Walking an apparently lonesome road in the post-apocalypse

So this is it. The conclusion. 'The Lonesome Road'. You're going to have to walk this path alone. Except when you don't because you're being accompanied by a hovering murder-machine of a robot for most of the journey. But except for that it's just you and a ton of monsters waiting for you to put foot to ass and figure out the mysteries of your past. Except when it isn't because the main antagonist of this DLC, Ulysses, will be communicating fairly frequently with you via your robot companion. So really the DLC title is lying to us about this being a lonesome anything. That said in this DLC the writers are doing their damnedest to try and wrap up as many lose threads left over from the character creation as they possibly can and bless their hearts because as already discussed in part 1 the fact that the game goes halfway between a blank slate and a predefined background it makes that task nearly impossible. So fairly early in the main game the non-player character (NPC) who, apparently, initially gave you the job that nearly got you killed mentions that someone else (Ulysses) was supposed to get the job instead but when he saw your name (whatever you chose to name your character) next on the list he backed out and let you take the job thus setting in motion the events of the game. 'Lonesome Road' seeks to explain the rationale behind Ulysses' decision and also fill in a bit more of your character's background.

So the fourth and final 'New Vegas' DLC starts off with you traveling to The Divide, a series of canyons and collapsed highways, to “meet your destiny” or something of that sort when you finally get to Ulysses. Throughout most of this journey Ulysses will, as mentioned above, be talking to the player fairly often (and without spoiling much of anything) about how the devastation seen the region is somehow your fault. This, in my opinion, gets fairly tedious fairly quickly. That said ***ALERT*** your answers to his questions and whether or not you find all of his journal entries (scattered throughout the region) has a significant impact on the endgame of the DLC so pay attention to these otherwise fairly dull conversations. Longtime readers (just kidding there aren't any) may remember how in the 'Old World Blues' article I mentioned how it was nice to have a villain that deviated a bit from the stiff stock types and actually brought a bit of levity to their destruction well Ulysses is totally not like that at all. He is, like the player character, a courier and unless the definition of that job has drastically changed its description in the future then he has an awfully high opinion of himself and a lot of resources at his disposal for someone whose, unless I really missed something, previous job was delivering packages. Basically imagine a FedEx employee with a messiah complex and you should have a pretty good idea of Ulysses' personality. So that's kind of meh especially given the frequency with which you have to sit through his philosophical rantings.

That said other than Ulysses the DLC is actually quit nice. A nearly linear narrative with just enough in the way of rewards for diverting off the main path and a very interesting environment. The Divide is also (and I realize that enemies scale with player level) one of the most challenging areas in the game even if the player character is a walking tank as nasty enemies have a habit of spawning in groups close enough to the player to make picking them all off before they reach you impractical/impossible. That's actually a good thing. After the cake walk that was 'Honest Hearts' it's nice to actually be moderately challenged. Also worth noting is that the region unique equipment for 'The Lonesome Road' is, after the toys found in 'Old World Blues', probably some of the best equipment in the game which is always nice (except for the rocket launcher, that thing can't hit anything).

Overall I would say that the various flavors of 'New Vegas' DLC added something to the overall experience (except 'Honest Hearts') and that while certainly not the best of the bunch that 'The Lonesome Road' did as much as it could to wrap up the questions surrounding your characters origins and that while that may sometime end up being incongruous with the character you've been playing it's probably as good as it's going to get. Check back next week for how to break the game.

We're off to see the wizard AKA Heart, Brain and Spine retrieval in the Post-Apocalypse

Ok, so imagine this. You pick up a strange radio signal and in responding to it are whisked away to a ancient research lab where a brain floating in a jar informs you that your brain, heart and spine have been removed/replaced. The brainjar further explains that even if you wanted your original parts back that they seem to have misplaced your brain and that you're likely going to have to defeat a mad scientist in order to retrieve it. Such is the beginning of 'Fallout: New Vegas' third DLC expansion 'Old World Blues'. Of course there's more to it than just a brain retrieval mission, you'll also have to eventually fight your way through hordes of crazed lobotomites and robotic scorpions as you explore the Big MT.

