• What is a metagame?

    "Metagame" has at least a couple meanings. One of them implies a game strategy that may be an exploit. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. Talking about the game. Building a M:tG deck. Refining tanking strategy over ventrilo. Or, a blog about games.

    What's posted here may be judged as fact or fiction, wisdom or folly. Posts here do not reflect the opinion of either of our employers, past or present.


  • What We’re Playing…

    David
    Heavy Rain
    CoD:MW2

    Heather
    Assassin's Creed 2
    Bioshock 2
    Farmville

Set Your Difficulty Higher…

I like success. It's like cake. But I can't learn anything from cake. I can learn from the stack of broken crates, though, and the other failures.

Painful lessons seem to be the ones that teach the most, whatever the subject. Pain provides motivation to find a path that leads to success. I remember the first time I waved a bat as a baseball sailed on by. It was an ugly swing. And my coach let me hear it, in front of all my friends. In fact, my coach would say my swing never was pretty. But his public hazing did make me work hard at improving it.

When it comes to video games, difficulty will always be a charged issue. Pressure comes from all sides: to appeal to a wide audience, to appeal to the hardcore, to appeal to casual player. Whatever those classifications mean in the real world (maybe nothing), game difficulty is something everyone has an opinion about.

I don’t pretend to know how hard you should make your game. Recently, though, I’ve come to think that as game designers, we should be playing with our dials turned up.

How did I get there? When playing Mass Effect 2, I started with a medium setting (“Veteran”), and played through the game rather happily and easily. I predictably found that I was playing the game for its story content, not for its gameplay. Shooting just filled the time until the next cinematic or dialogue moment. I wasn’t enjoying it especially, and I certainly wasn’t learning anything from it. Enemies could be defeated with just about any weapon, tactic, or character ability, and I could engage them head on, ignoring the cover mechanic and succeed. Of course, when you can defeat your foes any way you want to, the decision of how to win becomes empty of meaning. Empty of lessons to learn.

After finishing the game, I started a second playthrough. This was my “evil bitch” experience, and wow, is the female Shepherd a superior voice actress. This time, I set the difficulty to its highest setting — “Insanity.” And in terms of the moment-to-moment, I discovered a whole new game. Enemies, even stock ones, posed a major threat. My allies needed to be managed and controlled lest they die — repeatedly. In order to survive myself, I had to find weaknesses in my opponents or vulnerabilities in the level design. Each combat formed a battle combining ally management, refresh management, and a search for anything that could give me an edge. Some of these elements (vulnerability to ammo types or to certain powers) were intended by the game designers. Some (an inability to deal with player traps in pathing) were not. My tactics bordered on exploits. In any event, I learned what my character could do, what each AI was capable of, and how I could win in different encounters. In short, I knew the game far better than I did before.

The question of “is that an exploit or a good tactic?” is a good one, especially in online games where your play can affect others. I remember early days of MMO play, when we wondered if reverse kiting, sending tells to determine spawns, or FD-camping monsters represented an exploit. EverQuest supported lots of unforeseen play, as a result of the game’s steep difficulty curve. Soloing in specific stood out as ridiculously hard. Players had to find a way to avoid the hard combat math the game’s designers had forged: they had to find a way not to get hit. Without finding gaps in the system or the vulnerabilities of the AI, the player couldn’t succeed on his own. Back then, of course, the game’s harsh penalties of failure and death didn’t stick out like the sore thumbs they would today.

More recently, on a dare I took to playing Darksiders on its hardest setting, appropriately named Apocalyptic. Twenty-odd hours later, more than three thousand gallons of blood has been spilled beneath my blade and scythe (according to this). And because I played the game at such an unforgiving level, the average hit from a demon shed half of my characters health. Learning the game’s rhythms, the pace of when to attack and when to evade, was the difference between life and death.

Losing fifty percent of your character hit points with a single blow sounds painful, doesn’t it? What I found though, was thanks to the mild penalties (fast reloads, frequent checkpoints), I relished the challenge. More importantly, I came to know what defense I had to employ against each AI type, who to kill first in group encounters, and when in each encounter I needed to fire off my panic and powerup buttons.

I’m not sure that Leigh Alexander is right that “hard is the new good” when it comes to player experience – certainly not for all games or all players. But for game designers, I think it’s invaluable. If you want to play a game at its most pure — not for the story, not even for a good time — tune the difficulty up. Make yourself defeat the game where the margin for error is razor thin. You may learn something.

