Dota 2

Dota 2 is the successor to the Warcraft III mod Defense of the Ancients developed by members of the original DotA team and Valve. It is available exclusively on the Steam platform but is available to Windows, Mac OSX, and Linux operating systems. It's also free to play, forever.

Once a Warcraft III mod, the world of Dota has since been picked up by Valve similar to how they picked up the Team Fortress and Counter-Strike franchises from their humble beginnings. Two teams of five players battle each other for momentum in Dota 2's "irresistibly colorful" fantasy world. Each player controls a hero unit with a myriad set of spells and attributes; some may harbor devastating damage output, invaluable utility, or game-deciding ultimate abilities. Under a careful balance, each team will draft their five heroes, each strategizing ability combinations, filling in weaknesses of one hero with another's strength. With 108 heroes to choose from, each with their own abilities, a game of Dota 2, although played on the same map every game, is ever evolving and dynamic.

The easiest way to imagine Dota 2 is to think of a tug-of-war. Both sides attempt to amass gold and experience to gain momentum enough to tear down enemy objectives until they destroy the enemy's Ancient. In between objectives, teams have numerous paths to victory they can take: a pushing lineup to destroy towers while avoiding fights, a team-fight oriented lineup, an ambush and pick-off heavy lineup, the list goes on. Equally important as the grand strategy is the itemization of the heroes. Hero abilities are complimented by items that can be purchased by any hero with most granting passive stats or an active ability to be used in conjunction with hero skills. Just as much as one hero can counter another hero, the right items can bring a world of hurt if used in the right situations.

what do i build on this guy

When you enter the world of Dota 2, you will take part in aiding either the lush Radiant or the brooding Dire factions. The map itself commands respect and awe in the small details carved into it. Dragon flies and koi fish populate the central river that divides the map. A little turtle loiters around one of the river cliffs. The lighting of the forest shade and the rivers of magma bring forth an incredible amount of character to the map. Carefully placed "juke spots" allow you to shake off opponents in the fog of war, creating opportunities to create big plays that can turn the tide of a fight.

As vibrant as the map is, one of my most favorite aspects about Dota 2 is the attention to detail in hero design. Fully voiced to respond to various situations by a talented and star-studded cast, they will alert you to many aspects of the game. Several of the hero's backstories detail friendships or rivalries that are brought to life in-game through voice line interactions. And of course it's Valve, so all the hat jokes apply: you can customize how each of the 108 heroes looks through cosmetics and effects.

offlane tide is quite a bully

One of the biggest deterrents to a game like Dota 2 is the sheer steepness of the learning curve. 108 heroes with at least 4 abilities each- that's 432 spells floor. On top of that, there are 120+ in-game items to memorize. Then there are the metagame related and "when and where do I use my skill/ability" questions. Mastery of mechanics and nuances, build efficiencies and little tricks you can perform also add 100+ things to memorize on that list. That's a lot! You're better of memorizing the periodic table of elements. Dota 2 is very much a knowledge based game- it's like reading the instructions to a Dungeons and Dragons game. I was a skeptic at first; I thought Dota 2 was a big waste of time, a game that you can't just jump into and enjoy for a bit and let go. Dota 2 games take about an hour to complete and hundreds of hours of commitment to truly begin understanding. How then, can anyone scale the walls guarding Dota 2?

It was the spirit and energy of the third International Dota 2 Championship and Dota 2's competitive scene that truly brought me into Dota 2. The best teams battled and competed for an unprecedented prize pool of $2.8 million. Once the dust of combat settled, Alliance stepped forward, victorious, Aegis of Champions in hand coupled with a ridiculous $1.4 million. Watching competitive Dota 2 for the first time was like the first time I watched American football when I was young: I had no idea what was going on or why people were bumping around. Then the crowd roared. The sheer energy that came from the audience jolted me the first time I experienced it. The same happened again in the crowd's reaction to a key play in a Dota 2 match.

The moment the cheers rang out, I wanted to be a part of it.

moments from ti4

There is no teacher like experience. The most difficult part about Dota 2 is that there isn't a big reset button you can press during matches. In a game of chess, you get to move your pieces back and look at what went wrong. In Dota 2, you won't be able to until the end of the match to watch the replay. The first several hours will be confusing and frustrating, but I promise you, the material will come naturally to you in the form of "Oh shit, I know that [hero/item/strategy]. I got destroyed by that [hero/item/strategy] just several games ago!"