Like the 'Fallout 3' expansion 'Mothership Zeta' the 'Old World Blues' DLC takes a turn for the bizarre compared to the main game and to the other expansions. Unlike 'Mothership Zeta' (a DLC that takes place on an Alien spaceship) 'Old World Blues' manages a much lighter tone to match the absurdity of its premise and situation*. Most amusing to me was the results of a (lengthy) series of missions to restore the AI personalities to the appliances in the living space that your given as your base of operations. I found Muggy, a crazed mini-robot whose raison d'être is to collect and clean mugs, and the toaster "Ahahaha! I am on-line once again! Tremble, world, before my heating coil of doom!") to be the most amusing of the appliances but it seems like real thought went into all of their personalities (such as light switches that try to seduce you). The benefit for restoring the AI personalities of the appliances (other than amusing dialog) is that they'll each provide the player with additional resources to help in completing the DLC.

The overall story of the DLC is an interesting one as it manages to present some fairly horrible things in a fairly humorous manner. Examples would be the aforementioned lobotomy that the player is subjected to at the beginning of the DLC, the way the various researchers in the facility casually mention the horrifically inhumane experiments they've been conducting and the mad rantings of Dr. Mobius (usually threatening to release more robotic scorpions to attack the player). Overall the DLC fills in some of the blanks about the world itself (technology and creatures) a bit more than it fills in the players background though if you scour around the region you'll still find some information that transcends this particular expansion.

Overall 'Old World Blues' was my favorite 'New Vegas' expansion for a variety of reasons. The story it told was tragic while still being somewhat humorous. The villain was also a much needed deviation from some of the stiffer personalities encountered during other DLCs and the main game. The environment itself was interesting as you get to see where a lot of the critters and technology encountered elsewhere originated. A diverse and interesting experience that paces itself well and really draws the player in and one I would definitely recommend. See you all next week.

*The 'Mothership Zeta' has a few humorous moments but overall the tone is more somber as the player works with other abductees to escape from the aliens.

Post-apocalyptic sightseeing in 'Honest Hearts'

Be very, very quiet we're hunting rabbits. Oh sweet Jesus, that was no rabbit. Yes, in fact there are no rabbits or really anything that constitutes normal game animals in 'Honest Hearts', the second 'Fallout: New Vegas' DLC. The premise of this expansion is that your character is contracted to serve as security for a trade caravan and that en route to the destination everything goes hilariously wrong. And by 'hilariously wrong' I mean the entire caravan (except for the player character) is slaughtered by a warlike group of Native American wannabes somewhere in a post-apocalyptic version of Zion National Park in Utah. After a brief initial conflict you're contacted by one of the two less aggressive Native American-esque tribes in the region and you're off.

The funny thing starting off is that the criticism leveled against 'Dead Money' is actually the one I would turn around and level at 'Honest Hearts'. Namely that it doesn't feel like a 'Fallout' game. It's sunny. There aren't that many freakishly mutated creatures. There's very little sense of tragedy born out of greed and/or corruption. I mean, you're in a pristine national park and the only thing to worry about are a weird band of tribals who, if the player character headed the level warnings before starting the DLC, pose exactly zero threat to competent players. Hmmm, thinking about it I would definitely say that that was one of the things bugging me about this entire DLC. It was way too easy. In that unless you're trying to deflect bullets with your face you aren't going to have too many issues cruising through the enemies you encounter. This little warning actually struck me pretty early in the DLC as there was a brief in game cinematic for the appearance of a Yao guai (a mutated bear thing) that seemed to tout it as the regions apex predator. Now, these things appeared in 'Fallout 3' and unless there where a lot of them they weren't much of a threat to mid-level characters in that game either. For $9.99 I'd like at least maybe some kind of challenge or something.

