Why the Philae lander came at just the right time – a social perspective from a science enthusiast

By now, it has been more than a week since the Philae lander was released from the Rosetta space probe and began its journey onto the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The landing didn’t go without trouble, starting with the reported failure of the gas thruster meant to help keep it on the surface before the lander was even released and ending with Philae bouncing twice on the surface of the comet and ending up in the shadow of a cliff, greatly reducing the amount of solar exposure available to the lander. Nevertheless, the mission could be regarded as having succeeded in some respect already, even if conditions do not improve with regard to the sunlight falling on Philae; after all, it did retrieve some potentially useful results from its experimental apparatus before running out of battery power.

Frankly, though, as impressive as the science and engineering of Philae is, a lot of words have been spoken about that aspect long before this post by people far more experienced and talented in those fields than I am. What I want to talk about are some social implications of the fortuitous timing of Philae’s success. The timing of Philae’s mission came in the wake of two unfortunate accidents in the United States by privately-funded aerospace ventures: one the controlled explosion of a failed launch of an Antares rocket developed by Orbital Sciences and designated to send supplies to the International Space Station; the other being the recent crash of the SpaceShipTwo spacecraft, VSS Enterprise, in the Mojave Desert during testing, an accident which led to the death of one of the pilots. At a time when funding for space exploration is hard to come by, these accidents looked embarrassing at best. Rosetta and Philae were launched on their course ten years ago, but arrived in time to at least salvage one reasonable success for space exploration at a time when some people have been quick to criticise it, especially those always willing to fight for petty political victories in matters that mean little.

In that vein, another social implication of Rosetta and Philae comes courtesy of their existence as components of a mission of the European Space Agency. The ESA, funded partially by funds forthcoming from each participating government and partially by the European Union, is a demonstration of the effectiveness of European cooperation at a time when several Eurosceptic groups seek to convince us that such cooperation will lead us nowhere. At a time when these groups have motivations that are at best questionable, like Ukip, while others look like straight-up crypto-fascists, like France’s Front National, I think any sort of success that can show them that Europe can work better if there is sufficient motivation to get things done is useful and desirable. That this happened because a set of scientists and engineers from different countries ignored the call of jingoism and pointless ring-fencing further reinforces my point about these people being willing to fight only in the sake of petty politics when more important things lie at stake. The Rosetta mission – and the ESA in general – shows us the potential and power of cooperation and should be taken as a good example of what the likes of Ukip and FN would take away from us if they were to take power in their respective countries.

Historical Operating Systems: Xerox GlobalView

Author’s Note: The demonstrations in this article are based on Xerox GlobalView 2.1, the final release of the operating system and used a software collection available from among the links here: http://toastytech.com/guis/indexlinks.html

Xerox is not a name which one would usually associate with computing, being far more well-known for their photocopying enterprise. For this reason, it is somewhat bizarre to look at the history of Xerox and realise that through their PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), Xerox were one of the most revolutionary computer designers of all time. Their first design, the Alto minicomputer, was released in 1973 and introduced a functioning GUI, complete with WYSIWYG word processing and graphical features more than ten years before the first developments by any other company. Indeed, the Alto represented the concept of the personal computer several years before even the Apple II, Atari 8-bit family and the Radio Shack TRS-80 arrived in that sector and at a time when most computers still had switches and blinkenlights on their front panels.

The Alto was never sold as a commercial product, instead being distributed throughout Xerox itself and to various universities and research facilities. Xerox released their first commercial product, the Xerox 8010 workstation (later known as the Star) in 1981, but by that stage, they had presented their product to many other people, including Apple’s Steve Jobs and Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Microsoft and Apple would soon release their own GUI operating systems, based heavily on the work of Xerox PARC’s research and ultimately would compete to dominate the market for personal computer operating systems while Xerox’s work remained a footnote in their success.

The Xerox Star was relatively unsuccessful, selling in the tens of thousands. Part of the reason for the lack of success for the Xerox Star, despite its technical advantages, was the fact that a single Star workstation cost approximately $16,000 in 1981, $6,000 more than the similarly unsuccessful Apple Lisa and more than $10,000 more than the Macintosh 128k when that was released in 1984. Consequently, the people who could have made most immediate use of a GUI operating system, including graphic designers, typically couldn’t afford it, while those that could afford it were more likely in the market for computers more suited to data processing, like VAX minicomputers or IBM System/3 midrange computers.

Nevertheless, Xerox continued to market the Star throughout the early 1980s. In 1985, the expensive 8010 workstation was replaced with the less expensive and more powerful 6085 PCS on a different hardware platform. The operating system and application software was rewritten as well for better performance, being renamed to ViewPoint. By this stage, though, the Apple Macintosh was severely undercutting even its own stablemate, the Lisa, let alone Xerox’s competing offering. Meanwhile, GUI operating environments were beginning to pop up elsewhere, with the influential Visi On office suite already on IBM-compatible PCs and Microsoft Windows due to arrive at the end of the year, not to mention the release of the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST.

Eventually, Xerox stopped producing specialised hardware for their software and rewrote it for IBM PC-compatible computers – along with Sun Microsystem’s Solaris – in a form called GlobalView. Since the Xerox Star and ViewPoint software was written in a language called Mesa – later an influence on Java and Niklaus Wirth’s Modula-2 language – GlobalView originally required an add-on card to facilitate the Mesa environment, but in its final release ran as a layer on top of Windows 3.1, 95 or 98 via an emulator.

As a consequence of running in this emulated environment, Xerox GlobalView 2.1 is not a fast operating system. It takes several minutes to boot on the VirtualBox installation of Windows 3.1 which I used for the process, most of which seems to be I/O-dependent, since the host operating system runs about as fast as Windows 3.1 actually can on any computer. The booting process is also rather sparse and cryptic, with the cursor temporarily replaced with a set of four digits, the meaning of which is only elucidated on within difficult-to-find literature on GlobalView’s predecessors.

Once the booting process is complete, one of the first things that you may notice is that the login screen doesn’t hide the fact that Xerox fully intended this system to be networked among several computers. This was a design decision that persisted from the original Star all the way back in 1981 and even further back with the Alto. Since I don’t have a network to use the system with, I simply entered an appropriate username and password and continued on, whereby the system booted up like any other single-user GUI operating system.

