Happy Halloween! Have Some Spoilers

Halloween is here, and Hurricane Sandy has passed my home, leaving it at least 99% intact. Meanwhile, I haven't much to write, since I already posted this week. So maybe I'll do what a lot of other bloggers do and comment on the news.

Where do I start? Well, Assassin's Creed III came out yesterday... for consoles. For some reason, PC players have to wait until November 20. Suddenly I feel like a second-class citizen. No doubt, if asked about this, the publishers would mutter something about piracy. But even if they were being sincere, I'd have no sympathy for them, since they've already gotten more money than they likely deserve.

Remember when I mentioned Assassin's Creed III in my tirade against the entire concept of pre-ordering video games? I can't shake the feeling that you've all let me down, since the game has broken Ubisoft's pre-order records. I can see why this might happen; it's a highly anticipated sequel in a popular franchise. Furthermore, by offering a "season pass" for upcoming downloadable content at a modest 25% discount, Ubisoft was clearly doing its best to make "buy it now and ask questions later" sound a lot less crazy than it is. But it's still crazy, especially when Ubisoft refuses to release a playable demo.

And then there's news that the game will feature microtransactions (which, in this case, seems to mean trading real-life money for in-game currency which may or may not provide players with an unfair advantage in multiplayer matches). The same people who pre-ordered the game at full price without even trying it first, and then pre-ordered a bunch of DLC packs without even knowing what they would contain, probably won't be able to resist partaking in this final moneygrab... that is, unless they very quickly become disappointed in the game after they've played it.

The critics' reviews are mostly positive, of course, but when the game's ending was (predictably) uploaded to YouTube as early as two days before the official release date, a lot of potential customers found at least one reason not to buy the game. Some fans of the series, even without taking the time to play through this final act, seem to be upset about how the story turns out, and there are plenty of comments along the lines of "wow, that sucked, I'm so glad I didn't spend $60 on this."

For the record, I haven't watched the video below in full, because I might yet decide to play this game (once all the reviews are in and a bribe-free consensus on its quality has been reached, once the price has dropped to a reasonable level, and perhaps once there's some kind of special edition for PC with all that silly DLC included). Needless to say, however, it does contain spoilers.

The conclusion of Desmond Miles' story arc has prompted not only a lot of complaints, but also some comparisons to the ending of Mass Effect 3... which, by the way, was poorly received, largely because the game's multiple endings were so similar. (The video below explains the frequent jokes about the different endings being the same except for the choice of color.)

From what I've heard, Assassin's Creed III doesn't have multiple endings, and the reasons that some people hate its singular ending are accordingly much different. Although (as I've pointed out) I haven't watched the ending myself, it sounds like part of the problem is another ridiculous plot twist out of left field. In a way, this isn't surprising. When a story like that of the Assassin's Creed series relies so heavily on plot twists and cliffhangers, two things happen. First, the story ends up feeling too random or inconsistent, usually after some "grand-finale" plot twist employed in a last-ditch effort to truly surprise players; second, the writers get so attuned to raising questions and leaving things unresolved that they forget how to answer all those questions without resorting to some stupid cop-out.

The one constant here — besides, of course, each game being the conclusion of a trilogy — is that hardcore fans of each franchise felt cheated. After sinking so much money into a series, that hurts.

A similar thing happened recently with Halo 4, whose ending wound up on YouTube a couple of weeks ago, despite the game's official release date of November 6. Microsoft has been scrambling to take the videos down for obvious reasons, and it looks like they've been somewhat successful, because I can't seem to find a high-quality version. (The videos below, which I found and embedded in a playlist, are likely to vanish soon.)

An allegedly sub-par ending, combined with the most banal and corny tagline of all time, has drawn a lot of laughs at the expense of this futuristic shooter. (An Ancient Evil Awakens? Seriously? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a cliché long before the Halo 4 marketing team got a hold of it.) I'm not sure if I can fully grasp just how good or bad this ending is, because I haven't played a Halo game since the second installment, but some fans were upset about it. (Perhaps too upset, considering that, with Halo 5 and Halo 6 supposedly in the works, it's not really an ending at all.)

Ultimately, none of this really matters, as long as the bulk of the gameplay is enjoyable... at least, that's the theory. But video game sequels are almost always advertised as continuations of a story, with cinematic trailers featuring minimal gameplay footage. Perhaps the assumption is that we already know what the gameplay is like, since we played the previous game, or that we shouldn't need to ask about the gameplay because any product with a sufficient amount of hype is worth pre-ordering, no questions asked. In any case, the result is a game advertised on the basis of its plot, and purchased primarily by owners of the previous titles, who want to know how the story ends. A bad ending, therefore, is pretty hard to ignore.

So how does the industry avoid disappointing fans with bad endings? Simply to write better endings might not be the answer; that's easier said than done, and the quality of an ending is ultimately a subjective thing. (A vocal minority, at least, will always complain, no matter what.) I think a better solution is to stop making so many sequels — to create more stand-alone games to be judged on their own merit rather than allowing so many new releases to ride on the hype generated by their predecessors — and, by extension, to stop making games that end in cliffhangers in anticipation of sequels that haven't been written. They should stop deliberately writing stories that span multiple games, thereby forcing players finish an entire trilogy (tetralogy, pentalogy, hexalogy, etc.) to find out if the final "ending" to a given story arc is any good.

They won't listen to me, though; cliffhangers are a fantastic way to make money.

