in comparison to the worst aspect of Battlefield 3, the user-interface. To be blunt...everyone responsible for the interface should be embarrassed. The interface consistently fails in every aspect of good design. Style was given preference over usability, consistency is lacking, and you can clearly see where some UI elements were tacked on at the last minute. Below is a list of the most glaring issues.

Interface Issues


Minimap
I think the best description of the minimap I've read so far is "orgy of glow worms." It is disturbingly accurate. The background of the map is a mishmash of shades of blue, and friendly players are also blue (though squad members are green). Enemies are orange and about the only thing on the map that is clear. Terrain detail is non-existent, buildings and other objects are featureless blue blobs, and everything is a chaotic mess. You can switch zoom levels, but they aren't saved consistently across lives or maps or vehicles. You can make the map bigger with another hotkey, but this map's zoom is independent of the minimap. This map should never have made it into the full release.


Chat Box
Oh, the chat box. It's pathetic. Every message takes two lines; one entire line is devoted to nothing more than the player's name and the chat channel (All/Team/Squad). The chat box is huge, with a ton of wasted horizontal space that most messages don't reach. The box is just transparent enough to blend into the background but just opaque enough to get in the way (especially since it is of course blue, the same color as team icons and friendly flags...). The chat text itself has the same issues, ranging from clear to impossible to read depending on the background. The chat box quickly disappears when no messages are being sent. There is no way to bring it back up to see previous messages, even if you are typing one yourself.

The box needs numerous fixes. It should be generally smaller and customizable (size, persistence, position, opacity etc.). Bringing the box back up should be possible (even if just by starting to type your own message) and each message should be one line minimum instead of two (messages are already color-coded, we don't need to see "SAY TO: ALL" or "SAY TO: TEAM"). As little space as possible should be wasted. Oh, and whoever designed the original chat box should be fired. I am not joking.

Icons Everywhere!
Like on the minimap, allies are represented by small blue triangles (or doritos) over their heads, or green triangles for squad mates. Spotted enemies have a orange triangle, unspotted enemies have nothing. But your allies' triangles appear at all distances through all objects. This frequently makes your horizon a mess of multi-colored triangles everywhere. It's not uncommon to have an enemy that happens to be standing in a position where the blue triangle of a teammate on the other side of the map is over that enemy's head. You will get shot.

There is really no reason to show the player the locations of teammates that are across the map. You're too far away or your vision is too obstructed to get a good sense of their positioning. Really, this type of information is what the map should be for, but since the map is so poorly designed, someone decided to constantly clutter your field of view with it.



A similar issue occurs when capturing flags. Normally, the flag has an icon that hovers above it showing which team controls it (and your distance to it). But when you get within the capture range, the circular icon suddenly moves to slightly above the center of your screen. Why? There is no reason to put the icon there. The circle can block vision of enemies, which is especially bad when you're trying to capture or defend a flag.

Also, squad leaders can mark objectives to attack or defend. With flags, this is done by "spotting" the icon. But when the icon is in the center of the screen, you cannot do that. Instead of you have to physically spot the flag, which may not be possible depending on your position. This is sloppy design. Anyone who thought even briefly about this would put the icon up on the top of the screen or somewhere else non-intrusive, and implemented a method of issuing orders for a flag up-close.

I should also mention that this capture icon doesn't actually work properly or at least as most players would expect. A Reddit thread does a great job of demonstrating the error, so I won't try to explain it again myself.

Repair Indicator
I think whoever was responsible for the flags worked on the indicator for repairs too. When you are repairing a vehicle, a circle appears and fills up as you repair. The circle is centered on the vehicle, though, not on your crosshairs or above your repair tool. Depending on your position and where you are looking as you repair, the repair indicator may not be visible. More poor design.

Commo Rose
The Commo Rose was an admitted last-minute addition to Battlefield 3, returning from Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. The Rose is meant to be a quick method of shouting out comments or orders to teammates. But in-game, it's nearly useless. The shouts can barely be heard, and are not transcribed to the chat box. "Need Ammo" and "Need Medic" don't exist on the Rose, but you can say GO GO GO! or Sorry or Thank You. Useful...

Of course, the Commo Rose isn't simply missing features, it's also designed extremely poorly. You can barely tell which option is highlighted, the controls for it always feel slow, and selecting a choice requires a mouse-click (or whatever "fire weapon" is bound to). The Commo Rose also occupies the same key as Spot (click to spot, hold down for Commo Rose), which ends up with the Rose being brought up accidentally all the time when spotting rapidly.