Leave a Comment

Free Dungeons & Profit

About six months ago, I suggested we should check back later and see how DDO’s experiment with free-to-play has gone. The answer, according to Turbine’s current executive this week, is pretty well:

The response from players to DDO Unlimited has been nothing short of phenomenal. We’ve known all along how great this game is and by implementing an innovative new model that put the players in charge of how they pay and play DDO Unlimited, we’ve successfully expanded our reach and injected new energy into the game.  Without a doubt, DDO Unlimited is a hit!

Equally important, of course, is the five-fold increase in revenue. Mild critical acclaim doesn’t hurt, but the bottom line drives development for Turbine as much as any other company. From what I hear, the newfold success has allowed for a mild increase in support and in future plans for the franchise.

It’s worth wondering why the free play structure appears to have worked so well with this product. I considered in my last post how both D&D players and MMO players include a great deal of highly price sensitive players. I still think that’s true. Giving those players a chance to try something new– without the $50 buy-in, even without the $15 monthly fee–is a good idea. I wish I had managed to convince the former regime in Westwood that DDO needed a different business model back in 2005. Because there are millions of lapsed D&D players out there, created by more than thirty years of the property. And now there are also millions of lapsed Warcraft players, and MMO players generally willing to consider something new. Give those people an easy opportunity, and some of the will stick around and put money in your pocket.

If you’re making a new MMO these days (even if you have a killer IP and a killer reputation like our corporate friends down in Austin), I encourage giving extra consideration to support a get-in-the-action experience. Include a demo or sample that can lead to subscription or other investment.

Leave a Comment

Gaming Meets Public Transportation

Imagine this scene. Here I was on the 43 bus. Several Lucasfolk reside somewhere between Haight and Cole Valley, and so running into friends on the ride home is common. Tonight, we formed a design conference, with five designers happening to board at the same time.

Predictably enough, we soon found ourselves talking about our work, engine, and tools. Then, games. Things we’re playing, from pen and paper D&D (“What do you think of 4th?”) to recent releases (“Do you think Bioshock’s closed story needed a sequel?”). All well and good, an enjoyable way to pass the half hour.

Except one crazy thing. On our half-full bus, a pair of fellow passengers joined our conversation. At first this was amusing. Then annoying. Finally, surprising. For while designers we have a handle on deconstructing games, the comments from these random acquaintances, well, they were sharp and on point. I for one had never considered that parallels between Mass Effect 2 and the Dirty Dozen

And this isn’t even GDC week yet.

P.S.: This morning on the ride in, a pair of teenage kids were talking about Modern Warfare, XBox gamer points, and whether the skateboards they bought for their avatars were worth it. This time I joined in the conversation. Hopefully I didn’t sound too old or lame, but hey, now we’ve exchanged gamertags. Life is weird in this city.

Leave a Comment

BioShock 2’s Shocking System Flaw

Loved Bioshock. Enjoying Bioshock 2, a few hours in. Congratulations to friends up at 2K Marin, for the successful launch. May the sound of cash registers ring out for them.So why am I writing here? One design element I’ve found in my first few hours warrants questioning.

Remember the respawn system of Bioshock?

Death in the Bioshock series is just a teleport. You respawn with the same package of weapons and ammo you had at the moment of your death, plus a minimum amount of health and mana (“Eve”). The world state is preserved.

As players soon observed, in the original Bioshock this allowed you to progress by bashing through content repeatedly without any attempt at skill or self-preservation. Do some damage, die, respawn, repeat. Boss enemies fell down through this method like everything else. This seems silly, and the creative director of Bioshock 2 took steps:

But the main criticism that we derived from the first game was the Vita-thrashing exploit, which was — because there were ammo-less weapons in the game and because there were consensual boss fights in the game — the idea of just using an ammo-less weapon and playing Lemmings over and over again until the cliff just disappears. [It was] was degenerate in many many ways… It was fun for no one. So now the Little Sisters will heal the Big Daddies a percentage of their health if you don’t take them out. So you do have to invest in their demise.

Problem to solution, right? If only things were so simple.