In other news, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation is out today. Unfortunately, given that it's just about the newest game on Steam, it hasn't joined the rest of the Painkiller series as part of their Halloween Sale. That's not really a big deal, though, since they've set the standard price at a reasonable $20 instead of jumping straight to $60 regardless of quality like most publishers/developers do.

Sandy & Steam Sale

While a deadly hurricane named Sandy lays waste to the east coast of the United States, threatening to rain all over my favorite holiday (which is now only two days away), Steam has begun its Halloween Sale. Sadly, it lasts only from now until Wednesday, and surely many affected by the storm will be without power for the entirety of the event. I'm still fortunate enough to have power where I am, but the weather has been getting steadily worse since late last night, so that might not last.

For those who can shop online this week, there are some nice discounts. I'm seeing a lot of "-75%" tags. The games currently "featured," however, don't seem to have greater discounts than the other five dozen games on sale. Perhaps the word "featured" just means new or popular, or maybe the featured games are chosen randomly and cycled throughout the sale. After all, the games on the "featured" list make up about a third of the games that are marked down for the duration of this three-day sale.

In any case, you'll want to make sure you check out the "All Halloween Games on Sale" list, located just below the "Featured Games on Sale" list on this page. Otherwise you might miss out something good.

While I'm here, I might as well come up with my own list of noteworthy games, based on my own crazy and possibly worthless opinions. First, I'd like to point out that some of the games on sale are those I mentioned in my last post on Wednesday:

• F.E.A.R. (with its two expansion packs included) is only $2.49, which is just painful for me to look at, since I paid $50 for the game back in 2005, and then bought the expansions separately for at least $30 each. Still, I loved the game so much that I have no buyer's remorse, not even after seeing it go for two bucks and change. Needless to say, I'd argue that F.E.A.R. is worth buying right now, if you're into paranormal first-person shooters. (The rest of the F.E.A.R. series is on sale as well, but I'm not so crazy about those sequels.)
• The Painkiller Complete Pack is going for $7.49. That's a bit more than I paid for the Complete Pack a year ago, but there were fewer games included at the time.) Strangely, only a couple of the games — Resurrection and Recurring Evil — are on sale individually. The result is that buying the whole pack is actually cheaper than buying the first game, Painkiller: Black Edition, alone.
  

  Update: Scratch that. It looks like all of the individual Painkiller games are now 75% off, which means Painkiller: Black Edition is only $2.49. I still think the bundle is a fair price, but if you're unsure of how you feel about this particular brand of first-person shooter, I'd recommend buying only the original game, since most of the sequels are mediocre at best.

• Killing Floor is $4.99, which is normal during any Steam sale, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to get much cheaper. It's also in the middle of its Hillbilly Horror Event for Halloween, which goes until November 6, so all of the zombies are dressed up like... well, hillbillies. It's a lot of fun, especially if you have some friends with whom to team up and play.
• Alan Wake is marked down to $14.99, and Alan Wake's American Nightmare is only $7.49. I've seen them go for cheaper, but you might have to wait until the winter sale for that to happen again.

And a few other things worth mentioning:

• The Walking Dead is down to $14.99. It's not a huge discount, but I've only heard good things about this game, and I've been seriously thinking about adding it to my collection.
• Amnesia: The Dark Descent is currently $4.99, while each of the Penumbra games are $2.49. (Oddly, the Penumbra Collector Pack is $4.99, which is one cent more than the combined cost of the two included Penumbra games.)
• Magicka is $2.49. It's a hilarious game and I love it. I just wish it were better optimized. It tends to run like crap on my computer while much prettier games work perfectly.
• Zombie Driver HD is marked down to $4.99 after a 50% discount. The original Zombie Driver, which I got for $2.49 a while ago, is a lot of fun, and I can only assume that this updated version is at least as good. Unfortunately, it really is just an updated version of the original — not a sequel — so you might want to think twice about getting it if you already have the standard edition. Owners of the original game are supposed to get a 50% discount, but that doesn't seem to stack with the Halloween Sale discount, which is really a shame.
• I wanted to buy Rage, but even with the current discount, it's still $9.99. I'll be waiting a little longer for the price to drop below $5, but I don't expect everyone to be as stingy as I am.
• Each of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games — which are fantastic if you have a decent computer and don't mind installing a couple of bug-fixing mods — are on sale as well: Shadow of Chernobyl for $9.99, Clear Sky for $4.99, and Call of Pripyat for $7.49. (As with the Penumbra series, there seems to be a bug in the pricing of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Bundle, which costs one cent more than the price of the included games, Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat.)
• I've been waiting for the Overlord Complete Pack to go on sale for a while, so I just might pick it up now for $4.99. (I've never played it, but it kinda reminds me of a more diabolic Pikmin.)
• The Dead Space games are each $4.99, which seems pretty cool. I've never played them, but you can't go horribly wrong for five bucks. Just make sure you don't buy the Dead Space Pack, since, again, it costs one cent more than the combined price of the individual games. At first I thought this was a bug, but now I think it's just plain carelessness.
• Predictably, the Left 4 Dead series is on sale, as is just about every game with the word "zombie" in the title — and there are far too many to name. Some of them look cute, others look like shovelware. Just beware the deceptive power of tempting discounts on awful products.

I should mention that there are Halloween deals on Amazon and Origin as well. I haven't checked them out in detail just yet, so I can't say whether they're better or worse than the current steam sale, but every option is worth considering. While I might be slightly biased in favor of Steam (because my friends are on it), I encourage you all — as always — to shop around before spending any money.

Games to Play on Halloween

The best holiday is coming up in only a week, and if you're looking to get hyped for Halloween, the only thing better than a cheesy horror movie is a spooky video game. I'm going to list a few of my favorites here, in no particular order.