The ridiculous plays, the grand jukes, and the nail-biting team-fight, the insurmountable come-back; the awe of the crowd, the big ultimate, and the screams of the victorious and anguish of the vanquished. That's Dota 2. Watch some videos, play some games, have fun with it. The whole losing is fun strategy is hard to apply here, but that's what games like Dota 2 is all about: losing. It's about taking your personal self to the very best and helping your team as much as you can. It's a good philosophy to put into life, really: take any loss and always find something from it- don't let it be in vain.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, but either way the crowds will cheer.

Dota 2- The ward that won the game

This is a game anecdote I've wanted to write about for some time for some reason never did.

Here's a detailed report of the game from DotaBuff, match ID: 82115869.

I played a Dota 2 match about a month ago and I remember the one team fight that decided the outcome of the game. I don't remember specifics, but I was playing Shadow Shaman and I recall I was constantly getting caught out.

"ss no push gg"

I was laning with Death Prophet against an Ogre Magi and Abaddon- two very tanky heroes that I would have a lot of trouble harassing. I notice that they had blocked our pull camp after a failed stacking attempt and quickly purchased a shiny new Sentry Ward with all my life savings up to that point. I drop the Sentry to to locate their Observer Ward. A quick glance through the camp revealed nothing. I walk to the far side of the camp and drop another Sentry. Nothing. That's 200 gold from my 401K.

I guess I just messed up my stack, I thought to myself. Stacking attempt number two yielded the same result as attempt number one. But surely I got it that time? I didn't see anything blocking the camp! That's when I look inside the camp itself. I had mistaken the enemy Observer Ward's health bar for a camp creep's health bar. How hidden it was!

To put some closure on the chain of endless mistakes, Abaddon and Ogre Magi, both well leveled, ride and waddle up to me as I am dewarding. Ogre Magi stuns, Abaddon's shield blows up, and I'm dead. After a disaster of a laning phase and dying two more times in a similar fashion, the diagnosis came back and the doctor told me I was feeding mercilessly.

Although the rest of my team was doing fairly well, I found it really harsh and embarrassing to know that I was the anchor weighing my team down from a better advantage. I felt useless and I knew the rest of my team could simply win without me. The whole situation reminded me of the section from Ender's Game when Bonzo tucks Ender in the corner and just tells him to not fuck up. But like how Ender managed to find some clutch moments during the fight, I found mine.

So I'm the five position Shadow Shaman who has no levels and no farm. The best I could do is be the custodian of the team, walking through lanes and making sure they're all tidy and drop wards down occasionally. Despite me being the entree to the enemy team, my team has managed to hold pretty well, squeezing out small advantages in level and gold despite essentially being a man down.

And that's when we spotted their Roshan attempt with my ward.

The entire Radiant team is stuffed inside a small confine. This was the moment! My team surrounds the pit and spells fly left and the right. The Serpent Wards go down, trapping two of their heroes as everyone else clashes in the epic fight. Heroes fall and legends are made as the Dire team emerges from the dust. Victory was then in our hands.

It just made me feel great, knowing that my wards spotted that Roshan attempt in an otherwise fairly even game. It could have been the game winning move for the Radiant had they actually got it. So I tell you this: even if you are covered in ketchup, mustard, and presenting yourself on a delicious hot dog bun like the strung out piece of meat you are, there's always something you can do to contribute. Stack camps, leech experience, whatever. Even you teleporting into a fight and dropping your spells once can turn the tide.

And of course, don't forget to ward every once in awhile.

Unturned

Unturned is another zombie apocalypse survival game, but this time it's Roblox/Minecraft-esque. Currently available on Windows and Mac OS, the game is also free! It's currently in early access- here's the game's Steam page.

Word of mouth, YouTube Let's Play videos, and various online PC gaming magazines and blogs all pointed to Unturned one day. Open-world survival games seemed like flavor of last month, notorious for bugs and horrid communities. I wasn't all that interested. That is, until I found out that the game had been developed by one seventeen year old, Nelson Sexton.

The first thing I noticed about Unturned was the unmistakable and infamous voxel graphics. However, despite a seemingly low production value, I was surprised at how well the shadows and water effects looked in the screenshots. When Ben got on the Unturned train and Mark fired up a server, I was mostly expecting another Minecraft knock-off experience like Castle Miner Z.

no land mines here

Unturned offers what you'd expect out of an open-world zombie themed survival game these days: getting hungry, getting thirsty, getting diseased, scavenging supplies, shooting zombies, shooting people, and of course, crafting. The game world is based off Prince Edward Island and was a pleasure exploring. My two friends and I grabbed some starting supplies in a nearby town, beat down some zombies, found some clothes so we weren't naked, and then jacked a car to start our tour of the beautiful island. Despite some horrendous game options menu designs and inventory interface clunkiness, I had a fun time.