Looking at screenshots of the Xerox Star and comparing it with the other early GUI systems that I have used, I can imagine how amazing something like the Xerox Star looked in 1981 when it was released. It makes the Apple Lisa look vaguely dismal in comparison, competes very well with the Apple Macintosh in elegance and blows the likes of Visi On and Microsoft Windows 1.0 out of the water. Xerox GlobalView retains that same look, but by 1996, the lustre had faded and GlobalView looks rather dated and archaic in comparison to Apple’s System 7 or Windows 95. Nevertheless, GlobalView still has a well-designed and consistent GUI.

globalview1

Astounding in 1981, but definitely old-fashioned by 1996.

GlobalView’s method of creating files is substantially different to that used by modern operating systems and bizarrely resembles the method used by the Apple Lisa. Instead of opening an application, creating a file and saving it, there is a directory containing a set of “Basic Icons”, which comprise blank documents for the various types of documents available, including word processor documents, paint “canvases” and new folders. This is similar to the “stationery paper” model used by the Lisa Office System, although GlobalView doesn’t extend the office metaphor that far.

Creating a new document involves chording (pressing both left and right mouse buttons at the same time) a blank icon in the Basic Icons folder, selecting the Copy option and clicking the left mouse button over the place where you wish to place the icon. Once the icon has been placed, the new document can be opened in much the same way that it may be opened on any newer PC operating system. By default, documents are set to display mode and you need to actually click a button to allow them to be edited.

GlobalView can be installed as an environment by itself, but is far more useful when you install the series of office applications that come with it. As with any good office suite, there is a word processor and a spreadsheet application, although since the Xerox Star pre-dated the concept of computerised presentations, there is no equivalent to Microsoft’s PowerPoint included. There is also a raster paint program, a database application and an email system, among others.

It’s difficult to talk about GlobalView without considering its historical line of descent and it’s clear that while the Xerox Star presented a variety of remarkable advances in GUI design, by 1996, GlobalView was being developed to placate the few remaining organisations who had staked their IT solutions on Xerox’s offerings in the past. The applications no longer had any sort of advances over the competition. In many cases, they feel clunky – the heavy requirement on the keyboard in the word processor is one example, made more unfriendly to the uninitiated by not following the standard controls that had arisen in IBM PC-compatibles and Macintoshes. Still, considering the historical context once again, these decisions feel idiosyncratic rather than clearly wrong.

globalview2

The paint program isn’t too bad, though.

Using GlobalView makes me wonder what might have become of personal computing if Xerox had marketed their products better – if in fact they could have marketed them better. Of course, even by the standards of the operating systems that were around by the last version of GlobalView, the interface and applications had dated, but that interface had once represented the zenith of graphical user interface design. Like the Apple Lisa, the Xerox Star and its successors represent a dead-end in GUI design and one that might have led to some very interesting things if pursued further.

Half-Life 2 – A Retrospective Review

“Rise and shine, Mister Freeman, rise and… shine. Not that I wish… to imply that you have been sleeping on… the job. No one is more deserving of a rest, and all the effort in the world would have gone to waste until… well… let’s just say your hour has come again. The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mister Freeman…wake up and… smell the ashes.” – The G-Man, during the introduction to Half-Life 2.

When Valve Software released Half-Life in 1998, they came straight out of the gate with a game that is now regarded as one of the best and most important computer games ever released. Half-Life not only brought a stronger sense of storytelling and atmosphere into the mainstream of first-person shooters, but also served as the launch point for a huge variety of mods, including Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat and Team Fortress Classic. With this pedigree, Half-Life 2 became one of the most hyped titles of the early 2000s – and managed to live up to the hype. Half-Life 2 revolutionised computer game physics, represented the best in a generation of increasingly realistic graphics and used some of the most intelligent AI code seen to that point.

Half-Life 2 continues the adventures of Gordon Freeman, the protagonist of the original Half-Life. At the time of the original game, Gordon Freeman was a theoretical physicist, recently awarded his doctorate and working at the Black Mesa Research Facility, a military installation controlled by the United States government. Against the odds, Gordon Freeman managed to survive the alien invasion of the facility after an experimental disaster and was employed by the enigmatic G-Man, being kept in suspended animation until his services were required again.

Twenty years later, at the beginning of Half-Life 2, Gordon Freeman is brought out of his suspended animation, ending up on a train entering City 17, a mega-city located tentatively in Eastern Europe. The game wastes no time in presenting the consequences of the invasion at Black Mesa, as Gordon Freeman returns to a world where the people of Earth have been enslaved, under the administration of Doctor Breen, former administrator of Black Mesa and Quisling to the invading forces of the interstellar empire of the Combine. Floating camera drones buzz around, constantly observing and photographing the citizens of Earth; armed, uniformed and masked guards of Civil Protection stand as sentinels around the city, with no hesitation at beating and humiliating citizens for any hint of defiance.

The Vortigaunts who had proved so hostile against Gordon Freeman in the original game have been reduced to an even lower status than the humans, abjectly left to janitorial roles under the supervision of the brutish Civil Protection, while huge war machines resembling the tripods from The War of the Worlds march through the streets of City 17. Unarmed and given little indication of where to go, Gordon soon meets with Barney Calhoun, a security guard from Black Mesa and friend of Gordon who has been working undercover as a Civil Protection guard.

Directed towards the hidden lab of Dr. Isaac Kleiner, another old friend of Gordon who had worked with him at the time of the Black Mesa incident, Gordon goes towards the laboratory and before long is being chased through the streets of City 17 by Civil Protection guards and APCs. With the assistance of Alyx Vance, the daughter of another former scientist at Black Mesa, Gordon reaches Dr. Kleiner’s lab, where the revelation is made that the surviving scientists from Black Mesa have covertly been doing their own research into teleportation.

With the return of Gordon Freeman, who through his improbable survival of the events of Black Mesa, stopping the initial alien invasion, has inadvertently become a prophetic figure and a standard to rally behind, the seeds are sown for rebellion and insurrection. However, the teleportation technology of the resistance is untested. A failure of one of the components during an initial teleportation run ends up alerting the Combine to Gordon’s presence and leaves Gordon in a situation where he must run and fight for his life – and eventually for the lives of humanity.

The game presents this narrative to the player through a strong and distinctive cinematic technique where the camera perspective never leaves the sight of Gordon Freeman. Half-Life 2 uses the visual medium superbly, with a distinctive architectural arrangement which evokes the crumbling concrete apartment blocks of the Soviet era in Eastern Europe. This contrasts with the futuristic, industrial, metallic aesthetic of the buildings of the Combine, especially the colossal Citadel at the centre of the city, reaching far into the clouds and dominating the skyline. Gigantic screens dot the city, presenting propaganda broadcasts from Doctor Breen and the Combine. The citizens of Earth have been outfitted with the same overall-style clothing, which both invokes a sense of the citizens being unskilled workers and prisoners on their own planet.