Loadouts
The loadout menu requires far too many clicks. Switching weapons/items can be done in one click from the general spawn menu, but once you're inside the loadout customization menu you can only scroll through weapons and items one by one. Selecting weapon attachments is even worse. Choose a weapon. Click another button. Click through attachments one by one until you find the one you want. Click again to confirm. This is silly. This may not be so bad for attachments slots with only 2 or 3 choices, but my G36C has 11 different scopes (plus the choice of "None"). Drop-down or slide-out menus or similar methods exist for a reason; in fact, they're already used elsewhere in the loadout interface.

Battlefield 3 also includes different camoflauge patterns you can select. Again, only a one-by-one clickthrough exists, but your selection is also rarely saved, if ever. Reselecting your choice over and over is tedious and shouldn't be necessary. There are similar issues with weapon loadouts, actually, but they're not as annoying (and also require more complicated solutions).


Killcam
Moments after you are killed, you are forced into a killcam (unless a server has this feature disabled) that tracks your killer around for a few seconds. During this time, inexplicably, you cannot quit (aside from Alt+F4 or similar methods). You cannot skip to the loadout menu to adjust your setup before the respawn timer is up. You cannot open the options menu. You cannot do anything except stare at your killer until the arbitrary time has expired. This is stupid.

I should also mention that in the beta, you could not adjust your options at all unless you were spawned and alive. This was luckily fixed for the release, but I find it ridiculous that anyone at DICE actually had to receive feedback to know that their implementation was flat-out stupid.

Squad Management
Squad management has thankfully improved a lot since the beta. But try to join a squad manually and you may be lost for a moment, because the "Join" button is poorly integrated with the rest of the squad interface. The "Join" button is off on the bottom of the screen by itself and blends into the background at times. The button is smaller than the relatively huge "Find a Squad" and "Switch Team" buttons. I have no idea why the Join button is not directly next to the squads, or near the member list, or below the "Find a Squad" button. Even better, a double-click could let you join the squad, but nope, you have to find and click the Join button.

Quitting
This is a minor but easily fixed issue. It is not entirely clear when it is "safe" to quit at the end of a match (to preserve your stats, progress, awards, etc.). For a start, there is no Exit or Quit button on the end screen. You can press Esc, but this brings up a potentially confusing message that refers to "unsaved content being lost" if you quit. This message appears even after your round progress is saved, thus the confusion. The fix is painfully simple: fix that message or add some sort of "safe to quit" icon or button.

Ping
This will be short. There is no in-game ping shown. This is dumb. That is all.

Back to the game...wait, not yet: VOIP

Hopefully some or all of these interface issues will be addressed in future patches. There is one more major problem with Battlefield 3 I want to touch on, though, that is slightly related to the interface. Battlefield 3 has no in-game VOIP. None. Nothing. At all. The only supported method for voice chat is to create a party of friends in Battlelog, and you can only chat with that party in-game. This will basically never happen spontaneously in a game with strangers, since it would require alt-tabbing out to Battlelog, finding the player, sending a friend request, waiting for them to accept, sending a party request, waiting for them to accept, and then initiating a voice chat in the Comm Center. This is fine if you're planning ahead to play with some friends, but it is a ridiculous process when it is the only one available.

For a game that (supposedly) emphasizes teamwork, having no in-game voice chat is absurd. The consoles have in-game VOIP, by the way. PCs don't. Why? Who knows. Maybe because the primary development platform switched to consoles mid-way through development and EA was not going to allow Battlefield 3 to be released after Modern Warfare 3. In the meantime, some servers are using TeamSpeak or Mumble and solutions such as TeamSync. But Battlefield 3 desperately needs its own well-integrated squad-level VOIP.

Back to the game!

Again, I just to restate that despite the flaws I have talked about, I still greatly enjoy multiplayer Battlefield 3. With Back to Karkand on the horizon and hopefully some patches incoming, I have high hopes for the game. If there is good post-release support from DICE and EA, I will probably be playing Battlefield 3 for a long time (uhh...between hours of Skyrim).

Co-op: I don't know yet.

I haven't played through the co-op missions yet. I've heard mixed things about them, including the fact that there is no chat. The chat box may be terrible, but there has to be some way to communicate in a cooperative game mode. You can unlock some weapons for multiplayer by playing co-op missions, so I'll get to them eventually. I'll make a new post at that time (and update this section too).

Oh, About Battlelog...

Battlelog, the browser-based server browser and stat-tracker, was the source of a lot of worry before the release, including from me. Now that I've had the chance to use it, I can say that most of the worries are unfounded. Battlelog, like Battlefield 3, still needs work, but after some issues at launch, it is actually working well now (for me, at least). Launching into the game is extremely and surprisingly fast, and so is switching back and forth between the game and Battlelog/your browser.