'Something' brings me to the other issue with 'Honest Hearts'. It's really short. By far the shortest DLC. This is due to the fact that there aren't any areas that are especially difficult to access but also because as already mentioned there aren't any enemies that pose a threat thereby allowing the player to breeze through encounters. Hell, the toughest (as far as I can tell) creature in the entire DLC is part of an optional side-quest. But back to the length. What is a good length? See for me it really depends on the experience. The other DLCs in 'Dead Money', 'Old World Blues' and 'Lonesome Road' provided sufficiently compelling experiences that even if they'd been shorter than they where I would have still liked them. However here the player character is thrown into a storyline in which they themselves have no stakes and into an area with no threats so for me at least it would have helped if they'd compensated for this with a little more volume. More areas to explore. More unique stuff to find. Something. Anything really.

At this point it's pretty easy for me to say that 'Honest Hearts' was the worst of the 'Fallout: New Vegas' DLCs. It has a few moments. Being in a region in which you can actually make out the environment clearly is a nice change of pace but it doesn't really fit in with the rest of what the game is doing. Additionally it doesn't really advance the side-story, a more in-depth explanation of your character's back story told in bits and pieces in the other DLCs, at all. If you where going to skip one of the 'New Vegas' DLC expansions it should, in my opinion, be this one. See you all next week.

Playing post-apocalyptic blackjack in 'Dead Money'

Ok, so I hope that people have seen 'Ocean's Eleven' or else some of this isn't going to make a lick of sense to you. Maybe read the summary of that movie on Wikipedia or something and then come back here. For those of you who've seen the movie I'm sorry but we're going to have to wait for those who haven't to familiarize themselves with it. Oh look, they're back. Excellent. Now that that's out of the way it's easiest to summarize the 'Fallout: New Vegas' expansion 'Dead Money' as a post-apocalyptic version of that movie. A bit too simple of a comparison but at least a good jumping off point. They both feature a (hopefully) charismatic group leader in the player character and George Clooney who has to assemble a team of misfits for the ultimate heist. They both also feature an attempt to break into a casino in order to steal unimaginable wealth from within its vaults. They both...OK, so that's about it for the similarities and I'm sorry for wasting your time with Wikipedia.

So to explain the story of 'Dead Money' in greater detail a madman (Father Elijah) mentioned in the main quest line and in the other DLCs stumbled across the Sierra Madre casino and became obsessed with the possibilities of old world technology that it contained. To this end he began forcibly conscripting people to help him break into it. After numerous (the impression that he gives the player) failed attempts your character, responding to a radio broadcast, is captured and thrust into the heist of the centuries. You're forced to recruit three teammates to whom you're linked via exploding collars wherein if one dies all die in order, according to Elijah, to instill a greater sense of urgency and teamwork amongst you. Now one of the main criticisms I've seen leveled against 'Dead Money' is that it doesn't feel very Fallout-y and to this I respectfully disagree. While it may take place in a non-traditional environment 'Dead Money', to me, has all of the sense of oppressive tragedy brought about by greed that I feel generally characterizes all of the games in the series. The sky is this sickly red color, the result of science run amok. The casino sealed off to the world the result of greed and paranoia. The ghost people who haunt the villa despite now being crazed and hostile used to be the construction workers who built the it and whose degeneration from human into what the player encounters simply another example of mad science corrupting the innocent.

The actual gameplay in 'Dead Money' is probably where it really came alive to me. At the very beginning of the DLC you're stripped of all your gear and given a moderately effective rifle by Elijah. This very likely takes the player from a damage tanking god (given the level recommendations before beginning this particular DLC) to a mere mortal forced into a more stealthy approach to survival. As someone whose character was in fact a damage tanking god I actually loved this transition to vulnerability not really felt anywhere else in the game nor in any other game I've played recently. In the past I've found diversion in the survival horror genre (mostly Resident Evil titles) and have been greatly disappointed with that genres recent entries so for a game to instill even a modicum of fear of the unknown into me was very welcome. Oh, crap what's around the next corner? I can hear heavy breathing (the Ghost People make very distinctive noises) where is it coming from? I would go so far as to say that if a game could replicate the atmosphere and oppressive feeling from the first half of 'Dead Money' for an entire game that I would buy that hypothetical game in a heart beat. About the only places where 'Dead Money' drops the ball to me are in the latter half which is very enemy sparse and overall where the game allows the player to get a perk that allows them to permanently kill the Ghost People more easily. Sorry for not explaining this earlier but the Ghost People encountered in the villa are among the more difficult enemies in the entire game to kill, rising from the dead when dropped after a few short seconds unless dismembered.