Importantly, the game doesn’t become overbearing with these details, presenting just enough of them at a time to create a realistic impression of the world after the Black Mesa incident and the Combine invasion. Indeed, Valve’s attention to detail seems to be extremely professional, with a polish which shows the artistry that went into the game.

The gameplay demonstrates similar polish. At its core, it continues the same sort of linear first-person shooter action of its predecessor, but brings a set of important improvements which help update the game and make it feel more immersive and visceral. Chief among these was the introduction of realistic physics through the use of the Havok middleware package. The use of realistic physics not only helps immersion through relatively realistic interactions of objects, such as the scattering of objects with explosions or the ragdoll physics of dead enemies, but also plays a big part in the game itself.

One of the biggest and most touted features in Half-Life 2 was the Zero Point Energy Manipulator (also known as the Gravity Gun), a device allowing the player to pick up, move and violently hurl objects around them. This comes in handy at several points in the game, where it can be used to move obstacles out of one’s path, use other objects to shield one’s self or build impromptu stacks of objects to climb to out-of-the-way places or use the objects as weapons by hurling them into enemies. It does seem appropriate that a game named after a physics concept, with a physicist as a main character, was one of the first to use realistic physics in such a way.

However, there are a few instances where the game turns into a showcase for the physics engine and the Gravity Gun. There are a few instances where you must manipulate certain objects in a certain way to proceed and the game seems to go almost as far as to shout out, “This is a physics puzzle!”, which doesn’t help with immersion. Luckily, such occasions are few and far between. By and large, the physics manipulations are integrated very well into the game and really help with making the game feel more of an authentic experience.

Another place in which Half-Life 2 feels distinctive is in the vehicular sections. At certain parts of the game, you are required to use various vehicles in order to progress – an airboat used for getting through the canals of City 17 and a stripped-out scout buggy for roaming the countryside outside of the city itself. While vehicular sections in first-person shooters weren’t new by that stage, most contemporary games rendered their vehicle sections in either third-person, in imitation of Halo, or in a modified first-person perspective, such as through gun sights. Half-Life 2, on the other hand, steadfastly sticks to its “eyes of Gordon Freeman” first-person perspective throughout.

The vehicular sections in Half-Life 2 are a bit of a love-or-hate beast, since they are quite a divergence from the core gameplay, but I personally love them. They present a sense of speed and exhilaration as you make your way through obstacles, enemies and the scenery around you. There are plenty of stunning set-pieces, such as being chased through the canals and tunnels by an attack helicopter, culminating in a duel to the death near a large dam. There are opportunities to experience the potential of the vehicles as weapons in their own right as you use them to plough through the infantry forces of the Combine. Between that and the use of realistic physics with the vehicle handling, I think that these sections represent some of the best vehicular action in any first-person shooter.

Speaking of set-piece battles, there are some spectacular ones outside of the vehicle sections as well. Alien gunships periodically attack, forcing the player to shoot them down with rockets, steering the rockets past the defences of the gunship as it seeks to shoot down the player’s rockets in mid-flight. Even the standard infantry of the Combine can offer some impressive battles, with AI that was at that point very impressive, even if you don’t get to see their full potential in the tight corridors of the city.

Half-Life 2 was a graphical masterpiece when it was released, even managing to look distinctly better than its best contemporaries. Surprisingly, the game still looks good ten years after its first release, especially with the addition of HDR lighting in conjunction with the release of Half-Life 2: Episode One. While later games have improved on texturing, especially at close ranges, Half-Life 2 certainly does not look embarrassing, especially given that its architectural aesthetic was so distinctive.

The sound design of the game is similarly impressive. There are realistic sounds for all interactions with the environment, including the meaty sounds of the guns in the game. The sounds of the enemies are all distinctive and impressive, from the muffled radio reports of the Combine soldiers to the screeches of the headcrabs and the groaning of the zombies. The game’s music is a peculiar mix of various genres, from rock to techno to ambient, but it is set up very well to create atmosphere and is a credit to Kelly Bailey, long-time composer for the series.

Given the polish of Half-Life 2 and the way it shines out in gameplay and presentation, there are few flaws which I can point at in the game. Some of the physics puzzles are a bit blatant, while there is a short period after you are forced to abandon the scout buggy where I feel the game slows down a lot in a jarring change from fast-paced action and set-piece battles. The section of the game takes place on the coast line outside of City 17, where alien creatures known as antlions burrow out of the ground whenever you touch the sand on the beach. Cue frustration as you try to either fend off enemies as they persistently attack you or try desperately to stack objects in front of you in what feels like an extended game of “keep off the lava”. The addition of an achievement for getting through this section without touching the sand adds to the frustration; I have the achievement, more out of sheer bloody-minded completionism more than anything else, but I won’t be going for it again any time soon.

Despite those occasional flaws, Half-Life 2 is a triumph of first-person shooter design. The polished professionalism shines out as an example of how to do a cinematic game without bogging down the action with overly long cutscenes. The gameplay is tight and intuitive, while the game physics and the strong AI work well to improve immersion. Half-Life 2 is a masterpiece of modern game design and should stand as an example for any developers hoping to develop in the genre.

Bottom Line: Half-Life 2 is a masterpiece, combining excellently polished gameplay and design with graphics and sound that are still impressive. The cinematic presentation works exceptionally well and creates immersion in a way that should be an example to other developers even now.

Why I hope that SteamOS will be successful

I’m a Linux user. Linux has, for several years, been my primary operating system on nearly every computer that I own – I have run openSUSE on my desktops since before it was called openSUSE, I run various versions of Ubuntu on my laptops, Raspbian on my two Raspberry Pis and I even have Debian derivatives running on my Wii and PlayStation 2.

I am also a PC gamer, something which really shouldn’t come as a surprise given my history of video game reviews. I have been playing PC games since the mid-1990s, starting with various MS-DOS games such as SimEarth and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, proceeding to Windows 95 with Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, Sid Meier’s Civilization II and SimCity 2000 and continuing to the present day with my most recent acquisitions including The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, the entire Tropico series and most recently, Arma 3.

