<< Portico: January 2005

1/29/2005

Rome: Total War patch

Another patch for Rome: Total War is on the way. Get the news on the upcoming fixes here.

In spite of the long list of bugs of fixes on the readme, I can't say that I have encountered many of these. Fixing the frequency of ambushes is nice, since this means a little more variety in the types of battles. The alternate weapon issue has been a problem for a while, too.

So another patch is good news, but not necessarily major news. I guess it could be interpreted as another sign that they want to get everything right. In today's internet driven game world, it's ironic that gamers complain when a game has to be patched and also complain when there is no patch to address what they think are critical errors.

Seven Kingdoms: Conquest

Such a generic title, but such good news.

The Seven Kingdoms series is getting a boost with the announcement of another sequel. Though not the most famous strategy series by a long shot, there are lots of fans of these games. It has been seen as just a poor-man's Age of Empires, but this doesn't do credit to the Seven Kingdoms franchise. It's been five years since Seven Kingdoms II, an excellent sequel to a good game.

The new Seven Kingdoms game should be available in the fall. If you haven't tried any of the games in the series yet, do so before the new one come out.

1/26/2005

New home for Civilization IV

The big news in the strategy world is Take 2 Games's announcement of its purchase of the rights to the Civilization franchise and the consequent committment to publish the upcoming sequel to the storied franchise. Civ IV will be pubished by Take 2's 2KGames division.

Take 2 has a fair record of strategy games under its belt. The Age of Wonders series and the Stronghold games are their doing, with a new Stronghold game coming later this year, also under the 2KGames label. Take 2 has also published Railroad Tycoon II, the Tropico games and Kohan 2.

So I'm all for this. Take 2 has lost its rights to publish NFL games, so it needs to shore up its bottom line (as if Grand Theft Auto isn't making tons of money for them already...) and Civ is an established PC franchise. The 22.3 million dollar price for the Civilization name sounds like a deal to me.

1/22/2005

AIAS Achievement Awards Nominees

You can find the nominees for the 8th Annual Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Achievement Awards at their website.

A lot can be said about the list as a whole. The weirdly captivating Katamari Damacy looks poised to win a few awards. I hope it beats all the big name, big budget shooters. The dearth of RPG and Sports nominees for the PC is also worthy of mention. I'll focus on the strategy side though, since that's what I know best.

There are no console strategy nominees, which is both unsurprising and frustrating. As the industry moves more and more towards console gaming, we have to start seeing developers working to make strategy games functional in the console setting. There were strategy games for the Atari 2600 and the like. For some reason no one has tried to make them work for the Playstation.

On the PC side, the nominees are Rome: Total War, Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth and Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War. This is a tough field. Though Rome was my game of the year, I think that Warhammer has a good chance here. It's a new entry to the field, was bloody good fun and was a pleasant surprise to everyone who played it.

Sims 2
and Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 are packed into the simulation category with Pacific Fighters, a case of apples and oranges if I've ever seen one. How do evaluate a rivet counting flight sim compared to a virtual family and a light business sim?

And how does Sid Meier's Pirates! get a PC Game of the Year nomination but no genre nomination? That's the price you pay for genre busting, I guess. I think it would qualify as a role-playing game or even action-adventure. But I guess the esteemed jurors at the AIAS didn't have a clue where to put it so they didn't put it anywhere.

1/21/2005

Missing In Action

As an ancient history nut, I was looking forward to Strength and Honour from Magitech games. They're the guys behind Takeda and now Takeda II. If you aren't familiar with their games, think of Rome: Total War with cheaper graphics and more complicated strategy. At least this was what Strength and Honour was looking like. The demo looked pretty promising, even though I could never quite figure out what was going on in the strategy end. Greg Micek, the editor in chief of DIYGames, played a more complete build for the 2004 IGF jury selection and was pretty pleased with it. They said that they were having some trouble finding a publisher last March and to date don't have an English language publisher.

And so another promising independent game is in limbo. Clearly Magitech is still in operation. Takeda II was an entry in this year's IGF, and they are searching for a publisher for that, too.

You have to wonder what the problem is. Their games are not AAA titles by any means and don't have a lot of the polish that would draw big publishers. Their games are ten times better than Pax Romana or Superpower 2 though and those games found publishers. It could be that the energy devoted to Takeda 2 is getting in the way of finding a deal for Strength and Honour.