Here’s the thing: Bioshock 2 has hard content locks – blood gates – that require defeating a certain enemy or waves of enemies. It’s impossible to progress in the game without killing these enemies. And as the creative director said, if the Big Daddy kills you on the first try (or you die defending the Little Sister as she’s harvesting Adam, etc.), you’re going to have to have to start the fight all over again. The Bid Daddy heals, and the progress bar on defending your Little Sister is reset.

See the problem?  With a relatively stingy ammo drop rate from enemies  in the game (why is that by the way? this game is a shooter, and ammo should be plentiful), after you die, you re-start an encounter with fewer health packs, fewer eve packs, and less ammo. And you failed the first time, so good luck! It seems likely you’ll fail again. Really, the game should make things a little easier the second time, not harder. In the worst case,the player may re-start a major fight with no ammo at all. Then what? Congratulations, we’ve arrived at a degenerate state: it is well nigh impossible for the player to progress. I hope the last autosave wasn’t that far back…

The prescription? In the next game, dump the vita chambers. Use checkpoints that save your full character state, and let the player try again with a starting package at least as good as the one he just failed with. For this game, a patch that forces autosaves before every content gate — and bigger ammo drops from random respawned splicers — wouldn’t seem to be a bad step.

Leave a Comment

Mass Effect 2, Part 2

Story is where an RPG should shine – even a hybrid RPG like this one. The RPG player demonstrates a willingness to take things at a slower pace, to invest himself into character and story, and to relish the narrative.

So let’s look at the Mass Effect 2’s plot [Spoilers!]:

  1. Hero is killed by aliens, then resurrected.
  2. Hero finds out the aliens are snatching humans.
  3. Hero investigates derelict alien ship to find out how to get to aliens.
  4. Hero finds out that aliens are boiling humans down to organic soup to make an evil giant. Hero kills evil giant.

That’s the story that takes 20+ hours to deliver? Seriously, we have a volume of content equal to ten feature films, with less plot than something directed by Michael Bay. This is a story that takes (conservative estimate) 100,000 lines of dialogue to tell! Even just in terms of pure cinematic sequences, I hazard that Mass Effect is close to a feature film in length. Why is there so little actual content there?

For fairness, let’s boil down a similar story – another second part of a trilogy:

  1. Hero is wounded by a monster, then rescued.
  2. Enemies attack the home of our hero and his friends. They escape.
  3. Hero goes through training montage.
  4. Hero’s friends are captured. Hero’s best friend is frozen in carbonite.
  5. Hero rescues his friends. Hero finds out the leader of the enemies is his father.

Now that’s a story. And that story has a villain we remember.

It’s Not Personal
The villains of Mass Effect 2? Faceless, anonymous evil. Unknowable menaces. They show up every 50,000 years and kill everyone. They’re like a natural disaster, and just as impersonal. Guess what, guys, villains without faces make terrible opponents. We have to see the villain (and ideally, understand him) before we can get emotionally invested. Before we hate. The Reapers kill plenty of humans, but their goals remain unintelligible. The best villains make their enmity personal, and so the story becomes personal too.

Come to think of it, this story never ended well either.

The funny thing is, Bioware’s writers know this. They knew it in Knights of the Old Republic, during which we discover the primary villains are you… and the sidekicks who betrayed you. They knew it in Mass Effect 1. Remember Saren? The player interacted with that villain repeatedly, and when we weren’t arguing with Saren, we watched cinematics of the evil bastard doing terrible things. Remember also how much we focused on Shepherd becoming the first human Spectre – an accomplishment personal to you. The development staff in Edmonton hasn’t forgotten how to tell a good story in Mass Effect 2. There are good stories, really good stories, embedded in the game: stories of betrayal, loss, and revenge. Stories of self-discovery.

That’s true of every character’s story except for one: yours. You’d think that the player’s story is the one that would matter most, right? Regrettably, the player has been reduced to playing generic action hero fighting generic alien bad guys. The story equivalent of Space Invaders.

And what’s worse? The material to make a personal story is there in the narrative. The aliens killed you! Sure, it would have been better if the possessor/lead villain had appeared to do you in himself. But as it is, Shepard is returned to life before we can blink, and all too quickly the whole thing is forgotten. Your character doesn’t seem to care that he died, and the enemy doesn’t care or even acknowledge that he killed you. If no one in the game cares, why should we? Our character spends more time arguing with sidekicks about why they resurrected him. Really, why was Shepard killed at all? Was this all a marketing stunt?