Unfortunately for me, these two facts do not reconcile very well. While gaming of some variety has been possible on Linux since before I started, many of the games available have been open-source projects, ranging from casual puzzle or card games up to the likes of NetHack and Battle for Wesnoth. Most commercial video games on Linux have been from indie developers whose audiences are committed enough to their titles to deal with any hiccups they might experience when dealing with Linux, while a few older FPS titles come courtesy either of id Software’s policy of releasing their engines under open-source licences a few years after their release or by extensive reverse-engineering of the game engines to allow the games to run under Linux.

A lot of the games in question are very impressive in terms of gameplay and are to be lauded for that, but being a Linux user has often meant some sort of compromise in gaming terms. In order to experience the same games as the mainstream audience, one either has to run Windows as a secondary operating system, with the commensurate use of disc space on a separate partition, faff around with Windows emulation, which falls short on the most recent games and on several older titles or simply buy a console at significant expense. I have traditionally opted for the former but consider it to be somewhat irritating in the face of disadvantages of Windows that led me towards using Linux primarily in the first place.

Until recently, the highest-profile company whose games were available under Linux were id Software, largely because of John Carmack’s insistence on the open-source availability of their engines. That has changed of the last year or so, when Valve Software announced the release of SteamOS, a custom distribution of Linux designed for playing games. Valve Software have been one of the poster children for PC gaming for several years. After coming straight off the starting blocks with Half-Life in 1998, they have barely put a foot wrong since then. The highlight of this streak of strong titles has been the groundbreaking Half-Life 2 in 2004, a game which proved that Valve’s original title wasn’t just a flash in the pan.

What’s important to note here, though, is that Valve have also been a strong force for promoting independent game design. Steam, released in late 2003, has been the most notable example of a content delivery system done right. Among Steam’s features are the automated installation of patches, several community features allowing coordination of gameplay with friends and publication of screenshots and videos and a cloud storage system allowing save files and achievement progress to be distributed quickly to several different systems.

Valve are also known for their strong commercial and distribution advantages. The Steam store frequently has sales on various game titles, occasionally offering extensive discounts on games – my purchase of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for €3.74 in June this year has been a particular highlight for me. They also promote independent game studios and offer a strong alternative to traditional publishers. Recent additions to Steam include the Steam Workshop and Greenlight, the former a way of quickly distributing user-created content, thus promoting one of the biggest advantages of PC gaming and the latter being a way for independent game developers to promote titles they may want to be made available on Steam. A number of “Early Access” titles in alpha or beta form are available through the Steam store as some forms of PC game development proceed towards a more audience-oriented method of bug-testing.

Valve have already done a great deal of work in promoting Linux as a gaming platform, having ported all of their own titles to Linux and selling or distributing hundreds more through the Steam store. Valve may well be the vanguard for making Linux gaming a viable alternative to Windows and offer the strong selection of their own titles along with the notable advantages of Steam as a game distribution platform. The proof in the pudding, however, will be when more mainstream developers see fit to release Linux titles as a consequence of Valve’s own orientation towards the platform.

As for the statement posited in the title, I prefer Linux as an operating system environment. I prefer the way that, even with a hefty desktop environment like KDE, my computer will feel quicker and less prone to hiccups in utility software when running Linux versus Windows. I prefer the flexibility to change parts of Linux as one sees fit, running different desktop environments or window managers as desired. I prefer the free and open-source nature of Linux and while Steam won’t offer much in the way of software that is “free as in freedom”, most of my utility software will remain free for me to modify as necessary – or even as desired. I’ve also grown used to the idiosyncracies of a Unix-like environment, from the file system to the command line – I can use Windows perfectly fine, along with a host of other graphical user interfaces, but my growing experience with Unix-like systems gives me a sense of familiarity that I find more pleasing.

PC gaming has, by and large, required me to use Windows. I find Windows works perfectly fine when I run games on it – they run smoothly right up to the point where the graphics card or processor cries uncle. I don’t find that sort of smoothness with utility software. Mozilla Firefox hiccups and splutters, frequently lacking response. Windows Explorer isn’t much better and in any case lacks some neat features from Konqueror on KDE or even Thunar for XFCE, including tabbed browsing. These sorts of hiccups may be down to the fact that my installation of Windows 7 really needs reinstallation, but there are too many idiosyncratic solutions I’ve had to make to get modded games running for me to do that. Then there’s the fact that I have to pretty much install a Unix-like environment through Cygwin if I want to have a programming environment like I’m used to. None of this software has regular updates through a package manager like I’ve become accustomed to on Linux either.

As a consequence, having to switch between the two operating systems between playing games and running utility and programming software is awkward and in any case, running Windows feels like a chore. I’ve said in the past elsewhere and I’ll say it again: Find me a way to get my game library running on Linux without much more effort than it takes to run the games on Windows and it will be difficult to find a reason for me to use anything else.

To close this article, I’ve recently reinstalled Steam on Linux with the aim of experimenting on how well games actually work. Installing Steam wasn’t too difficult – I just had to find a separate package for openSUSE as the package on the Steam website is designed for Ubuntu, Debian and other Debian derivatives with an APT package manager. I tested the original Half-Life, which ran pretty much perfectly – not a surprise, as I already knew that Quake III worked properly. I then installed Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, the smallest Source engine game in my collection.

After a bit of searching on Google to find the workaround to a problem involving a certain proprietary bit of software known as S3TC – one of those patent-related exploits which is unpatentable under the superior European patent system – I was able to get the game running. While I shouldn’t have been surprised, given the age of the Source engine, I had almost top settings straight off the bat with reasonably smooth performance using open-source ATI drivers. This was a pleasant surprise as I had expected stuttering, even given that my Radeon HD 4890 is easily capable of running Half-Life 2. Valve have clearly put effort into making sure that their Linux ports work, which is good to see. If Valve can succeed with Linux and convince other mainstream game companies to follow in their wake, we could see a viable alternative to Windows in yet another way.

Grand Theft Auto III – A Retrospective Review

(This review is based on the PlayStation 2 version; I have played, but not completed the PC version and my experiences are sufficiently out-of-date to be irrelevant to this review.)

By the time that the Sony PlayStation 2 replaced the original PlayStation, Sony had made what was then the best-selling console of all time. The PlayStation 2 would sell even more units, a large part of its success being attributable to the Grand Theft Auto series, several of which are still among the best-selling games ever made. Before the release of Grand Theft Auto III, the Grand Theft Auto series had comprised a set of top-down action-adventure games set in a sandbox; Grand Theft Auto III shifted the game to a 3D perspective and gave the game a proper, focused story to go with the sandbox action.