Of course, I could put on my journalist hat and drop them a line, but if I did that I would have to write it up for DIY. Which means getting Greg's permission first. Besides, that's not really my point.

My point is that so many games never get finished or see the light of day and most people never know why. If the studio closes, it's pretty obvious why the games don't get done. I still mourn the loss of Pantheon, a game that could have been the first Age of Mythology. When a big title doesn't get released, there is usually a press release that blames the market or the loss of capital, or like the ill-fated Dinosaurs from Firaxis, the game itself.

But in this case, the game is done and even being distributed in Italy. This is a prime candidate for digital download, but if the strategy game isn't made more obvious, this means another 200 page PDF manual for me to read (see my most recent DIY editorial for my all-too predictable feelings on this). I'm not about to join their forum and be yet another voice that is curious about where my new sword and sandals game is, but I'm getting a little tired of waiting.

Update

I've updated my review and editorial archive for DIYGames. Another review for DIY will be up soon.

1/20/2005

Beta testing blues

I've been chosen to help Beta test the new historic grand strategy game Great Invasions, from the people who brought you Pax Romana. The lead developer, Philippe Thibault, is one of the original designers of the Europa Universalis board game and helped in the translation of that game to the computer.

Since it is a beta, and there is a non-disclosure agreement, I certainly won't post any reflections on it here. The game seems to be at a pretty advanced stage, though.

I will say that beta testing strategy games has to be one of the more thankless types of beta testing. A friend is a beta of another strategy game and will probably back me up on this.

First, the grander the grand strategy the less control beta testers have in how things work. The designer has chosen the rule set for a reason, but if a game mechanic simply doesn't work it can't just be changed like in a shooter or RPG. If you change one rule, you often have to change everything connected to it so that the causal connection you like isn't turfed altogether. Display and interface issues are often also so entiwned with the stuff going on underneath that UI changes - often necessary - are often too difficult to implement at the point that most betas get involved. In a RPG, there is often a genre consensus about the goals, the terms and the style. In a grand strategy game, players may come to the beta stage with different goals in play style (conquest? simulation? alternate world creation?) or with some idea that they can import ideas from their favorite games on to a game set that's already in place.

Of course, betas don't try to change too much because it's usually pretty clear what can and cannot be changed when a game arrives. The big problem with testing the grand strategy genre is finding the time to actually give them the play time that they deserve. These types of games require serious testing time in order to find out what exactly is wrong with them. Sometimes it requires making new AI files, sometimes it means sitting through lots of crashes, often it means looking at tons of menus. Of course, you learn the game in and out while you are beta testing but it makes you a poor choice to review the game (a fact I had to face when I was offered a chance to review Pax Romana for a couple of websites - an opportunity I turned down because of my involvement in the beta process.) If you know a complicated really well because of the time spent working on it, it is hard to distance yourself from the learning curve that new players frequently encounter.

Please comment on your own experiences beta testing strategy games. What worked? What didn't? And is strategy gaming that much different?

1/17/2005

Video Game Ombudsman

I encourage you to check out the gaming blogs I link to on the right hand of the screen. Lots of them out there, but there are my favorites.

Video Game Ombudsman(aka Kyle Orland) has had a couple of great stories this past week. One is on the recent ESA press release that emphasizes that gamers have a life outside of their games. It has data on religious observance, reading habits, etc. VGO makes a great point that the specialist press (gaming magazines and websites) has done a pretty bad job at breaking out of the gamer nerd stereotype. I strain to think of the latest issue of any of the gaming mags I read that didn't make a Star Wars reference. Somehow I doubt that the New York Review of Books does this all the time, though there's a good chance that a lot of Star Wars geeks read that too.

Earlier this week he posted on how he would change the programming at the woeful G4 network, currently in the midst of a programming reshuffle that largely meant axing much the TechTV stuff that they spent so much money acquiring. One of his best program ideas - in other words, a programming idea that I have been musing about for some time - is a video game roundtable discussion show. He bills it as a McLaughlin Group on games and the game industry - I think I'd prefer more a Tucker Carlson Show approach. Have a moderator and a rotating group of industry writers and experts to talk about what's going on in the industry.

Weekly may be a bit much to ask. The issues that face gamers and gaming aren't that pressing. I guess you could have a different focus every week, with a couple on industry issues and others on the games themselves. I can already think of the people that I would stick on such a show. (I would moderate of course...).