There were some tense moments when zombies got to our party unexpectedly or when supplies ran low, but it didn't take long for the three of us to be swimming in food, drink, and bullets. Supplies respawn over time, so there wasn't any shortage once you secure a car and some fuel early on. Our adventures ended when Mark stepped on a land mine, blowing our chunks to the corners of the map, where we respawned.

hordes aren't that scary

Now, Ben, Mark, and I were friendos: we shared supplies, looked out for each other, and exploded together. This kind of private server experience leaves out a key component in a game like Unturned or DayZ, Rust, and many other open-world, multiplayer survival games: interactions between separate parties of players. The zombies themselves aren't a big threat; you can outrun most of them and they don't come in fearful hordes. I can imagine the biggest threat being other people. While my friends and I were carelessly entering buildings and taking whatever loot we could find, a truly multiplayer experience might prove to be more suspenseful, never knowing when you might come across a hostile party.

Reading several of the reviews on Unturned featured on Steam, many negative reviews point to the community as being the biggest detractor. You can just imagine what kind of demographic a Minecraft-esque zombie survival game will attract. We didn't get to witness the complex community interactions that are core in multiplayer survival games. We never got robbed, we never got randomly killed, and we never had to deal with other people, period. I can only imagine that without a supportive community, Unturned would become a frustrating experience.

For a free-to-play game, I had a fun time playing Unturned for a couple hours with my friends. The game is being updated with new content and patches. If you have an afternoon to kill and some friends to not kill (or maybe you do, in game, with a land mine), Unturned is a fun fix. I probably wouldn't venture into public servers though- you've been warned.

Braid

Created by indie developer Jonathan Blow featuring art from webcomic artist David Hellman, Braid is a puzzle platformer that has been met with multiple industry awards with many critics considering the game a masterpiece. Released for XBLA in 2008, Braid has since been released for the PlayStation 3 console and Windows, Mac, and Linux systems. Check it out on Steam!

  
I've had Braid sitting in my Steam library for a long time now, half completed. I remember getting the game in a bundle, completing the first couple worlds with ease, and then being frustrated with some of the later puzzles. I don't really know why I decided to pick it back up. For the sake of completion I guess; it's sort of akin to finishing a half-read book, I suppose.

If you're even only remotely connected to the indie game facet of the video game culture, you've probably heard of Braid- one of the indie games featured in Indie Game: The Movie. This game has been met with pretty much universal acclaim.

a variety of mechanics to play around with

What is Braid about? Think Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, but with an infinite ability to rewind time and you've got the baseline mechanic for Braid. The game allows you to initially just correct mistakes in your platforming adventures, but the game quickly fans out to explore variations on the rewind mechanic. There are six worlds in total, each with its own theme and twist. For example, time may sit still until you move or you may be introduced to the ability to slow time around a small area. The intricacies of the different mechanics are all explored with only a minor amount of instruction as players work them out for themselves.

this screenshot on steam is heinously misleading

It's this ease of players learning the initial mechanics that seems to contradict the difficulty that I discovered in trying to find new ways to exploit the mechanics. For the most part, I didn't have too much trouble with the six worlds, but there were just some puzzles that I had to look up a video guide on how to complete. These puzzles usually contained moments of "Oh, I didn't know I could do that," so in ways, the puzzles are only limited by your imagination to a degree.

Out of the entire Braid experience, the most curious thing was probably the story- its contents and presentation. Braid storytelling is broken down in chunks. As you unlock more worlds more of the story becomes available. The tidbits you read before entering a world coincides with the theme of the world, but for the most part everything is going to be vague and convoluted until you reach the epilogue in a kind of Memento-like presentation.

the atomic bomb conspiracy

Although Braid's story is pretty much up to the eye of the beholder, here is one interesting  interpretation. In retrospect, I wish I knew some interpretations behind Braid's story before playing through the game to be able to better appreciate the minor nuances and intricate hints in the storyline. After finishing the game, I only had a shallow interpretation that I had played through a romance story when there was so much more. I originally thought that Braid had small replay value, but I'm thinking that replaying the game with someone else's interpretation in mind may offer a new experience.