Grand Theft Auto III is a third-person sandbox action-adventure game, first released in 2001 and developed by DMA Design Limited, a Scottish developer now named Rockstar North. At the start of the game, the protagonist – unnamed in the game itself, but later named Claude in the series spinoff, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – is involved in a bank robbery in the vicinity of Liberty City, which is based on New York City, with his girlfriend and another associate. As the protagonist is escaping, he turns a corner to see his girlfriend, Catalina, pointing a pair of pistols at him. Catalina shoots the protagonist and leaves him for dead while escaping with the proceeds of the robbery; the protagonist survives, but is sentenced to ten years in prison for his part in the robbery.

While the protagonist is being transported across Liberty City, a gang of members of the Colombian Cartel ambushes the police convoy. While the Cartel is taking another prisoner hostage, an Oriental gentleman unrelated to the robbery, the protagonist takes the opportunity to free himself and flee from custody along with another prisoner, an explosives specialist called 8-Ball. Having found a hideout in Liberty City’s Red Light District, the protagonist starts taking jobs for associates of the city’s Mafia, eventually branching out to other employers and other parts of the city as the game goes on. This ultimately culminates in a plot to get revenge against Catalina, who has involved herself in a scheme to spread a new drug around Liberty City.

The main story of the game involves the conflict between Catalina and the protagonist, along with the Colombian Cartel’s attempts to spread the drug, SPANK, around Liberty City and is told through a chain of missions for various employers throughout the city. The early game limits you to a single island of the city, with the other two islands being unlocked as the story progresses. Along with the story employers, there are a number of other employers who will hire you for other missions, including leaders of some of the various gangs in the city.

The game, as the title suggests, revolves a lot around cars and other motor vehicles. The player character can also explore the city on foot as well as collect a set of weapons ranging from pistols and sub-machine guns to rocket launchers and sniper rifles. However, since the game focuses to a large extent on the automotive action, there aren’t as many places where you need to use those weapons as their availability would imply; some of the story missions require you to use certain weapons, but outside of that, a lot of the weapons are superseded by the ease of using cars for the same tasks, since you experience no physical damage while you’re inside an intact car.

While you start with a reasonably good car, the car handling in the game is not especially accurate, making it easy to hit other objects and damage the car to the point where it will catch on fire and explode – and immolate the player character if he hasn’t managed to get out in time. With cars also exploding if they are turned on their roof or if they come in contact with gunfire, explosions or a sufficient level of fire from incendiary weapons, many players will have consequence to change cars regularly.

The main way to acquire cars is to hijack them, either from the side of the road or from passing road users. You can also store cars in garage spaces allocated to you, with one space allocated at the start of the game and more space unlocked as you progress through the game. However, if you’re caught hijacking cars by the roaming police officers, you will attract police attention. The level of police attention is indicated by a set of stars in the top right-hand corner of the screen, ranging from a single star where the police will only use non-lethal force against you and ranging up from there towards roadblocks, SWAT teams and even FBI and army attention.

When you are caught or injured sufficiently, you are returned to the nearest police station or hospital with a small financial cost – covering hospital bills or police bribes – as well as the loss of all of your acquired weapons. This is somewhat perplexing, though, given the protagonist’s crimes and subsequent sentence in the introduction of the game; surely, somebody with a ten-year sentence for armed robbery wouldn’t be able to get out of police custody with a small bribe. Nevertheless, a small consequence arises from being taking too much damage or being arrested, more because of the loss of your weapons rather than the financial cost, since money is largely worthless in Grand Theft Auto III.

A variety of additional missions and challenges exist, from the collection of a series of hidden packages and challenges involving jumping over obstacles in cars to side missions involving acting as a taxi driver, a vigilante or an ambulance driver. These range from the fun – the vigilante and unique jumps being particular highlights, to the tedious – the necessity to get 100 taxi fares to unlock a hidden vehicle is repetitive while the hidden packages promote exploration but also cause a lot of backtracking without a map, to the frustrating – the ambulance missions require you not only to use a slow, wishy-washy and top-heavy vehicle, but to drive precisely against a time limit.

Many of these side missions and challenges come with financial rewards, but these end up being rather worthless even by the middle of the game. You can use the money to respray and repair your vehicles and to buy weapons, while a couple of story missions require you to hand over large sums of money, but money comes in thick and fast from employers, let alone side missions and, in a hold-over from previous Grand Theft Auto games, even causing damage to other cars. The biggest rewards come from completing a sufficient number of vigilante or fire extinguishing missions along with the collection of the hidden packages; these missions give you additional weapons or police bribes at your hideouts, which are very useful for completing some of the challenges in the game.

Graphically, Grand Theft Auto III is adequate for an early PlayStation 2 game, with decent polygonal models for the environments and vehicles, although the characters’ faces look a bit off compared to the rest of the models. The environments don’t have as much personality as those of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and they end up looking a bit generic compared to the distinctive styles of the later titles in the PlayStation 2 generation. Similarly, the sounds are adequate as well and work well with the rest of the setting, with a decent selection of sounds for vehicles, bystanders and police.

One of the most persistent features in the Grand Theft Auto series has been the ability to select radio stations in vehicles while driving. Unfortunately, Grand Theft Auto III‘s radio stations are not as strong as those in later PlayStation 2 era Grand Theft Auto titles, with a substantially smaller selection of songs on each station compared to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and for my money, worse options than on the latter titles.

However, the wry and zany nature of the Grand Theft Auto games does show up well with the radio commercials, from the Petsovernight.com parody of the ridiculous sites of the dot-com bubble to the advertisements for the gargantuan Maibatsu Monstrosity making fun of the SUV craze which was as evident in 2001 as it is now. The Chatterbox 109 station, featuring the omnipresent Lazlow Jones, who has featured as a consultant and a radio personality in every home-console/personal computer Grand Theft Auto game since this one, also has a nice selection of crazy phone-in callers with various crackpot views and peculiarities.

When you take Grand Theft Auto III in context with its contemporary titles, it’s not difficult to see why it has been so influential in game design since then. It was one of the first games to offer not only a big sandbox to have fun in but also a well-plotted storyline in a genre that wasn’t a Western RPG. However, while it hasn’t aged badly, it has been displaced by its lineal successors in a lot of aspects. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City offered a more stylised environment with more personality in the game, while Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas offers a much bigger environment and arguably a much more intense story.