Anyway, this is more a plea to give Mr. Orland the readership his blog deserves. I'm sure he gets many, many more readers than me, but if I can do anything to send another one his way, I'm happy to do so.

The limits of strategy games and education

I’m doing my teaching training at the moment (I feel like I’ve been in school my whole life…) and when my colleagues learn that I am an avid computer gamer, many of them ask about the applicability of gaming to learning history. This is a common theme. A lot of people claim that a particular game got them interested in studying history or that their favorite game would make an excellent teaching tool.

The former may be true. I have no way of telling whether playing Civilization is really a great way to introduce people to history. It strikes me as a little suspicious – I tend to think that people who have a passing interest in history are likely to play Civ and it might accentuate what’s already there. I know that Europa Universalis made me more interested in the early modern period, but I’ve always been a history geek.

The latter claim – that historical strategy games would make great teaching tools – is almost certainly untrue. Beyond the fact that people who say this have a very antiquated idea of what history is (names, dates, geography, etc.) and blinders as to what games are (rule sets that do not mimic anything beyond what the designers intended), historical strategy games fail as teaching tools for one important reason. They tend to whitewash history until it is no more than events happening one after the other.

A good example is from Paradox’s forum on their new game Hearts of Iron 2. I’ll quote it in its entirety.

“NOTE: There will not be any gulags or deathcamps (including POW camps) to build in Hearts of Iron2, nor will there be the ability to simulate the Holocaust or systematic purges, so I ask you not to discuss these topics as they are not related to this game. Thank You.

NOTE: Strategic bombing in HoI2 will be abstracted and not allow you to terror bomb civilians specifically. Chemical weapons will also not be included in the game. Any threads that complain about this issue will be closed without discussion.

NOTE: There will not be any swastikas in the game, because it IS illegal to show them in Germany and various other countries. Same goes for other Nazi symbols (e.g. related to the SS) or Nazi propaganda material, including songs etc. Any links posted to a mod which includes a Swastika or other illegal Nazi symbols will be deleted. Any threads that complain about this issue will be closed.”

Now I have no complaints about this specific policy. I would find a game that encouraged the massacre of civilians or forced the player to repeat the worst crimes of human history to be beyond distasteful. The game does offer the Soviet player the chance to purge his/her military though (with disastrous effects to Soviet military readiness), so there is a little duplicity here. But it does severely undermine anyone who wants to seriously argue that this game is a useful tool for understanding World War 2. How can you possibly teach the greatest human conflict ever without understanding the motivations of Nazism or the industrialized murder of millions of innocent people? As it plays out in the game, the war is no more than the settlement of outstanding territorial claims. It is entirely possible to play Germany with no sense of horror or outrage.

This is, of course, typical. There would be no WW2 strategy games at all if you couldn’t play Germany. It is just a game.

The Holocaust is a peculiar evil – not unique in human history – but so close to our own time and so modern in all its features that its mere mention stirs up unease in all who hear of it. Paradox certainly thinks so, since their earlier Europa Universalis 2 had the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Jews from Spain and even had slaves as trade goods, even if the controlling power had no logical reason to use slaves.

But even these crimes of history are treated with kid gloves. The evils of slavery are granted an historic inevitability instead of being placed in the context of a triangular trade that made captive Africans the primary good of sale in Western Africa.

I don’t mean to pick on Paradox – they simply stand out since their games are the most deeply researched and fact-filled and are often held out by their customers as people who make educational games. They aren’t alone though.

Civilization 3 is a big leap forward from its predecessors, but, for the first time, has game mechanics that encourage the razing of cities. Corruption and waste are such a problem that it is much more feasible to burn an enemy settlement to the ground than it is to garrison it. Rome: Total War has the same issue – extermination is easier than dealing with the foreigners you just conquered. This is normal for ancient warfare of course, but none of the horrors of the cleansing are apparent. Even your typical wargame never gives you casualty figures or home front consequences for disastrous failures.

I am certainly not advocating that all this stuff should be put in a game. I play enough “unfun” games as it is without all this doom and gloom put in them. But before people start celebrating a game as an aid to history education, they need to have a better idea of what history education is all about. Teaching history means teaching the ugly side of humanity as well the cool stuff like kings and battles. Showing people a map of Europe on a computer screen is no more educational than showing them the same map in a book. Letting students pretend to be FDR in a strategy game is no more educational than watching a movie about the Great Depression. For a game to be an educational device, you have to be clear on what it is you are trying to teach. Once you have that cleared up you can look for a game to fit the lesson. And it may not be the one with all the pictures of famous people in it.