By the way, the whole alien Harbinger boss employing a possession is a great mechanic, if underused. I love the idea of beating up the master villain repeatedly, though I wish he had more lines of dialogue than “I will hurt you.” The designers appear to be saving the Big Bad for the third in the trilogy, but why not script up a threatening conversation with a possessed Collector? I could kill the creature afterward, feel good about myself, and still know that the war is far from over.

These are cool sidekicks. I wish my story was as good as theirs.

It’s Not You, It’s Me
I’ve circled around this point here and in the last post, but the fundamental failure of Mass Effect is that the game isn’t about the main character and the story isn’t about him either. In terms of polish, effort, and sheer gameplay hours, the game is all about the sidekicks. Recruiting each of the sidekicks, and completing their loyalty missions, composes the bulk of the game’s content. Imagine instead if that effort was expended on dealing with your character, in making your choices and your decisions matter, and producing branching content that actually branched as a result of your actions and conversations. I think I’d like to play that game.

It’s another point worth making: twelve sidekicks and five allies? Really? I know the designers want to encourage replayability, and having over a hundred (12 x 11) different possibilities of sidekicks to bring along would seem to further that cause. And yet not really. A big cast doesn’t mean anything other than a whole lot of characters I won’t spend much time with. There are great little payoffs in each of their stories, but I wonder if we couldn’t go deeper instead of wider. I’d rather have fewer sidekicks, but develop them more. Maybe their side stories could be interwoven and tangled instead of forming totally independent narratives. Couldn’t Mordin have something to do with the Warlord’s genetic program? Maybe Jack was on Samara’s or Garrus’s target list. Why not tie together Tali’s and Legion’s story and advance the story of the geth to some resolution?

We love this genre of game because it offers meaningful choices. Or at least appears to. Embrace that. As far as replayability goes, make this game one in which the player decisions are the most important thing. Make  branching content that affects not just how you get someplace in a linear story (a always leads to b, regardless of how much of a saint or bastard you are along the way). Change what actually happens during gameplay (a could lead to b, c, or d). I know that branching content is expensive, but the bandwidth appears to be there. The focus is just on other characters. The usual argument against branching content is that you’re making a bunch of content that a high percentage of the audience won’t see. I don’t think that argument applies to Mass Effect 2.

The only way your story can really change in Mass Effect? As best I can tell, your choices in doing loyalty missions and assigning roles to sidekicks in the final level can determine if sidekicks die. That’s it. Your little story though, is steadfastly linear, all the way through. Your choices can’t affect you, or any outcome we see during this game – but don’t worry! They promise it will in the next!

1 Comment

Mass Effect 2 Disappoints

At the end of the day, Mass Effect’s sequel is a disappointment. Believe me, I know I’m swimming against the current here. EA/Bioware gets to put a big trophy on their mantle  – a 96% Metacritic. That’s the fourth highest score for a 360 title, ever. So am I insane? Maybe. But as I played the game, too many things stood out as “could be better.” So that’s what this this entry is about: pondering what keeps an entertaining game from being what I’d call great.  (One quick note: I’m going to avoid discussion of the game’s morality system. Been there, done that, etc.)

Oh, this counts as your official Spoiler Warning. I’m assuming you’ve either played the game, or that you don’t care if I tell you all about it.

Cover Shooter
For good or ill, the sequel shifts the franchise from an RPG with shooting gameplay (ME1) to a shooter with light RPG elements (ME2). Nothing wrong with that. Two facts justify it: a larger audience of shooter fans means more sales, and the shooter gameplay needed improvement after the first game. But putting shooter first means that it’s become fair to judge ME2 not just against the narrow competition RPGs have, but against the many well-executed third-person console shooters out there.

ME2 is not the worst shooter to be released in the last year, but it seems middle of the pack at best (and not just for the lack of multiplayer). In its second iteration and attempt at cover-based shooting, ME2 no longer has the excuse of being an RPG in shooter clothing. So why leave out the ability to switch between cover points? Why drop out blind fire and suppressive fire? More importantly, why do I keep shooting my cover object when my reticule is over it? Why do I keep having encounters where I’m up above my targets, but the physics of “low cover” are so high that I can’t shoot over it? Why do I keep getting popped out of cover for reasons I don’t understand? And why do the AIs have problems navigating around and using many of the simple cover points?