Probably Grand Theft Auto III‘s biggest downfall versus its successors is the comparative lack of things to do outside of the formal mission structure. It is still fun to cause mayhem with a shoot-out against police, but once you do this enough to acquire a tank – or acquire a tank at the end of the game, there isn’t anything the police can do to threaten you any more. With money being mostly useless, it just becomes a token to collect at will. There are the rampages, unique jumps and off-road missions to complete, which do make 100% completion a challenging prospect, but there isn’t as much of a sense of achievement from them as there could have been. Nevertheless, Grand Theft Auto III is still fun and deserves to be remembered as a turning point in video game design.

Bottom Line: Grand Theft Auto III was a revolutionary game and is still fun, but has been displaced by its successors, particularly in its own series.

Recommendation: For casual sandbox gamers, if you can pick up Grand Theft Auto III as a cheap second-hand title, it would be well worth a bite, but Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a better introduction into this era of Grand Theft Auto games. I’d expect many sandbox enthusiasts to have already played and completed the game, but if you haven’t, snatch it up – it’s still worth playing.

Rugby (PlayStation 2) – A Retrospective Review

Author’s Note: Recently, upon searching a CeX store in Dublin, I found a large collection of EA Sports’ rugby union titles from the PlayStation 2 era. Having played and reviewed Rugby World Cup 1995 for this site, I decided to take the plunge upon discovering that four titles were available for a collective price of €4.00. At this price, I could afford to take a gamble; even if all of them turned out to be dogshit, I’d still be down less than the price of a Happy Meal at McDonald’s. I intend to review the first of these titles now, as it has connections with Rugby World Cup 1995 and possibly leave the other titles, developed by a different studio, to a later review.

I have discussed in a previous review one of the early works by The Creative Assembly, widely known for their highly successful Total War series of games. Rugby World Cup 1995 was released by EA Sports for MS-DOS and the Sega Mega Drive in conjunction with the upcoming tournament and indeed, most of The Creative Assembly’s early games were based around sports simulations. The last sports game which the studio developed was Rugby, which was released in 2001 and originally intended to tie in with the 1999 Rugby World Cup before delays led it to be released after Shogun: Total War, the first game in their best-known series of games.

Rugby, in common with Rugby World Cup 1995 and befitting the original intention to tie the game in with the 1999 Rugby World Cup, focuses on rugby union. The twenty teams who qualified for the 1999 tournament are included. In terms of rugby union’s peculiar tier system, this includes all of the Tier 1 sides competing in the Six Nations Championship and the present-day Rugby Championship (then the Tri-Nations, before Argentina’s acceptance into the tournament in 2012), all of the Tier 2 sides aside from Georgia and a few Tier 3 sides whose performance in qualifying was sufficient to make it into the tournament.

While the roster includes the biggest teams in international rugby union and therefore most of the teams from countries where people would have been inclined to buy the game, there is a smaller selection of teams than there was in Rugby World Cup 1995. This issue isn’t helped by the fact that the team selection screen makes it difficult to tell the absolute rating of the teams aside from Uruguay, which is rated substantially lower than even their nearest competitor in Spain; in Rugby World Cup 1995, there were a number of low-ranked teams which had no chance against the top-performance highly-ranked teams, but who were reasonably competitive against each other. This mismatch between Uruguay and Spain in game terms is also questionable when you consider that not only did Uruguay beat Spain in their group, but also beat them in the competitive game between them.

In any case, Rugby still plays to a reasonably simulationist style, with rules and different play styles present for both the free-flowing passing game along with its rucks and mauls, along with the set-piece plays of the scrum, line-out and penalty kick. Several rules not simulated in Rugby World Cup 1995, including the notable omission in the earlier title of the fair-catch rule (also known as “Mark!”), have been simulated in Rugby. As such, Rugby feels like a fairly good simulation of rugby union as it was in 2001, although I was of the opinion that in international rugby matches, the referee or timekeeper stopped the watch during injuries, meaning that as soon as the clock exceeds the length of the half, the next time the ball is put out-of-bounds, play stops, whereas in Rugby, stoppage time is played at the end of each half.

There are a number of new features in Rugby compared to Rugby World Cup 1995 when it comes to contesting set-piece play, rucks and mauls. In the line-out and scrum, you are given a choice of set plays to take before play recommences; these allow you to reposition your players in order to take advantage of different strategies. You can place different numbers of players into the line-out, putting them into several different formations, although this feature is limited by the fact that you can only place a minimum of five players into the line-out in the game, whereas the rules of rugby union allow you to place a minimum of two players into the line-out. The number of set plays that you can choose from is contingent on the team which you choose to play as; the strongest teams, such as France, England, Australia and New Zealand have all eight plays available to them, while the weakest teams have only five of the plays available. This further enhances the strength of the best teams in the game and makes up somewhat for the ambiguity in the statistical display of team power.

Scrums, rucks and mauls are contested in a substantially different way than the other rugby games that I have played. In these plays, each team has a visual display of the strength of the pack. This decreases as you choose to push and increases as you dig in; a successful ruck, maul or scrum is therefore contingent on balancing your pushing and digging in. You can add players to rucks or mauls to increase the strength of your pack and therefore make it more likely to win. I like the concept of the system, but it is somewhat flawed in execution. Occasionally when contesting a ruck, the opposing team will suddenly push back much more strongly than their strength – or your strength – would indicate; this happens most regularly when the opposing team had possession before the ruck, but sometimes happens even when you had possession, leading to a turnover in potentially a dangerous position. With regard to the ability to put players into rucks or mauls, it is sometimes difficult to figure out how many players you should commit; often, it is easier to just bash the appropriate button until the maximum of seven players are committed, even if this leaves you with fewer players for defensive purposes or to exploit gaps in the opposition defence.

When it comes to passing, kicking and running the ball in the free game, though, Rugby has it nailed. There are separate buttons for passing the ball left and right, preventing one of the situations in Rugby World Cup 1995 where you may end up running in one direction in order to be able to pass in that direction before getting tackled; this system was retained in EA Sports’ later rugby union titles and is probably the best thing to come out of this game. Kicking is done rather nicely as well, with separate keys for kicking into space or touch, up-and-under kicks and grubber kicks; the accuracy and distance that a player can kick is contingent on their kicking skill, which as with actual rugby union, is typically higher in players in the fly-half, wing or full back position. Drop-kicks on goal may be attempted when your players are sufficiently close to the goal, although are rather difficult when you’re under pressure and trying to avoid being tackled.