Of course, the most obvious can go first.

Resident Evil

I'm not sure what to say about the series as a whole. The franchise itself is nothing short of legendary, but I wasn't fond of the prequel Resident Evil Zero, and I've heard bad things about both of the most recent releases, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City and Resident Evil 6. This shouldn't be a surprise; any series that stays around as long as this one has is bound to go sour at some point. I did, however, enjoy the hell out of the GameCube remake of the original. It was the first Resident Evil game I ever owned, and on my first playthrough, it scared the crap out of me.

The controls were awful, as they were in every installment in the series prior to Resident Evil 4. The pairing of character-relative controls and fixed camera angles is truly one of the worst things ever to happen to video games — but I have to say that it did, in a pretty stupid way, make the game scarier. Avoiding or shooting a small number of slow-moving zombies probably doesn't sound like a frightening ordeal to anyone who plays the likes of Left 4 Dead, but with such clumsy controls, what would be a walk in the park becomes a nightmare. The character turns too slowly, and aiming for the head involves more luck than skill. The camera angles are uniformly bad, as well. It's frustrating, but effective at making the player feel helpless even with a gun.

What makes Resident Evil most effective, however, is that it doesn't rely on cheap "jump scares" to startle the player. The game is scary because of its expert control of suspense, because you don't know what's around the next corner, and because you don't know how much ammunition you can spare. It's the definitive survival horror, and it does almost everything right. As far as horror games on the GameCube go, the Resident Evil remake is second only to...

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem

I've already written quite a lot about Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, another GameCube masterpiece. It's not the scariest game I've ever played — not even close — but it's got a creepy atmosphere, a fantastic story, and some clever gameplay mechanics.

Eternal Darkness is a psychological horror, so it's a bit more subtle and slow-paced than most other horror games, which tend rely on sudden, loud noises and simple shock value to scare the player. It's only going to startle you in a couple of places, and there isn't a lot of blood and gore, but the sanity system will do its best to freak you out in a variety of (occasionally hilarious) ways. More importantly, the game doesn't do a bad job of creating an overwhelming sense of impending doom.

Overall, it's a nice game to get you in the Halloween spirit, especially if you're a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft. And speaking of Lovecraft...

Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare

I almost didn't include this game on the list, but alas, the power of nostalgia is too great. It's been years since I played it, and I must admit that I never quite got to the end. Maybe I got stuck, maybe it was too hard, or maybe I was so creeped out by my first survival horror experience that I couldn't bear to go on. In any case, I was a lot younger at the time, and I wasn't as enthusiastic about PC games as I am now.

The New Nightmare is the 2001 sequel to the Lovecraft-inspired Alone in the Dark trilogy from the early 1990s — which, unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure of playing. (Or maybe it's more of a spin-off, since another sequel in 2008 apparently retcons The New Nightmare out of existence.) My memory of the plot is somewhat fuzzy, but what I do remember is that the game creeped me out more than a little. While I'm sure the graphics have aged poorly, I'd like to give the game another try, if I can ever find the discs.

The New Nightmare suffered from the same clunky controls that plagued the early Resident Evil games. And, like Resident Evil, it has two protagonists, takes place in a mansion, and involves a lot of puzzles. The similarities are hard to ignore, but there are some differences, namely the replacement of zombies, zombie-dogs, zombie-snakes, zombie-sharks, and zombie-birds with a slightly more creative variety of creepy crawlies, as well as the use of a flashlight to fend off the baddies. Actually, that last part kind of reminds me of...

Alan Wake

I wrote more than enough about Alan Wake in my earlier post on cinematic games, so if you're no stranger to this blog, you're probably aware that I enjoyed the game immensely. The transparently Stephen King-inspired psychological horror/action game earns its place on this list with a spooky atmosphere and a superb story. The two short DLC expansions, truth be told, were a bit weird, and I can't say I really enjoyed the sequel, Alan Wake's American Nightmare (of which the only redeeming quality, in the absence of a decent story, is the intense arcade mode), but the original game is definitely worth a try.

Like many horror games, it's not so scary once you get the hang of killing the bad guys, nor is it as thrilling once you know every plot twist and the location of every precious box of ammunition, but the first playthrough will have its share of potentially unnerving moments.

And those bad guys — whom, in the beginning of the game, consist largely of possessed, axe-wielding lumberjacks in the woods at night — can be really frightening. I think it's mostly in the way they move. Even when you dodge their attacks, you can almost feel the power behind every swing. The way they stumble when they miss, and the way Alan ducks out of the way just in time... there's a real sense of momentum that's absent in the awkwardly animated combat of a lot of video games.

Now just wait until you're surrounded by those guys, low on bullets, with a long way to run to the next safe haven. As in any good horror game, simply running away isn't an option. The bad guys are faster than you, and you can only escape them for as long as you can successfully dodge their attacks without running into a corner. At some point, you'll need to turn around and fight. The same is true of...

Killing Floor

Unlike every other game I've mentioned, Killing Floor is primarily a multiplayer game. In fact, you might say it's exclusively multiplayer, since playing the solo mode is essentially the same as going online and joining an empty server, and since playing alone isn't nearly as fun.

Generally, I prefer single-player games, but Killing Floor — a stand-alone game based on a mod for Unreal Tournament 2004 — has become one of my all-time favorites, for two reasons. The first is that it's cooperative. Up to six players team up against a horde of computer-controlled zombies, so unless someone makes a boneheaded move that inadvertently gets the whole team killed, there are no hard feelings between human players. For the most part, everyone you'll meet online is rather friendly. The second reason is that, unlike most multiplayer games, Killing Floor requires a lot of coordinated teamwork.