Artificial Unintelligence
More on those AIs. An obvious problem during combat is the predictable and static opponents. I appreciate the hit point system that player and AI characters share: shields, armor, and health. Each of those layers calls for a specific skill, device, or ammo to exploit optimally. But health state shouldn’t be only thing that the player needs to pay attention to, and I think it is. The AI opponents don’t change their tactics in response to the player, and they don’t encourage the player to respond to anything they are doing. They behave the same regardless of what strategies the player adapts. In truth, the game has enough variety in enemy archetypes, between the rocket launchers, the miniboss mechs, and the semi-invisible hunter enemies. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do a good job of calling attention to the characteristics of these enemies (compare to something like Bioshock), and none of the archetypes demand any sort of special response.

Big Pile of Hit Points

Here’s just a few concepts that are common to shooters today: grenades that make you move, heavy weapons that make you flank, sniper weapons that demand breaking line of sight, environment manipulation that has to be stopped, AI calls for help that result in additional spawns, and enemy healing skills that require focus fire. Each tactic can force a player response, and along the way develop more dynamic, more interesting combat encounters.

Even if the AIs did anything interesting, I’m not sure how the player would know. The enemies of Mass Effect 2 don’t provide us with tells or clues to their behaviors. How about a tip when enemies launch weapons that destroy or go through cover? The only clue we have of AI tactics in combat are when an ally yells: “Krogan charging!” Compare that to the barks of the enemies and the chatter from the main character found in other shooters. The allied sidekicks chime in with quips: “go for the optics” and “executing sudo command.” Nothing wrong with that, but it demonstrates that the focus of Mass Effect 2 isn’t you or your enemies: it’s your sidekicks.

For a game with so much dialogue, why does the world become mute the moment a weapon is drawn? The player can show off amazing shooting skill, biotic powers that theoretically dazzle the world, and technical abilities that do the same. The enemies don’t react except to take damage. The lack of an AI response to player success represents a fundamental failure to reward good play. Why do we never transition – as we did at least a few times in the previous title – from combat to dialogue, and maybe back again? Broken down, ME2 has two game modes: shooting and talking. Combining the two modes occasionally would seem to be a good thing, wouldn’t it? Otherwise we don’t have a hybrid game, we have two games in close proximity. Many of the AI opponents are gangsters, thugs, and less than professional soldiers. Why not hear them talk? Why not have them surrender or flee with defeated? It wouldn’t be terrible if they acted like mercenaries instead of kamikaze zombies, ready to die to the last man.

Crates, Crates, Everywhere

Level Design
The gameplay areas of ME2 are formulaic. While every game works with templates, most make more effort to hide the cookie cutter. This science fiction franchise has the freedom to create any interactive objects it can imagine. It can invent new technologies; it can design its spaces to be anything. So where do the epic gunfights of the future happen? Big open warehouses stacked with crates! Crates!

As game designers, we need to make our games approachable, but that doesn’t mean that we should default to cliché RPG tropes. In the first Mass Effect, several enemies demonstrated the ability to create force fields of cover on the battlefield. This was cool. Why remove something that creates futuristic cover without one-meter concrete barricades everywhere? Without stacks of crates filling the galaxy? Just what the hell are the mercenaries shipping in these things anyway?

Force Fields > Crates

Compare the scenario design to something like Arkham or Uncharted. Can ME2 surprise you? Not really. It sets up its standard operating procedures very early: Small areas are for conversation, minigames, or loot acquisition.The moment you open a door into a wide open space, you find lots of cover barriers in the middle, and you know you’re about to get into another fight. It’s okay to set up this “standard scenario,” but good games should break from their patterns. When you can predict where the bad guys come from, and that they’re identical to the last wave of bad guys, boredom follows.

To add to the problem, the rewards of combat have been removed. Enemies don’t consistently drop ammo – I’m sorry, thermal clips. They don’t produce XP, so the game has to check our progress with blood gates. Enemies don’t drop credits, so we have to have a hundred little dead end spokes that hide treasure chests. So not only are the same enemies filling room after room, but the player doesn’t have any incentive to fight them except the need to grind through to progress.

Mako: A feature without a reason to exist

Minigames
Remember the Mako from Mass Effect? It sucked ass. Driving over featureless terrain in a vain search for content wasn’t fun. During my Mako-completist pilgrimage, I found one tiny piece of story-like information (in a text box! that never went anywhere), a few cookie-cutter bases, and a whole lot of nothing. It would have been the best example “addition by subtraction” in game design. Of course the designers at Bioware heard that criticism – I imagine they knew it before ME1 shipped. So the Mako is gone now (though its ruin looked dishearteningly intact instead of rightfully blasted to bits).