1/15/2005

The problem with sequels

I'm now playing Hearts of Iron 2 for an upcoming review and having some problems detaching myself from the original. Is it possible to evaluate a sequel out of the context of the earlier games? How about out of the context of all similar games?

This is especially an issue with the Paradox grand strategy games because they are variations on a theme more than distinct games. Sure, each period game has different aspects and issues, but the engine is mostly the same underneath, the look hasn't changed much from the first Europa Universalis and the game themes are almost interchangeable from title to title.

In this way, strategy gamers are a lot like sports gamers. In sports games, the changes in a franchise are gradual. You can't review Out of the Park 6 without discussing what has been added from Out of the Park 5. The OOTP series is still, to my mind, the best baseball management sim available. But is it worth buying every year? Can't we make do with last year's version?

Of course, Victoria and Hearts of Iron are more different than the roster patch/draft tweaks of your typical sports game. But if you aren't a real afficiando of World War II history and just like the idea of running a country, should you bother having four or five different types of countries to run? Does the tweaking from Hearts of Iron 1 to HoI2 really make that much difference?

Paradox's first two English language games were Europa Universalis 1 and 2. The sequel was such an improvement on the original that you would be daft to not recommend it. However, it wasn't as fresh and new as the original was when it appeared, which meant that a lot of the reviews didn't have the sheer enthusiasm with which people greeted the original EU. I know no one who seriously prefers the first to the second, but go back and read the reviews of each title. The EU2 reviews are more positive, but less frenzied.

And so it may be with HoI2. I'm still finding my way around war-torn Europe, but the sense of discovery just isn't there yet. I won't publish my review here (I'll let you know when it's done and where you can find it) but a few of my general opinions will become apparent.

And this is my first general opinion: reviewing sequels is harder than reviewing new games. And almost all major games are sequels or franchises in waiting.

1/11/2005

The Waiting Game

OK, so I am waiting for my copy of Hearts of Iron 2 to arrive, and I can't take it. The thing is, I'm not sure why I am so excited. It's not like the original was amazing or anything. I mean, it was good for what it was, but the more I played it the less fun I had. I liked it enough at first to give it a positive review at Zengamer, but the quick turnaround time required there led to betray my better instincts. As I played more, it became apparent that the AI simply wasn't up to the job of managing a world war.

By the sound of things, though, Paradox has fixed a lot of the issues with HoI via a near complete overhaul of some of the games most frustrating parts. I didn't mind the research tree; I thought it was deep, rewarding and multi-branched. Many others thought it was chaotic and nonsensical. (Parts of it were. Why I had to research tank chassis and guns separately was never abundantly clear.) Air and naval power called for a lot of micromanagement. The industrial scheme was absurd. Et cetera.

But the new and improved HoI2 is supposedly the best thing the Swedish masters have done since Europa Universalis 2. Considering the middling to poor offerings since then, it's not that high a bar to meet, frankly. Still, I am hearing such good things that I can't help getting enthused about the thing.

Since I am reviewing it for a media outlet, I won't post too many comments specifically about it until the review is in the hopper. You will know that I am playing it though, and I may even most a little after action report if I get sucked into a MP game.

1/06/2005

A plug for software I like

For serious gamers like me, it's nice to have a comprehensive list of everything you own. For stats geeks like me, it's better to have an actual database.

Now I could make my own database in Access if I had any clue how it actually worked. Or I could use Filemaker, which is more user friendly. Instead, I use Game Collector.

It's not the most flexible database out there, to be sure. It has limited customizable fields and doesn't like to track all the information you would want it to track. It is also impossible to have different displays for separate databases. For example, my "all strategy games ever made" database would ideally show different information than my "what I've got" database. Can't do that.

Still, for forty bucks this is a good program. It is fast, user friendly and plugs in the All Game Guide and Amazon databases so you can download a lot of the fields automatically. You can include links to whatever connected sites you want and it has a big field for notes and descriptions. Once you buy it, you can update for free for life, so as the database gets better there is no need to shell out another forty bucks.

Eventually I will have to make my own database, but I can export my Game Collector information to another format, so I should be able to import it to another later. It's easy, attractive and almost complete. Highly recommended.