Forget about spooky ambiance and creepy music. Killing Floor is scary because it's hard. The easiest setting is a joke, but anything above that can be a serious challenge, depending on the collective skills of the team. And with the number of zombies in each wave increasing as more players join, there's little room for weak links. You need to be able to count on your team, and you need to keep them alive, because there's no worse feeling than being the last guy alive with a bunch of monsters chasing after you. Killing Floor is one of the least forgiving video games I've played in recent memory, and it's not for the faint of heart. But I love it. The only first-person shooter I've spent more hours playing is...

F.E.A.R.

Some would argue that F.E.A.R. falls flat on its face as a genuine horror game. It's got a somewhat spooky story, and occasionally you'll hear voices or see the ghost of a little dead girl, but there aren't a whole lot of monsters that jump out at you... at least, not for most of the game. But as a first-person shooter, F.E.A.R. excels and exceeds expectations. A horror-themed game doesn't need to make you crap your pants in order to be fun, and F.E.A.R. certainly is a lot of fun.

The enemy AI is very good; while the bad guys occasionally show their stupidity, they do attempt to flank you, and they're pretty good at flushing you out of hiding with grenades if they know where you are. The way they talk to each other while attempting to take you down also adds a lot of realism. The slow-motion feature, while a bit gimmicky, does add a little something extra to the gameplay, and is genuinely useful (perhaps too useful) even in the most dire of circumstances. The "scary parts" are all scripted, but if you're playing on the highest difficulty, the fear of being shot to death should keep you on the edge of your seat through most of the game.

There are two expansion packs and a couple of sequels, if you want more, but I don't have anything good to say about those. The story stopped making sense in the expansions (which were later retconned), and it became downright silly by the end of the first sequel. Also, be advised that the second sequel is meant to be played with two people. While there is a single-player campaign, it's really just cooperative mode without the second character, who mysteriously and nonsensically shows up nonetheless during cutscenes. If you just want to shoot things, go ahead and play the whole series, but don't expect any of the unanswered questions leftover from the first game to be adequately resolved. Speaking of great games with mediocre sequels...

Painkiller

A moderately fast-paced shooter with a demonic theme and an old-school style, Painkiller is easily one of the most solid purchases I ever made on Steam. The "Complete Pack" (which, at the time, included fewer games than it does now) was marked down to $4.99, and the first game alone is worth at least that much to me. The story is truly awful, and the voice acting is atrocious, but the gameplay is good enough to make up for that. Painkiller is pure; it's a first-person shooter without all the pointless fluff. It's nonstop carnage. It's all you could ask from a first-person shooter unless you really care about character development, and I know you don't.

If you're a fan of classic shooters like Doom, and more modern throwbacks like Serious Sam, this game is highly recommended. I enjoyed the first installment so much that I played through a couple of times before moving onto the others. Unfortunately, I soon came to realize that none of the other games in the series, thus far, were nearly as good — but by then I had already gotten my money's worth.

As of one week from today, there will be half a dozen standalone games in the Painkiller series, plus one expansion to the original, but there still hasn't been a Painkiller 2, or anything which might resemble a proper sequel. Worse yet, none of the continuations I've played have been worthwhile. Painkiller Overdose, apparently a fan-made mod that eventually became an official stand-alone expansion, was decent, but a step down from the original. Painkiller: Resurrection, which attempted a more open-world experience, was sloppy, buggy, and generally awful. Painkiller: Redemption, another fan-made mod that was turned into an official release, more closely followed the style of the previous titles, and was more enjoyable, but it was more of the same, at best. This is also what I expect of Painkiller: Recurring Evil, which I have yet to play. Then there's Painkiller: Hell & Damnation, which comes out on Halloween day, and while it looks promising, it seems mostly to be a (much prettier) remake of the original game.

To make a long story short, I highly recommend getting the first Painkiller, usually sold with its expansion as Painkiller: Black Edition, as soon as it goes on sale. The rest of the series is questionable. You might want to buy the Complete Pack, if you really love old-school shooters, but if you're not sure, you should probably stick with the first one for now. It's a great game to play on Halloween, and while it's easy to pick up and play, it requires some serious practice to master. (You'll want to learn how to bunny-hop, constantly, at all times, forever. The alternative is frustration and death.)

I Really Need a New Computer

The PC on which I play most of my games is becoming dangerously outdated. For its age, it works surprisingly well, but it's getting to the point where it has some trouble running the newest games at a nice-looking frame rate. Unfortunately, with only a part-time job and student loans to pay off, I don't feel comfortable spending several hundred dollars right now.

Maybe my computer-building experience, when I can afford it, will make an informative blog post.

For now, though, I'm too lazy to write any more than 100 words. One long-winded post per week is enough.

Free Games on Origin

On Friday night, I was made aware of a promotional code for EA's Origin that would reduce to zero the price of almost any game worth $20 or less. For the record, the code is OS3874XVC, but don't get excited; it's not working anymore. The whole fiasco came to an end shortly after I started writing this post.

Apparently, the code was originally given to those who completed an online survey, but instead of personalized one-time-use codes for each survey taker, there was only one code, and everyone — that is, everyone in North America — could use it.