The server browser works relatively well and has useful filters (still needs more, though!), although DICE really needs to figure out how to make a functioning server queue. The queue feature has been introduced and then disabled for causing problems at least twice already. The Quick Match function is useless and broken (I've been "quick matched" to a passworded server, to a full server, and even to...the campaign), so try to avoid that.



Using a browser to launch a game, and leaving the browser up while you play, is a bit disconcerting at first, but I think I'm already used to it. I do think that Battlelog should be accessible directly from within the game as well as from a browser, but for now I'm okay with using the browser.

Battlelog's stat tracking feature is impressively robust, tracking pretty much everything down to individual weapon stats and progress and offering full "Battle Reports" for each match. The leaderboards are of course full of cheaters and boosters already, but you can compare yourself to friends instead. I know I'm going to be stuck trying to acquire every ribbon and every medal and every dogtag, just to get rid of the grayed-out icons in my profile. When I start working on the jets and helicopters, watch out! For jets and helicopters crashing.

On the other hand, Battlelog's Facebook-wannabe features are a sad joke that don't need to exist. I don't want to write status updates or "Hooah!" events or messages.

...and About Origin.

Battlefield 3 must be launched from Origin. Origin then launches Battlelog (or you can go to Battlelog first and that will launch Origin) and after that Origin basically sits around doing absolutely nothing. This is good, because Origin is useless, and bad, because Origin shouldn't be useless. Even DICE apparently knows Origin is useless; everything is done through Battlelog.

By the way, I run Battlefield 3 with Steam for the Steam overlay, mostly for chat. To do this, add Origin.exe to Steam (and rename if wanted). Launch Steam, launch Origin, launch Battlelog, launch Battlefield 3. This is getting silly, but that way I have access to the Steam overlay (and the Origin overlay but no one cares).

As usual, all three games work on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and are of course DRM-free. Binding of Isaac and Blocks That Matter are both redeemable on Steam. Voxatron may eventually be redeemable on Steam, but there are no promises on that. Payments can as always be divided between the three game developers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Child's Play, and the Humble Bundle itself.

With a little under 11 days left, this Bundle has already been purchased over 120,000 times for over $587,000. Notch currently leads the pack with a contribution of $2000. Head on over to the Humble Bundle page and buy a bundle to support indie game developers and two great charities.

The Indie Royale bundles are a sort of "pay-what-you-want," but there is a minimum price. The catch is that the minimum price increases as more bundles are sold. But, paying above the minimum will lower the minimum price for others. The choice is intriguing and I'm not sure how well it's going to work. Early purchases are clearly encouraged if you want a low price, but what about latecomers who also want a low price? 

The minimum-lowering mechanic is even more interesting. I don't know how much altruism high-spenders will have when there is no charitable component involved. Supporting indie developers is great, of course, but will that be enough to encourage a lot of high-above-the-minimum purchases? Luckily, it won't take long to get some idea of how the system is working. Indie Royale promises to launch new bundles every two weeks; the next three bundles are already teased on the site. 

The first bundle, the Launch Bundle, is definitely worth a purchase. For a few dollars (started at $2 minimum but is now around $4 minimum), you'll get A.R.E.S. Extinction Agenda, Gemini Rue, Sanctum, and Nimbus. All four games are Windows-only at the moment, but Steam and Desura keys are available. At the moment, Gemini Rue does not have a Steam key (but will after the bundle's conclusion) and Sanctum does not have a Desura key. Additionally, every 10,000 purchases, one piece of Sanctum DLC will be added to all bundles.

With 4.5 days left, 18,000 Launch Bundles have been purchased. I managed to purchase my bundle way back around #25, thanks to Twitter and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. As for the games, Sanctum is the only one I previously owned. Sanctum is a bit lacking in content, but enjoyable...in co-op; the single player can get very dull. I've also not been a fan of Sanctum's DLC structure/pricing/strategy, but it will be nice to get some of that DLC through Indie Royale.

The gifts will be sent through Steam, and you can only win once, but there don't seem to be any region restrictions. Read the full post announcing the contest on the newly-launched SkyrimNexus.

What was your inspiration for creating Brisa Almodovar?

All the other companion mods on the Nexus inspired me. I'd start naming them, but I wouldn't want to miss anybody! I played with them for quite awhile before I started tinkering with the Geck. Companions pretty much ARE the game for me. The one thing that really prompted me to do something on my own was that the combat AI of vanilla NPCs is just out of control, and I aimed to 'fix' that somewhat. After Brisa was released, the main inspiration has been through users providing feedback and ideas. I'd like to thank Paxton2 and RJ the Shadow just to name a couple, among many others. And recently, some users have been making compatibility plugins for other mods - ilanaisatree, iFSS, and red6. All this keeps me inspired to keep working on Brisa.