With Braid you don't really know what you're looking at until the end, in which a lot of things start falling into place. Braid's intertwining of mechanics and storytelling is paramount, but hidden and at the same time ever present. The game has been criticized for being overpriced and I'm going to have to agree. You'll get around three to five hours of gameplay from Braid. Unless you're a a diehard supporter of indie development, you're probably better off purchasing Braid from a bundle or when it's on sale. Whatever the price, Braid is a sure indie game classic- just remember that you don't have to like the classics to be a fan of the genre. 

Take a look at Jonathan Blow's upcoming 3D puzzle game, The Witness!

Game preferences and the Bartle Test

Ben and I were talking one evening and the topic shifted to FEZ (the indie game phenomenon featured alongside Braid and Super Meat Boy in Indie Game: The Movie) and its merits. Whereas I saw a variety of worlds and puzzles to be discovered and explored, Ben saw a slow, repetitive, and rather engagement lacking experience that bogged him down. As I thought about the reasons behind his dislike for FEZ, I wondered about the mechanisms behind how we choose if a gaming experience is engaging and thoughtful and how we mold these experiences for ourselves given the chance. In other words, what motivates us to continue playing a game?

I thought this kind of question reflects personality psychology's trait theories, a series of models that aims to pin down certain stable conditions that describe someone as a whole. Here's a model based on two spectrums, emotional stability and introversion/extroversion:  

click to enlarge images

These can get a lot more complicated. Psychologist Lewis Goldberg proposed a five-dimensional model; Raymond Cattell came up with one using sixteen different factors. Looking at the above diagram, we can definitely attribute these personalities to gaming personalities: extraverted players may have a higher affinity towards social games whereas introverts prefer single-player experiences; more emotional players might prefer an engaging story whereas more emotionally calm people may be happy with a simple casual puzzle game. 

Writer, professor, and game researcher Richard Bartle described player preferences in a similar fashion to trait theory in his paper "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs." This paper was written in 1996 and pertains mostly to MUDs (multi-user dungeons) and MMORPG's, but I feel like we could try and apply this to other game genres. Take a look at the foundation for Bartle's ideas:

which are you?

Bartle's characterized players into four groups named after the four suits in a deck of cards, labeled for their respective traits: hearts (socializers), clubs (killers), diamonds (achievers), and explorers (spades). Each describes a drive or motivation a player seeks in a gaming experience: hearts love the social aspect of games and helping others; clubs can't wait to show their 1v1-me-bro skills and their abilities to read an opponent; diamonds glitter in the best gear, bathe in achievements, and adorn the top-score or top-time listings; spades dig around for secrets and hidden passages, leaving no stone unturned. It is this amalgam of the four that I feel succinctly and fairly describes a gamer. 

All of these areas have overlaps with the other groups in some way or another. For example, diamonds may seek the top of the leaderboard in a game like StarCraft where 1v1 reigns supreme and is home to clubs. The spade may also belong to a guild where he or she shares information about the latest patch and where all the good loot can be found in a newly released area. We are a composite of all four suits with emphasis on different areas depending on what kind of game we're playing. 

Let's apply Bartle's model to two games outside of MUDs and MMORPGs and see what happens.

Team Fortress 2- If my friends and I were to make a top ten or top five favorite games of all time, I'm willing to bet Team Fortress 2 is going to be on there. The hearts love to play with friends in this multiplayer setting; clubs want to show that they are the best on the server; diamonds are trading away for the latest in hat fashion; spades are looking for the latest hints and clues towards the next update (or they're looking for map exploits).

SpaceChem- Probably my most favorite game. Hearts might be busy on the forums discussing the latest technique and helping people with some of the puzzles; clubs are lined up at the tournaments ready to show their SpaceChem wits; diamonds want the highest efficiency rating possible; spades are delving into the newly released player-made puzzles working out new techniques and tricks.

Team Fortress 2 and SpaceChem are completely different games and rightfully have different areas of emphasis to different people. For me, Team Fortress 2 emphasizes the heart and club- I want to get better at the game but I find it boring without playing with friends. SpaceChem invokes my inner spade as I search around for new ways to complete the puzzles. 

another handy chart

FEZ called upon the spade in me like in SpaceChem; the curiosities and fine details leave me wanting to look for more secrets and areas within the game. As for Ben, he mentioned FEZ's platforming lacking urgency or skill, so maybe his diamond facet was dissatisfied. Whatever the case, this all illustrates that our alignment in the spectrum isn't tied down to one or two suits: our alignment and preferences changes from game to game, genre to genre. 

The next time a game pops up in your mind, think about what lead you to like or dislike the game and try applying Bartle's model- you might come to some interesting incites. But how does a game manage to alter your alignment across genres? Why don't hearts stay hearts and clubs stay clubs across all games and genres?- after all, one of the defining assumptions in trait theory is that traits are relatively stable. And if they don't change for you, why is that? These are some interesting questions we can look into later on.