And what did they replace the Mako with? A scanning and resource harvesting game. In ME2, you don’t have to drive around a featureless planet to slowly collect resources: Now you can drive around it virtually and slowly harvest resources. Why? Really, why is this in the game? Were the developers influenced by Farmville?

Scan Results: No fun, Commander

ME2 has evolved into an RPG without hardcore RPG game systems. The game could have delivered iridium, platinum, palladium, and element zero entirely through the game’s third-person gameplay. It could have made any technology that required those resources cost credits instead. Or it could just remove the four additional currencies and tie tech upgrades to game discoveries or character advancement. As it stands, these complications stand out as vestiges of the RPG that Mass Effect left behind. The scanning game is a remnant of the commitment to make an open galaxy game where “you will have the freedom to visit a wide array of uncharted planets.” Guys, harvesting resources is not exploration. Or, you know, fun.

I shouldn’t forget the other two new minigames: hacking and bypassing. I suppose they’re better than the Simon Says button pressing game. There’s nothing wrong with them, per se, other than that they don’t evolve a wit as the game progresses. They become tiresome. Some means of skipping it (purchasable keys, a skill upgrade, etc.) would be nice.

That’s All for Now
This rant has gone on longer than I planned. I’ll pick it up tomorrow and talk about story. Story, after all, is why I think we love games like Mass Effect 2: the choose-your-own-adventure story of the modern age.

1 Comment

On the Farm – Employment Update

I haven’t posted for a while – and there’s a good reason for this. My project at Slipgate got canceled and I was in the majority of employees that got laid off.

We were making an educational MMO for kids aged 8-12. In reality, we were in preproduction for years and had almost nothing to show for it, so it didn’t come as a surprise to anyone when we all got called into the game room with the news that it was our last day on the job.

Luckily, the 3 months of unemployment gave plenty of time for job hunting. After a short time, I ended up accepting an offer from Zynga to work on the Facebook game FarmVille. I couldn’t be happier here, and in the near future I hope to be posting some of my thoughts on the state of the MMO industry as well as some insights into social games.

Leave a Comment

More than an Advertisement?

Six months ago I posted that Magic on Xbox Live was a Trojan Horse of sorts: an online ad calling on lapsed players to come back to Jamaica. You know, all of you millions of players from the 90s or early 00’s that have given up the game: try it again! Fall in love with the easy XBox game, want more, then get back into buying the cards (whether physical or online).

It seemed like a reasonable supposition. And to some level, no doubt it’s true.

Then a friend linked this today: XBox Live’s topselling titles. Duels of the Planeswalkers, #1. Now, I have no idea what time period that sample measures: the week? the month? But regardless, it’s half a year after release, and this game has serious legs. A lot of people have been playing this game who were just curious about it, or got roped into buying it to play with friends. Duels turned out to be more than just an ad, and I imagine it’s contributing nicely to Hasbro’s bottom line, more than even they expected.

In any event, the success speaks not only to the power of the brand, but also some good game design choices: supporting the trifecta of co-op, single player, and competitive play supports different kinds of players, and encourages the network effect growth that multiplayer games (online or not) can do best.

(No, I don’t have any Hasbro stock anymore.)

2 Comments

PC Gaming vs. Pirates

The good news: Modern Warfare 2, over four million copies sold. The bad news: over four million copies illegally downloaded. Like music and film, games are just data that can be sent over the tubes. Film and games are respectively harder thanks to their larger size, but growing bandwidth will make this point moot. Piracy is getting easier and easier, and the PC gaming section in the retail stores looks more and more pathetic. While not cause and effect, these are not unrelated either.

Inevitable result: players must log into an internet account to validate their purchase and play a game, much like you would an MMO. Of course, a large percentage of PC game sales these days seem to be un-pirateable MMOs anyway.

Leave a Comment

Thanksgiving Sales

And you don’t even need to leave your home. Check out the deals on Steam. Dragon Age, Arkham Asylum, etc.. Good games.

And most importantly, the LucasArts bundle, for 50% off. Lots of classic games that the studio has pushed out in the last year.

Leave a Comment