1/04/2005

Real Time Campaigns

The campaigns in 3H real time strategy games have come in a lot of shapes and sizes. If you are doing a fantasy or sci-fi RTS, like Warcraft or Starcraft, it's not too hard to put together a story campaign based on one or all of the races/cultures/heroes of the game.

Historical (or semi-historical) RTS have it a little tougher. The Age of Empires series tended to put the player in the role of a historical figure like Joan of Arc or Genghis Khan, or, like in the original, simply let them play out episodes in the history of the various cultures in the game. This was, to be honest, unsatisfying. RTS games can't really approximate history all that well - the Julius Caesar campaign in the Rise of Rome expansion could have been named after Biggus Dickus for as close at it came to looking like his life. Telling me that I am controlling a hero unit called Joan of Arc is not the same thing as feeling like I am the Maid of Orleans, so the effort to put the player into the history is kind of wasted.

The Cossacks games did something similar to much worse effect. Of course, it was a poorer series than the Age series and the historical campaigns were merely poorly strung together battle sequences with a modicum of base building. In American Conquest, the effort to make Spanish contact with the natives a challenge ended up making the whole history laughable.

These campaigns added nothing to the game and I often wondered why developers even bothered designing them. Did anyone every buy one of these games because they heard that the campaign was so good? Starcraft had a really special one, to be sure, but it was the game's innovations in making three radically different but balanced races that made it the MP hit that it was, and still is in Korea apparently.

There are exceptions. The critically acclaimed Celtic Kings games (which I could not like no matter how hard I tried) had better story driven campaigns than core games, but this was mostly because the AI was so inane in the skirmish maps that it could only provide an "interesting" game when the adventure scripting forced your hero to run around and do stuff. In Praetorians, there is minimal base and unit building and the campaign based around the wars of Julius Caesar was really well done without doing too much damage to history in the process. For the big shots, though, the challenge of fusing a campaign to a 3H model is only now getting some satisfactory resolution.

In Age of Mythology, a nice fusion between fantasy and history, the campaign followed a single hero through the three mythologies that the game covered to good effect. This story approach worked pretty well, in my opinion. You got to play all three sides - unlike traditional story campaigns - and the climax was more than fitting.

Rise of Nations went the other direction by putting the RTS game on top of a Risk like board game that kept you to a certain historical setting. Once you dropped from the "strategic" level down to the usual base building stuff, you were plopped down into a wide range of different game styles. Some were pure defense, others required you to hunt out specific units or buildings. Winning on the RTS level would be reflected in greater resources at the higher level. This was a clever way to bring a little of the TBS magic to the RTS world.

In the upcoming AOE3, the campaign will be a story format again. The player will lead the Black family through the generations as history unfolds around them. This may work a lot better than the tradition historical hero campaigns that Ensemble has used since the hero of the piece is not a familiar character from the past, but a fictitious family caught up in events. Kind of like those old network miniseries from the 80s.

Still, the campaign seems to survive in spite of the fact that it is a mere add-on, even an afterthought, to what the game is all about. Someone must insist on these, but I've never met anyone who has. Like the human appendix, it sticks around though it provides no evolutionary advantage and serves little function beyond demonstrating the talent of the creator.

1/03/2005

My writing credits

I've just added some posts and links that note where I am published - both online and in print. I do this not because I am boastful (well, a little) but because it will keep me from looking for it all later. Besides, some enterprising editor might want to know what exactly I have done to call myself a writer. I am a pen for hire, so I have to get the word out there somehow.

One site I wrote for is not here. I wrote reviews and editorials for Gamersclick a few years ago, before the site up and died for no clear reason. I may reprint some of those pieces here if I can ever find them.

What I've written for Computer Games Magazine

Reviews

Victoria - April 2004 issue
Nemesis of the Roman Empire - July 2004 issue
Crusader Kings - August 2004 issue
Spartan - September 2004 issue
Children of the Nile - February 2005 issue
Superpower 2 - March 2005 issue
Hearts of Iron 2 - April 2005 issue
Dragoon - April 2005 issue
Gates of Troy - April 2005 issue
Knights of Honor - July 2005 issue
Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar - August 2005 issue
Cossacks II: Napoleonic Wars - September 2005 issue
Supreme Ruler 2010 - September 2005 issue
Salvo! - November 2005 issue
The Sims 2: Nightlife - December 2005 issue
Raging Tiger - December 2005 issue
The Falklands War 1982 - December 2005 issue
Diplomacy - January 2006 issue
Rome: Total War Barbarian Invasion - January 2006 issue
Down in Flames - January 2006 issue
Legion: Arena - March 2006
Galactic Civilizations II - May 2006
Takeda 2 - May 2006
Star and Crescent - May 2006
Prussia's Glory - May 2006
A Force More Powerful - July/August 2006
Take Command 2 - July/August 2006