The defensive game is somewhat more difficult. A lot of it is done competently by the AI, although occasionally, when you see an opportunity to get a player before the AI could, you may want to try a tackle yourself. However, this is made challenging by the fact that manually switching to a player can leave you with the wrong player for the job and that the controls are somewhat cumbersome, lacking analogue control, along with the fact that players in-game have momentum and turning circles that change based on their speed. A lot of the time, it’s better to just leave the AI to tackle the opposition for you and leave manual control to the most dangerous opposition players.

Penalty kicks, surprisingly, have been simplified in some respects from Rugby World Cup 1995 – a change which does not persist to EA Sports’ later rugby union titles. The power/accuracy bar from the previous title is gone, replaced with a simple arrow pointing towards the place where the kick will go. In the case of punt kicks, a circle changes size, denoting the accuracy of the kick at the time it takes place, whereas with kicks to goal, the arrow points towards the goalposts and can be changed in direction or elevation. The simplicity of the system does not mean that it is necessarily easy; punt kicks aren’t all that difficult, but kicks towards goal are more difficult than the system would have you believe and it is challenging without practice to get the ball over the posts.

Rugby has a reasonable set of play modes, from friendly matches to tournaments. Three tournaments are depicted: the Rugby World Cup, which for licensing reasons is called the World Championship; the Six Nations Championship (with the late development of the game allowing Italy’s entry into the Six Nations in 2000 to be depicted) along with the Tri-Nations tournament between the powerhouses of the Southern Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Unfortunately, there is no option to make your own championship for friends or the like, but the tournaments which are present make up the biggest ones in international rugby union even today (except for the Tri-Nations being expanded with Argentina’s entry).

Both friendly matches and tournaments allow you to change the strength of the teams you are playing as, while friendly matches also allow you to change the strength of the opposition team as well. This allows you to play games which will result in expected blowouts, such as a strengthened Australia challenging a diminished Uruguay, or increase the challenge by decreasing the strength of the team you play and increasing the strength of the opposition.

Friendly games give you the opportunity to change weather conditions, the time that the match is being played and the place where the match is to take place; this includes a selection of stadiums from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Unfortunately, the weather conditions do not allow you to pick a random setting, which would not go amiss. There is also no ability to change the pitch conditions to create games, for example, with dry pitches to begin with but which soften up as the rain continues, or soggy pitches which dry up as the sun beats down. Game options are similarly limited, with the ability to change whether replays happen automatically, whether vibration is turned on or off and whether to allow injuries (which I think should be kept on all of the time to give a reason for the substitution system to exist even in shorter matches). The half length can also be changed to a variety of options from 2 to 40 minutes and unlike in Rugby World Cup 1995, the game is a sufficiently good simulation to make full-length 80-minute games viable, even if not desirable for most gamers.

The game is rather challenging, with an AI which will exploit gaps, make kicks into appropriate spaces behind your lines and generally make an effort to beat you. The challenge is enhanced by the complex controls, with the buttons for passing left or right, buttons for different kicks, buttons for sprinting or pushing in the mauls or so on. Thankfully, the game does come with a training mode, with a decent tutorial and the ability to play various elements of the game or a complete match against a team with diminished strength against even the weakest teams in the game, allowing you to get to grips with the controls without the AI harrying you for every mistake.

Graphically, Rugby is nothing special. The graphics are very reminiscent of other early PlayStation 2 games or late-1990s PC games, with very simple character models, scenery which is acceptable but not mind-blowing and the game certainly doesn’t make the most of the capabilities of the PlayStation 2. Nevertheless, the game does do a lot of what it needs to do to work, with nice camera perspectives that work well to depict the action and rather than attempting to simulate television broadcasts, instead works to change the camera angle based on whether you’re attacking, defending or contesting a scrum, maul or ruck.

The sound is similarly unspectacular. There is a good set of in-game sounds, from the ball being kicked or hitting the ground to players hitting the dirt as they’re tackled, but these are all par-for-the-course when it comes to sports games. There is commentary over the games, provided by the respected and now-deceased Scottish rugby commentator, Bill McLaren, along with former England and New Zealand international, Jamie Salmon. As a result, the commentators at least know how to commentate an actual match and don’t go too hammy for the game, although a limited number of lines for each commentator does demonstrate one of the inherent problems with sports video game commentary in general. At least the developers didn’t choose ridiculous lines that would seem completely out of context when the action isn’t following what’s going on in the game.

Overall, I think that Rugby is really quite a successful game in a very niche genre of video games. It certainly isn’t perfect, with problems showing up in the innovative but flawed rucking system along with unspectacular visuals and sound, but the game does do a reasonable job of simulating the game on which it is based on. The game is sufficiently challenging for it to never be a pushover and has an adequate, if not amazing amount of content. The player rosters may be out of date by this stage, but the core gameplay hasn’t changed by an incredible amount in rugby union and therefore, this game still manages to do what it set out to do.

Bottom Line:Rugby, despite being more than a decade old, is still one of the best rugby union games yet released. Improving significantly on its DOS/Mega Drive predecessor (although this is expected given the seven-year gap), while displaying a more simulationist bent on some issues than later EA Sports rugby titles, Rugby may have some flaws but is still worth playing if you want a very good simulation title.

Recommendation: Any copies of Rugby still available will probably be going for prices akin to the €1.00 I spent for the title; as such, if you have a PlayStation 2, it won’t cost you much to try it out. I’d suggest being a fan of rugby union first, though, as the game is fairly uncompromising.

Doom – A Retrospective Review

Author’s Note: Having been distracted recently, first by the Isle of Man TT, then the 24 Hours of Le Mans, then the FIFA World Cup, I have not had much material to add to my blog recently. The forays I’ve made into my more traditional blog material have been limited to things I’ve written about before, typically racing games in the vein of Tourist Trophy. However, I still intend to keep some sort of schedule, as vague as that may be. I offer a review of a game for which I am perplexed that I haven’t written a review before.

In 1993, the first-person shooter genre wasn’t new, having seen id Software’s original attempt at first-person game dynamics with Wolfenstein 3D, which was, despite several games including BattleZone and Elite which used first-person perspectives, the first game to be described as a first-person shooter proper. However, despite its historical importance, Wolfenstein 3D was somewhat crude in its design; all walls in the game were set at 90-degree angles which limited the architecture of levels, for instance. Still, it was quite a jump from the side-scrolling Commander Keen games that id Software had started on and gave them a basis for a substantially more ambitious project – one called Doom.