The other odd thing about this promo code was that, when used, it was applied to every $20-or-less game in a person's virtual shopping cart, not just one. (It seemed too good to be true, so I verified it. I added half a dozen $19.99 games to my cart — worth almost $120 in total — and applying the code made all of them free.) This allowed countless people to load up their carts with a dozen or more games and "buy" them all for nothing. Obviously, this was some kind of glitch, and it didn't last long. By Saturday evening, the loophole had been closed so that the promo code was only good for a single free game, as intended.

Even so, I can't even imagine how many games were accidentally given away for free during this brief period of chaos.

And while EA seemingly fixed the glitch, they didn't bother to completely deactivate the promo code at that time. Even though the code was presumably meant only for certain customers who completed a survey — and although they must have known immediately that it was being used by everyone — they allowed the code to continue working until earlier today. Perhaps it was better to let everyone get a single free game than to break their promise to the survey-takers who earned the promo code legitimately. After all, if the opportunity to grab a free game causes more people to make Origin accounts, EA gains a lot of potential future customers.

But the exploitation of this promo code wasn't over yet.

In addition to the belatedly implemented one-game limit, there seemed to be a one-use-per-account restriction. If you'd already used the code once, while logged into an Origin account, the code would be "invalid" the second time around. Of course, people quickly found other ways of getting more than one free game. The most obvious method was to make a new account in order to use the code again, but having separate accounts for each free game is far from ideal. Another method of getting additional free games involved logging out, deleting cookies, adding a game to the cart, using the promo code, removing the game from the cart, logging back in, adding the game to the cart again, and finishing the transaction. Don't ask me why this worked.

And somehow, I was even able to get two free games on one account without doing anything complicated. On Friday night, after verifying that the code could be used on multiple games at once, I created an Origin account and subsequently decided — out of kindness, I guess — to use the code legitimately, only claiming one free game. Then, on Saturday, I logged into the same account at a friend's house, and successfully used the code again with a different game. (It didn't work again with the same account at either house.) Maybe this had something to do with the change in IP address, maybe the fact that it worked twice on my account was just a fluke, or maybe the server's memory of who used the code got reset when that major glitch was fixed.

In any case, there were some limits in place — even though they didn't work perfectly — so EA clearly didn't want people using the code willy nilly. It remains to be seen, however, if those who exploited the various bugs in the system will be banned, or if their numerous free games will be taken away. Legal action, however, is almost certainly out of the question, since the widely used promo code was simply doing what EA's dopey programmers told it to do.

Regardless of what happens, the freeloaders who grabbed as many free games as possible have little to lose, since most of them were smart enough to use alternate accounts and fake names for the purpose of blatantly exploiting this enormous bug in the system. If those free games disappear, and if those dummy accounts are banned, they'll emerge unscathed, and the chance to screw with a big, evil corporation like EA will have been worth all the trouble.

As for those who didn't explicitly break the rules, getting a single $20 game for free on Origin seems like a wasted opportunity in comparison. But it's still a pretty nice deal. Or is it? Well, that depends on how much one really wants an Origin copy of a game which is already old enough to have a $20 price tag. I might not even play mine, since I'm still not sure if I really want to install Origin on my computer. It's hard to go far in a discussion of EA's Origin service without coming across accusations that the Origin client is outright spyware. Similar things have been said of Valve's Steam, but since EA has a worse reputation and Origin is still the new kid on the block, it's Origin that attracts a lot of distrust.

I've already seen plenty of claims that EA intentionally allowed this promo code to "leak" so that they could get their (allegedly malicious) Origin software on as many computers as possible. In other words, maybe it wasn't just boneheaded incompetence that led to this promo code being universal and available to everyone. While most initially assumed that it was a mistake, and that the code was supposed to be used only by a select few, perhaps it was supposed to go viral. It does seem plausible, except for the whole "infect everyone with spyware" part. More likely the goal was simply to boost the Origin userbase artificially, and to get freeloaders past the sign-up barrier in hopes that they'll come back later with full wallets.

In any case, I doubt the promo code was ever supposed to work for multiple games at once. The fact that they eventually fixed this issue indicates that it was a genuine screw-up.

As of now, it seems the promo code has stopped working entirely. I never bothered to cheat the system, since there weren't a lot of $20 games on Origin that I wanted. I probably wouldn't have gone through the hassle of creating an Origin account in the first place if I weren't curious about how the code worked. But for those who like EA's games and feel comfortable using the Origin service, this broken promo code was probably the highlight of the entire weekend.

Update #1:

Forbes contributor Erik Kain picked up on this story earlier today, as well. I won't bother linking to any other sources; you get the point.

Update #2:

I know I said I wouldn't link to any more news stories, but I think it's funny that I posted about this before Kotaku did. On the other hand, my post is hastily written garbage. On the other other hand, so is most of the stuff on Slowtaku.

Update #3:

Those who exploited the coupon code to get dozens of free games have no reason to fear any negative consequences. A community manager on the EA forums posted today that EA will honor all sales made with the coupon code. This is probably the most diplomatically sound move they could make, at this point. Revoking the games and handing out bans would just make EA look bad, since this whole thing was their own fault.

Update #4 (10/15/12):

It seems that EA's stocks suddenly jumped on Friday.

I wonder why. Could it be related to all those new user accounts that were created because of the faulty promo code? Perhaps it's due to having so many "sales" in such a short time? While I doubt it was EA's intention to allow each person to run off with a truckload of free games, it looks like they might benefit from this.

But it isn't much, in the long run. They've still been in the toilet since 2008, along with the rest of the world.

And they've been on a gradual decline for the past year. Rumors say they're dying.

But it's been a long time since EA published a game that I actually enjoyed, so good riddance.