What would you like to see in the next Fallout game?

I would like to see the same policy by Bethesda - freedom to mod it. No doubt they will use the same engine as for Skyrim, and hopefully it works better with modern operating systems.

Note: This post contains only minor spoilers. The screenshot album linked at the end includes major spoilers, however. You should be safe reading this post if you have not played the game, but going too far through the album will reveal spoilers.

Space Marine gets everything that matters in its genre right. The gameplay is simply great. The mixture of ranged and melee combat is fluid, every shot and every impact feels appropriately strong, and the movements of the bulky marines have a good weight to them. The controls are simple, and work well on the PC: left-click for guns, right-click for melee, and a few keys for other actions.

There is no cover system, no jumping (except when wearing a jump-pack), and no health regeneration. Low on health? Charge in battle, and stun then execute an enemy to heal yourself. Don't be fooled by the guns; Space Marine is more a third-person melee combat game than a third-person shooter.



Most importantly, though, Space Marine's combat is just fun. How could charging into a horde of Orks, firing weapons the whole way, and using melee weaponry to slash and smash everything within range be anything other than fun? Add in grenades, executions, Fury mode (activate for increased damage, health regeneration, even the option to "slow time"), and the occasional jump-pack segment and Space Marine  gets even better.

Sure, there are only a handful of ranged weapons and even fewer melee weapons, and only a handful of different enemies to use them on. The game never really becomes too challenging, the combat is rarely changed up, and the campaign can be finished in about 6-7 hours. Add an hour, maybe if you hunt down every optional "hidden" audio log. But I had fun through the entire game; I was never bored, never frustrated. When I did reach the end, it was exactly when I expected. The ending felt neither abrupt nor dragged out.

Even though Space Marine has a lot of repetitiveness (combat, move forward, combat, etc.), there are some great moments throughout. The first time I used a mounted gun and discovered I could literally tear it off the mount to use as a hand-held weapon reminded me that I was a Space Marine, not some weak generic soldier. The unfortunately short-lived and rare jump-pack sections were probably the most fun I had in the game, flying up into the air only to crash down into groups of unsuspecting Orks.



There is a great little segment that has you manning an aircraft's turret, shooting down Ork planes and...Orks with rockets strapped to their backs. At times you even have to clear those rocket-Orks off of other friendly aircraft and your own. Just when the game risks becoming stale, a late "twist" (you'll probably see it coming if you know anything about the Warhammer universe) changes things for the whole endgame.

The final "boss battle" was extremely disappointing, though. It really wasn't even a boss battle; it was a quick-time event. In a game full of satisfying combat, I have no idea who thought it was a good idea to create a final boss where you don't get to participate in any of that satisfying combat. There is another boss earlier in Space Marine that worked fine, with an interesting battle that went beyond just "big enemy with more health". Bosses aren't entirely necessary all the time, but if you're going to include them, make sure they aren't terrible (leave that to Deus Ex: Human Revolution and GRIP Entertainment).



While Space Marine's gameplay should get most of the attention, I also want to point out the game looks great. It's no Crysis or anything like that, but the designers and artists seem to have done everything right within the Phoenix Engine. The mostly destroyed environments look impressive, and some of the levels have some enormous scale to them (even though you're restricted to smaller portions).

The Space Marines, Imperial Guardsmen, Orks, and other enemies are all well-animated and well-designed, but there are some flaws in other areas. Executions almost always work, but do not always display correctly. It's not uncommon to watch your character executing an Ork who is clipping into a wall or floating over a ledge or impossible to see.

As for the story, it is...passable. The plot is generic and predictable, but for a game like this the story really doesn't need to be anything special. The story proceeds at a good pace to string you along from location to location, and that's what matters. The characters are barely developed and probably not memorable in the long run, but within the game they fill their roles well. The dialog is similarly straight-forward and can be "dumb" at times (one Space Marine asks, seriously, why Orks would kill people), but the voice-acting is rather good.



The game ends with a rather clear lead-in to a possible sequel (or DLC, or expansion). Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other if the story is further developed, but the gameplay is certainly worth revisiting.

Space Marine also includes multiplayer, but I haven't gotten into that yet. I've heard some mixed opinions about the MP, so if you're interested in that aspect seek out other articles. I'm not sure I will, but I will definitely be trying out the upcoming free Exterminatus DLC which adds a new 4-player co-op mode.

I have uploaded 431 Space Marine screenshots I took during my playthrough. These screenshots include major spoilers, so avoid viewing the album if you do not want to have things spoiled.