In Doom, you play a nameless space marine who has been stationed on Mars as punishment after an altercation with one of his superior officers. He is posted in a security role for the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC), one of the companies doing work on Mars. Part of the UAC’s research on Mars involves the development of teleportation technology with gateways between Phobos and Deimos, the moons of Mars. What is expected to be a dull assignment devoid of excitement takes a sudden turn when there is a report of a disturbance on Phobos. Reports from the UAC outposts on Phobos suggest that things have gone seriously wrong and the player character along with several other space marines are sent out to Phobos to investigate.

The player character is left to guard the perimeter of the outpost when the investigating party arrives, while the other space marines venture into the outpost to investigate what has gone wrong. As the player character waits outside, armed with only a pistol, he hears the screams, yells and gunfire of his colleagues. It doesn’t take long for the space marine to realise that the rest of his unit are dead. Left without an alternative, the space marine ventures inside the outpost himself to try to make some sense of the situation. Before long, he is embroiled in a battle with the forces of Hell as they attempt to invade through the gateways developed by the UAC and must battle his way through not only Phobos, but Deimos and even the depths of Hell itself in order to destroy the source of the invasion.

The plot is rather reminiscent of pulp stories and never gets any deeper than what is described in the backstory. Then again, this was ultimately intentional by the id Software team; despite a more elaborate story design earlier in Doom‘s development (noted in external materials), the id Software team clearly took an approach closer to that espoused by John Carmack, who regards the plot of games as secondary to the gameplay. I don’t believe that a weak plot works against Doom; the game’s design doesn’t necessitate elaborate, intertwining plot strands to work.

Doom uses an early 3D game engine with pseudo-3D (or 2.5D) interactions along the z-axis. There is no facility in the original engine for changing perspective along the z-axis, but shots made in line with an enemy on a higher or lower plane will be adjusted to fire towards that enemy. The character therefore moves and rotates in a horizontal plane; similarly, while levels have areas of different elevation along with stairs and elevators to get between those different elevations, level design occurs on a generally horizontal plane, with no walkable areas on top of other walkable areas. In general, these simply work out as peculiarities of the engine and don’t often affect gameplay, although there are some peculiar circumstances where explosive damage can affect game entities far above or below where the effects of that damage would realistically be expected to affect, or where enemies can attack you or you can attack enemies on planes which you can’t even see.

The action in Doom is known for its fast pace compared to contemporary first-person shooters. As the player character has a high resilience towards a lot of the damage in the game, with many of the more powerful individual attacks requiring specific evasive techniques to be used to avoid critical damage, the damage system promotes run-and-gun tactics in a way not frequently seen in more recent first-person shooters. The limited objectives, largely amounting to collection of keys to allow you to progress further within the level, the lack of cutscenes within the game itself and the sheer fun-factor of zipping through the levels also contribute to the fast-paced action of Doom. Indeed, as there is a timer at the end of the level which tells you how long it took to complete the level, the game doesn’t disguise the fact that it’s meant to be played at speed. There have been long-running speed-run competitions based around attempting to complete levels or episodes of the game as quickly as possible and the nature of Doom makes it an especially suitable game for this sort of competition.

Starting out with a puny pistol which takes several shots to kill the weakest of enemies, your arsenal grows as you progress through the levels, incorporating a pump-action shotgun, a chaingun, a rocket launcher and two powerful plasma weapons which can be found from the second episode onwards, the plasma rifle and the BFG 9000. Similarly, enemies begin from the start of the game with the reanimated corpses of your former associates, armed with pistols or shotguns and progress onwards to the gigantic Barons of Hell and the even more powerful Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind. As your arsenal grows, the least powerful enemies simply become roadblocks, while the more powerful enemies can be hazardous at any stage.

Doom is interesting for its large spread of difficulty levels, from the lowest difficulty level which would only pose moderate challenge to even a neophyte to the highest difficulty level which is excruciatingly difficult and was originally designed to be a challenge to cooperative multiplayer groups and which only the most experienced Doom experts can battle their way through without dying regularly. My own preferences now lie with the second-highest difficulty level, Ultra-Violence, which is still a substantial challenge and comparable with many of the most difficult contemporary first-person shooters.

While Doom‘s multiplayer capabilities are laughable by today’s standards, it was probably the first first-person shooter to really promote multiplayer support. There are two modes, with the cooperative campaign where up to four players join forces to play through the game and the deathmatch mode where the players fight each other. The limit of four players in multiplayer restricts the scope of deathmatch games, especially compared to contemporary first-person shooters, but the core gameplay is still fun, even if the fast-paced multiplayer action of Doom has been displaced and improved upon by successive generations of Quake and Unreal Tournament.

Graphically, Doom could never stand up to a modern game, but then again, the limited graphics help give the game such flexibility when it comes to source ports (discussed below). Nevertheless, the graphics are not embarrassing considering the age of the game; designed before polygonal designs became common, the graphics don’t suffer from the more significant aging of early polygonal games on the PC and late fourth/early fifth-generation games consoles – i.e. the SNES with the Super FX chip, the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64. Some of the enemy sprites do suffer from the lack of ability to rotate them effectively as you sidestep around them or so on and all of the moving enemy sprites have limited numbers of frames, but I believe that Doom holds up better than its age dictates that it should.

Ultimately, one of the highest accolades that I can grant to Doom is that it’s still fun more than twenty years after it was first released. The gameplay is exciting and fast-paced, while still providing a challenge today. It has absolutely none of the pretensions of realism that are present in most of today’s first-person shooters and retains its fun factor because of this; it isn’t trying to be something that it’s not. Unlike many other games from its time period, Doom is remarkably easy to play on today’s platforms. Aside from the original MS-DOS version, official ports have been released on platforms as diverse as iOS and RISC OS and the Xbox 360 and the Atari Jaguar, while the release of the game’s source code under the GNU General Public Licence has led to unofficial ports of Doom on nearly any platform that can handle it. Many of the unofficial ports on PC platforms come with a host of additional features, including graphical updates, the ability to play the many, many additional campaigns developed by the Doom community and fixes for bugs found in the original engine. In any circumstance, Doom is readily available to today’s players – and probably even more so than it was when it was first released. Not a bad sign for a game more than twenty years old, is it?

Bottom Line:Doom remains a pinnacle of the fast-paced, action-packed first-person shooter that existed long before the rise of Call of Duty. While dated in several areas, it still packs a punch even today.

Recommendation: Given how easy it is to find Doom, whether you purchase it on Steam or buy it off the App Store, the only reason not to give it a try is if you don’t like first-person shooters at all. Pretty much anybody else is recommended to give it a go.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.