Five Things I'd Like to See in Half-Life 3

First, a brief history of the Half-Life series:

1998 — Half-Life
1999 — Half-Life: Opposing Force
2000
2001 — Half-Life: Blue Shift; Half-Life: Decay
2002
2003
2004 — Half-Life 2
2005
2006 — Half-Life 2: Episode One
2007 — Half-Life 2: Episode Two
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

I've left the uneventful years on the timeline to illustrate the gaps between releases and to show how long it's been since production of the series came to a halt. As of today, it has been exactly five years since Half-Life 2: Episode Two — a game which ends abruptly with a painful cliffhanger — was released to the public as part of The Orange Box.

A continuation, presumably titled Half-Life 2: Episode Three, was announced back in 2006, and it was originally supposed to come out sometime in 2007, but we still haven't seen it. There hasn't even been a demo or a trailer. To this day, the official website for The Orange Box still claims that Half-Life 2: Episode Two is the "the second in a trilogy" of episodic expansions for the popular first-person shooter, but Half-Life developer Valve has given us almost no information except for some weird ideas which, if the game is still in production, have probably been dropped already.

Valve is known for long development cycles, lots of delays, and drastic changes during those long development cycles, which lead to more delays. What makes their silence on Episode Three so frustrating is that the Episodes, like other "episodic" games, were supposed to be released in rather quick succession. The whole point, I thought, was to release content in small chunks, as they were finished, so that fans wouldn't have to wait half a decade for the next installment. But I guess that wasn't working out.

If another Half-Life game is ever released, it almost certainly won't be an Episode; Valve co-founder Gabe Newell says they're done with episodic content, which essentially translates to "Half-Life 2: Episode Three is never coming." Of course, that doesn't rule out a proper Half-Life 3, which is exactly what we need. The next addition to the series will have to be a full game (and a damn good one) if Valve hopes to come within reach of the impossibly high expectations generated by such a long wait.

It's likely that Half-Life 3 won't life up to these expectations at all. Valve kind of screwed things up by promising the prompt release of an episodic expansion which never came to be. The endless wait for Half-Life 2: Episode Three seamlessly evolved into an endless wait for Half-Life 3, and now many see Half-Life 3 as vaporware, despite the fact that the five-year gap in this series is nothing compared to the 15-year development of the poorly received Duke Nukem Forever.

But if we ever get a sequel, there are a few things I'd like to see. (Note that spoilers follow.)

1. A more open world (but not too open)

Nearly three weeks ago, some rumors regarding Half-Life 3 made the rounds on all the usual gaming sites. (This is nothing special, really; it's been nonstop rumors for five years, and they should always be taken with a grain of salt, but at least they give us something to talk about.) According to some anonymous but reliable source — sounds legit, guys — Half-Life 3 will be an open-world game, and will be released sometime after 2013. I'm not digging the 2014+ release date, but an open world sounds nice. Until now, the Half-Life games have been very linear. More exploration, multiple paths, and optional objectives would be a welcome addition to the series.

What we don't need is another S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or some kind of role-playing game. Those are nice, but they're not what Half-Life is all about. While I'm sure Valve is aiming to avoid accusations that their next game is too linear — that it essentially boils down to "shoot everything, move to the next room, shoot everything, repeat" — I hope they don't completely abandon the method of storytelling that has worked so well in their games so far. It would be nothing short of jarring to go from Half-Life 2: Episode Two, an action-packed but story-driven shooter with clear objectives, to something more like a free-roam sandbox with not enough direction and too much empty space.

2. A portal gun (or something like it)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Portal and Half-Life stories are intertwined. Portal contained some funny references to Half-Life's Black Mesa, and Half-Life 2: Episode Two brought Portal into Half-Life canon with its mention of Aperture Science in the final act. It's an odd relationship, since Half-Life is a semi-serious first-person shooter whereas Portal is a humorous puzzle game... but there are thematic similarities.

While Portal's humor doesn't quite fit with the general tone of the Half-Life series, both franchises heavily feature teleportation, and this is probably why Valve thought it was appropriate to tie them together. The extent to which Valve plans to pursue this connection, obviously, is unknown — I certainly don't expect Gordon Freeman and Chell to team up against the Combine — but after making such a big deal out of the Aperture Science research vessel Borealis at the end of Episode Two, it's too late to drop the subject entirely. It will be downright silly if the next Half-Life game doesn't feature the Borealis and, by extension, other things related to Aperture Science.

With any luck, that includes some kind of handheld portal device, preferably one that's a little more stable than the Displacer Cannon from Half-Life: Opposing Force. Aperture's portal gun, if featured in Half-Life 3, could (in part) fill the role of Half-Life 2's gravity gun as the slightly-gimmicky puzzle-solving item that's also a weapon if you use it right. I know we've all had plenty of time to play around with the portal gun in Portal and Portal 2, but using it in a combat-oriented game could be kind of fun.

3. The extent of the Combine's power

While Gordon Freeman was in stasis between the end of Half-Life and the beginning of Half-Life 2, we missed an apocalypse. By the time we arrive in City 17, human society has already collapsed under the heel of an enormous alien empire, and the occupying forces, it would seem, have since largely withdrawn, leaving what's left of our species under the control of brainwashed transhuman soldiers.

Throughout Half-Life 2 and the Episodes, we see the aftermath of the Seven Hour War which ended in Earth's surrender, but we never see the Combine display the kind of raw power that could bring an entire planet to its knees in less than a day. What we see instead is a somewhat underwhelming uprising against what must have been a tiny fraction of the army that invaded Earth. This is why we know we're in a world of trouble when Dr. Kleiner speaks, after the uprising begins, of the Combine's "inevitable return and what is certain to be unimaginable retaliation."