What we can learn from Gender Bender DNA Twister Extreme

please let me explain

About a week back, Ben sent me a message over Steam with a link to a game on Steam Greenlight called Gender Bender DNA Twister Extreme, disgusted and confused. Then, I looked at the top banner which boasted: "This game has been Greenlit by the Community! The community has shown their interest in this game. Valve has reached out to this developer to start moving things toward release on Steam." My first impressions were Why and How. It was obvious that we had to play the demo at our about-yearly reunion at Mark's. We've watched universally panned movies and played questionable games; let's add to the list, why not.

Gender Bender DNA Twister Extreme is about men who get turned into women and the wacky adventures that ensue, presented in the form of a graphic novel. The demo available on Desura speaks for the game. I didn't like the game, Ben didn't like the game, Mark didn't like the game; let's just leave it at that. If the game had a message to convey, the developers failed monumentally at delivery. But I don't want to discuss the the merits/demerits of the game, rather what we can learn from a game like this from a consumer vista.

This game raised $27,000 from a goal of $5,000 on IndieGoGo and is now asking consumers for $24.99 on Desura for the full game. I've already commented on the content of the game, but here's a different perspective: the developers have shown with full transparency what the game is and how the end product will look. It is completely up to the buyer's decision ("is the game worth $24.99?") and there are people out there who say "Yes, it's worth it." Those people then fork over $24.99 and then ogle at women with crude anatomical deformities- and they're happy for doing so. Or they should be, otherwise I have no idea why anyone would hand over the money for something like Gender Bender. The point is, the developers have fairly shown what the game is without concealing any of its apparent flaws. From there, it's all fair game for the consumer; it's a practice that should be praised.

Now, is it business ethical to ask for $24.99 for a game of Gender Bender DNA Twister Extreme's quality? I feel that if you're going to be buying a game like Gender Bender, $24.99 is a complete scam when content of equal or greater integrity is floating out around the internet for free (what I'm really trying to say is that porn is free on the internet). Chances are, if you've found Gender Bender, you can find better (or worse) for free. With that, it's your own fault for buying the game.

Scrolling through Gender Bender's Greenlight page, you'll find a majority of people commenting that the game is offensive and/or should have never been brought to Greenlight or even created. Controversial and offensive games are not something new; they've been around since the early days of video games. Just about any game you can think of probably has some speck of controversy brought forth by someone nit-picking the game. While Gender Bender isn't the Citizen Kane of video games, it certainly isn't the Ethnic Cleansing (a game where you kill ethnic minorities) of video games either. The game certainly isn't a step forwards in the depiction of women and transgendered people in video games, but I don't think it's necessarily a step backwards either.

If you don't like the game, don't buy the game. It's a simplified demonstration of the power of consumer efficacy within the video entertainment industry. The games that we buy say something about us and also sends messages to the developers within the industry. Gender Bender DNA Twister Extreme is easily passed off as just some offensive game that boils women down into objects, but the way we handle and respond to games like these also say something about us as consumers. We have all the right and ability to voice our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the game just as much as the developers have the right to make the game in the first place. Our vote with our Steam wallets will send them a clear message.

Chess- London System

Named after the 1922 London Tournament, London System is a great series of chess openings for anyone interested in getting into chess. It illustrates opening theory (development of minor pieces and center control) well and is easy to play. The London System is a flexible and tidy opening that allows White to respond well to counter-play from Black.

In a nutshell, chess opening theory focuses on development of minor pieces and center control. It starts off with d4, immediately freeing up the dark square bishop for development with the intent of playing bf4 early. d4 and bf4 are traits that usually denote someone as playing a London System.

what you should end up with

In the London System, development and positional control is the name of the game. The best general is the general that utilizes all of his units in a war. London System allows you build up your forces, take center control, and then attack or respond to an attack. It doesn't matter too much how you develop your pieces. Nf3 and e3 will also be played, getting the knight out and preparing be7. From there, c3 and Nd2 finishes up development of minor pieces.

An interesting point to note is that within the London System, sometimes you won't want to castle. In some games, the center can be the safest place for your king depending on how Black responds. The great thing about the London System is the ease of play in beginning levels of chess and having a multitude of options open. The game can get really cramped for Black if your opponent doesn't respond well and you should be able to take a comfortable advantage.

I encourage anyone starting out in chess to take a look at the various London System lines. It's easy to pick up and a great starting point!