Previews

Civilization IV - November 2005

Interviews

Doug Lowenstein - October 2005 issue
Jesse Smith - July/August 2006 issue

Columns

Revisionist History - Simtex Games - December 2005 issue

>Alt.Games

Facade, Trash, DoomRL - February 2006
Lost Island, Ultratron, Lux - April 2006
Space Station Sim, Disaffected, GameBiz - June 2006
Egg vs Chicken, Theseus, Battle for Wesnoth - July/August 2006

What I've written for Zengamer

What I've written for Stratosgroup

What I've written for DIY

Reviews

Trash
Lux
Darwinia
Civil War: The Battle of Bull Run
Outpost Kaloki
Starshatter
Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great
Super Dudester
Derelict Review
Election Games Review
Spartan Review
Enigma: Rising Tide Review
Checkers Ultimate Review
Universal Boxing Manager Review
Dominions 2 Review
Rocket Duel Review
Geneforge 2 Review
Combat Mission Afrika Korps
Walls of Jericho Review
Alien Flux Review
Starscape Review
War! Age of Imperialism Review
Bridge Construction Set Review
Power Mad Review
Movie Studio Boss Review
Chain Reaction Review
Word Peace Review
BaseGolf Review

Editorials and Features

Pretty Pictures and You
Restore to Default
Blogging for Fun and Zero Profit
Unavoidable Inconveniences
So Where Are They?
So Scare Me Already
Where's The Love?
The Gaming of Politics
IGF 2003 Recap Part 2
IGF 2003 Recap Part 1
Playing Oldschool
Interactive Fiction Competition
Is the free ride over?
No More Shame
Not Dead Yet
All By Myself
A re-introduction

1/02/2005

2005 preview

A new year, a new crop of games to look forward to. Like many things, the anticipation of a new game can be almost as much fun as playing it. The slavering over screenshots, the guesses over what will and will not be possible, the temptations offered by the developers...all sweet stuff.

Here's a digest of the strategy and wargames that I'm looking forward to in the new year:

1) Legion Arena (Slitherine) - I'm not a huge fan of Slitherine's games, but I am a huge fan of the developers - nice people who are genuinely excited to make games that they themselves like to play. Legion Arena will be sort of like online Rome: Total War, at least the battle part of it, only with a ladder, upgrading armies and more realism. It will also be the test drive for their new battle engine, to be used in Legion II.

2) Imperial Glory (Pyro Studios/Eidos) - Speaking of Rome: Total War...this looks like an Ensemble game, but isn't. It's Napoleonic warfare in real time, with a strategy overlay. Sound familiar? It looks pretty and will even have naval battles on a small scale. Whether they can do more than copy the Ensemble Studios look remains to be seen.

3) Hearts of Iron 2 (Paradox) - The original was a good game plagued with too many AI issues to be fun for too long. Amphibious landings were a problem for the computer opponents and only a heavily scripted mod made it much of a game at all. But look out Rommel wannabes, it appears that the Swedish masters of grand strategy have finally put it all together. Early reports from people who've played preview versions say that they've made the game more approachable for newbies and more interesting for hardcore players. Less micromanaging with a more realistic sense of running a war.

4) The Movies (Lionhead/Activision) - OK, we all know that Peter Molyneux has been biting off more than he can chew lately. Black and White was a great diversion for a few hours but had no longevity. Fable was not quite what was advertised. And The Movies is every bit as ambitious as those two. Lionhead boasts that over four million possible combinations of movies can be made, and, if they pull it off, websites will be full of what the public has to offer. Once again, I think that Molyneux has set too high a PR bar to meet, but no one fails as spectacularly as he does.

5) Imperium: Rise of Rome (Michael Akinde) - This is more of a guess than anything. Michael is a Danish computer scientist who has been working on a hobby project for a couple of years now. He is making an ancient Rome grand strategy game. He is making it very slowly and very low tech. But it looks very promising and could be the game that I hoped Pax Romana would be. Considering the pace he is going, 2005 could be a little optimistic on my part. But a man can dream.

Feel free to add your own "eagerly awaited" list in the comments.