But how unstoppable are they? What's their evil-alien-empire power level? Could they take on the Covenant from Halo or the Reapers from Mass Effect? We just don't know.

And this, in part, is what makes the story in Half-Life 2 as good as it is. Just enough is left to the player's imagination. We know the Combine are scary, but the fact that we don't know just how scary they are makes them even scarier. We don't need to see the Seven Hour War to believe it, and I honestly hope Valve doesn't give us a prequel to illustrate it. (That seems like a great excuse for a bad game.) But if Half-Life 3 continues (and perhaps concludes) the story arc left unfinished in Episode Two, it would be nice to see the bad guys step it up a bit.

After one game and two expansions, our alien overlords have only embarrassed themselves in their failed attempts to track down and kill a single theoretical physicist. It seems like the right time to see a glimpse of their true power. Besides, we've already spent enough time shooting metrocops and blowing up striders. We need something bigger.

4. A single-player campaign

This probably seems like a strange thing to hope for, since nearly every game in the series to date is primarily single-player. (The notable exceptions are the PS2-exclusive Half-Life: Decay and the Japan-only arcade Half-Life 2: Survivor.) However, we do have a reason to fear for the future of single-player games. Electronic Arts, for example, has abandoned them, and Gabe Newell himself said last year that Valve no longer had any interest in creating games "with an isolated single-player experience."

Naturally, Half-Life fans waiting for the next sequel were horrified, and even though Gabe later attempted to clarify his statement to let us know that the company hadn't given up on single-player games entirely, I'm still a bit worried. While they might continue making single-player games, they seem to have a lot of ideas about making these games more social.

It seems plausible, for example, that Half-Life 3 might be built for some kind of cooperative mode where one player controls Gordon Freeman and the other controls Alyx Vance. I hope this doesn't happen. I also don't want to see Half-Life 3 loaded with a bunch of pointless social features. I like single-player games, and I prefer to play them without being bothered about friend requests and leaderboards.

I'm sure that Half-Life 3 will have its own analog to Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, but it would be great if they could just keep the single-player and multiplayer components separate, so I can play one and ignore the other.

5. An ending (I know, it's a stretch)

The Half-Life games are fun, but they tend to have terrible endings which hardly qualify as endings at all.

The original ends with Gordon Freeman being kidnapped by the so-called "G-Man" (whose identity and motives are never explained), Opposing Force ends with the same fate for Adrian Shephard (who is never seen again), Half-Life 2 ends with Freeman being whisked away by the G-Man again (leaving the story at an explosion-related cliffhanger), Episode One ends with another explosion (followed by a train crash and a fade to black), and Episode Two ends awkwardly with one supporting character crying over another supporting character's corpse. (It was the worst finale I've ever seen in the history of video games, and perhaps that's because it was never meant to be a finale. Keep in mind that, at some point, they were actually planning to finish Episode Three.)

Blue Shift has a happy ending, but it isn't a particularly interesting one.

So I won't be surprised if Half-Life 3 ends with another suspenseful but unresolved situation — another set-up for another sequel that might take another ten years to make — but it would be great if Valve could just give us some kind of satisfying resolution instead. I'm not saying they should end the story entirely, but they could at least cool it with the unbearable cliffhangers. In other words, if Valve plans on rolling the credits right after an important character dies, or having the G-Man stop by for another inexplicable kidnapping, I'd rather not play the game at all.

Stop Pre-Ordering Games

I've mentioned before, in passing, my deep loathing — shared by many — for day-one DLC and pre-order bonuses.

I'm not going to pretend that the downloadable content of today is fundamentally different from the expansion packs of old; in theory, they're very similar. Expansion packs would either add content to an existing game, or act as a continuation of the game in the form of additional levels, but they were typically not as "big" (or as expensive) as the game itself. DLC almost always follows this example, albeit with a different delivery method and, thus, fewer constraints. With no discs and no shipping, selling everything in smaller pieces is no inconvenience to the publisher, which is why we're seeing ever smaller DLC "expansions" with (ideally) smaller prices than those of traditional expansion packs.

But there's another difference. While the traditional expansion pack was typically released some time after the base game, DLC is often available immediately. No doubt the industry believes this is a great thing, but not everyone agrees.

When DLC is released concurrently with the base game, people inevitably jump to the conclusion that this "extra" content belongs in the game itself, but that it was removed, and sold separately, for the sake of squeezing more money out of customers... like a car salesman selling you everything but the steering wheel and then demanding extra cash for the "extra" part. Of course, "day-one DLC" doesn't really mean that the publisher took a finished game from the developer and broke it up to be sold in pieces. It's likely that most games with DLC additions were meant to be sold this way from the very beginning, and were developed with this in mind. However, developing a game with DLC in mind still means to many that the base game will be inherently incomplete. I think we can all admit that this isn't necessarily true — a lot of these games still feel "complete" even without all the (mostly useless) add-ons — but appearances and first impressions, whether or not they're accurate, are pretty important.

Personally, I don't mind if a developer or publisher wants to sell a game in pieces. I usually ignore DLC unless I'm absolutely in love with a game and feel a compulsive need to experience every bit of it. Furthermore, most DLC consists of strictly non-essential content. Sometimes, this means purely cosmetic changes to a game, such as the character packs in Killing Floor, and I think this is a pretty harmless way for the developer to earn a few extra bucks from anyone actually willing to throw away their money for such a frivolous thing. I certainly don't feel compelled to buy this stuff, so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

However, the same can't be said of DLC that would, for example, add extra weapons to a first-person shooter, or extra levels to the campaign mode of a story-driven game. I suspect a lot of players — completionists especially — feel that, when they buy a game, they need to own the whole game, and this drives them to pay for half a dozen little expansions that can add up to a lot of cash.

Ultimately, each of us is responsible for how we spend our own money; nobody is shoving extra content down our throats and forcing us to buy it. But when this so-called "DLC" is available on release day — and sometimes even included on the game disc, just awaiting authorization — it's typically seen as a part of the game for which we thought we already paid, not as an optional expansion to it, and uninformed customers tend to get pretty upset when they find out. While this is the source of a lot of controversy, I think it's also exactly what the publishers want. The idea that an integral part of the original game has been taken away to be sold separately is what makes us hate day-one DLC... but it's also what makes us buy it. It's a shame that the average consumer doesn't have the willpower to boycott a product.

While it wouldn't be completely crazy for me to say that DLC itself is downright evil, I don't think that's a very constructive thing to do. First of all, DLC itself isn't the problem. We're the problem. If the game industry is doing something wrong, it's partly because we reinforced that behavior with our purchases. Second of all, it's not DLC that we should hate, but rather the host of generally evil business practices that come along with it. For example, so-called day-one DLC is often used as an incentive for pre-ordering a game, or even for pre-ordering the game from a specific retail outlet. And instead of buying a game, and then buying an expansion if we really liked the game, we're encouraged to buy a game and all of its additional content at once — before the game is even released.

Welcome to the wonderful world of pre-orders and pre-order bonuses. No, don't think, just hand over your wallets.

Some DLC was just announced for Assassin's Creed III — a game which, by the way, hasn't yet been released — and all five of the upcoming DLC packs can be purchased with a $30 season pass. Add that to the usual price tag of $60 for the base game, and you've got quite a large purchase. Yes, the Gold Edition of the game (which includes this season pass) is a whopping $90. Of course, there's a benefit to buying this season pass; it's significantly cheaper than buying each DLC pack separately, for a total of $40. But I'd much rather wait until a year after release — when the game and its DLC are cheaper, and when I know whether the game is worth playing — before I spend any money.

You've probably guessed that I think pre-ordering is a horrible idea and that anyone who pre-orders anything is a mindless sheep. You guessed right. Naturally, the whole concept of a "season pass" for DLC is, to me, a bit absurd. It's essentially a pre-order for DLC which, like the game itself, might not even be good. The fact that the game is a sequel makes it all slightly less crazy — fans of the series have a pretty good idea of what the game will be like — but it doesn't seem like a great investment either way. When you pre-order not only a $60 game but also $30 worth of DLC on top of it, you're betting a whole lot of money that the game won't suck. Why not wait until after it's released so you can read some reviews and get maybe a better price? What's the benefit of pre-ordering?

In the old days, the only reason for pre-ordering was to reserve a copy of a highly anticipated game for which supply was expected to fall short of demand. It guaranteed that you'd get your game on release day instead of waiting for the next shipment while all your friends played the game without you. But the industry likes pre-ordering for another reason. It makes their sales figures look better. They get to say they sold a hundred thousand copies of their game on the first day. They get to say their game went gold before it was even released.

In the context of modern PC gaming, the word "supply" is meaningless. Just about every PC game can be downloaded; there are no shipments, and copies of a game are unlimited. So why should anyone pre-order a downloadable game? I think the industry asked itself this question and came up with an answer: pre-order bonuses. Not only do they make the absurdity of pre-purchasing a downloadable game seem a bit less absurd; they also make the foolish act of pre-ordering physical copies even more tempting.

The fact that developers would spend their time making DLC exclusively for those who pre-purchase the game — content which the rest of their fans may or may not be able to access at a later date — says a lot about the industry, namely how much value they place in those pre-orders. Could it really be all about inflating those first-day sales figures? Or could it be that they desperately want us to buy their games before anyone gets to find out if those games are worth playing? Why anyone would pay $60 for a game that hasn't even been reviewed yet is beyond me, but the industry has put a lot of effort into convincing people to do it.

Meanwhile, very few demos are being released these days, and I can't help but wonder if this is because developers are afraid that fewer people will spend money if they see what their games are like first-hand. Clearly, at the very least, they don't believe that releasing a demo has any benefit anymore, since they've already figured out how to convince millions of consumers to buy their product without even waiting for the critics to have their say.

What I'm really getting at, here, is that people who pre-purchase games are irresponsible and reckless. They're also harming the industry, and the industry is helping them do it. As consumers, we communicate with developers and publishers primarily through our purchases. No doubt the people who make video games occasionally hear our opinions, if we're loud enough, but what they really care about is where our money goes. If you hate a game after you buy it, they still have your money, and your opinion isn't going to hurt them unless you convince others not to buy the game.

So stop pre-ordering games you've never played. Stop telling developers "yes, this game is great" before you know it to be true.

I'd like to tell you all to stop buying new games entirely, since paying $60 for a new game is just a waste of money if it's going to be 75% off on Steam or Amazon less than a year after its release. Of course, there's always the argument that multiplayer games are most fun during the height of their popularity (i.e., before the community moves on to better things) and that waiting too long to play them means missing out on the fun. But if an online community dies so fast that you need to buy the game on day one to get in on the action, the game is probably terrible anyway.

Maybe if we all think a little more carefully about our purchases, developers will focus more on making games enjoyable and worthwhile, instead of coming up with a thousand other ways to get our money more quickly and more often.