Overall I greatly enjoyed the 'Dead Money' add-on and would certainly recommend it to others. I also think that other games could take a pointer or two from how it generates it atmosphere and not just the toxic red clouds that pollute the in game environment. Take care and see you all next week.

What Happens in New Vegas Stays in New Vegas...Sometimes.

Alright so let's get my biggest gripe with 'Fallout: New Vegas' out of the way real quick like. It isn't 'Fallout 3'. Now don't get me wrong I don't think it's a bad game or that 'Fallout 3' is that much better but there are a couple of things that lead me to favor 'Fallout 3' over 'New Vegas'. The first is the one that the game itself has the least control over and that would be where I live. As a longtime resident of the Maryland suburbs it was very interesting to see a designers take on what the region would look like after nuclear Armageddon and while the results weren't totally (or even remotely) geographically accurate* it was close enough that when I encountered landmarks that do actually exist that it really had an impact on me and greatly enhanced my immersion into the game's world. The other thing that 'Fallout 3' does better is the character creation. Now I'm not talking about all the stat configuration or ability selection though that is part of it more so though the fact that you guide your persona from birth through adulthood and then out into the wasteland. While in 'New Vegas' it kind of goes halfway with regards to the blank slate character as even though you're given a job title very little else about your character or their motivation is spelled out. This leads to a few too many questions about why your character is doing what they're doing and compared to the character in 'Fallout 3' it feels much more like Quantum Leaping into someones life to puppeteer them through a series of conflicts rather than actually molding “you” in the game world. Outside of those two things I feel that every other difference between the two titles is up for debate (somewhere else). So now that that's out of the way I'd like to go a little more in depth into 'New Vegas'.

So the question you may (emphasis on “may”) be asking is why the difference in the character creation is so crucial. The answer is that by starting from the beginning in 'Fallout 3' the game gives you the opportunity to define your characters entire back-story which in turn gives more weight to your actions and the actions of others later in the game. Did you pick on someone during the childhood phase of character development? Well, then maybe they won't help you out later in life because they still hold a grudge. Stuff like that greatly enhances the gameplay experience by making more actions have actual consequences. Now, I'm not saying that every game would be better off starting their protagonists off from birth and letting the player define their characters entire life story but the game needs to make certain decisions about how much of the character is going to be predefined for the player. Where 'New Vegas' makes its mistake is in hinting about the characters life before the events of the game but never actually explaining how the character got to the point shown at the beginning of the game in being ambushed by bandits, plot important item stolen, left for dead, etc. In short the game leaves too many “Why” questions unanswered. Even in its attempts to fill in some of this via Downloadable content (DLC; which will be discussed in the next few weeks) there are still a lot of unanswered questions. This became especially incongruous to me when the back-story filled in by the DLC didn't really feel like it matched up with the character that I'd created.

OK, so when I said earlier that there where only two areas in which 'Fallout 3' really surpassed 'Fallout: New Vegas' I lied. The other area beyond the emotional impact and the character creation would be the openness of the world. Now looking at your map in both games you might think that you're dealing with a large post-apocalyptic sandbox to explore and to some extent you'd be correct. However the world is much more open much sooner in 'Fallout 3' than it is in 'New Vegas'. This is because the latter uses a lot of high level enemies to sort of railroad the viable directions that the player can travel for a large portion of the game. Getting murdered by mutant wasp things and you're under level 10? You probably took, according to the developers, a wrong turn. By contrast 'Fallout 3' is perfectly fine letting the player screw around as long as they like as the nasty player murdering enemies either only show up as the player levels, as part of particular scripted events, or in very isolated areas of the map. In short 'Fallout 3' is a much less linear game than 'New Vegas'. Not that either is especially linear but it really feels like you're given more freedom earlier in the former whereas you really have to earn it (usually via heavy firepower) in the latter.

OK, so still building off the lie told earlier about their being only two significant ways in which 'Fallout 3' was better than 'Fallout: New Vegas' there is actually yet another one. That being quality assurance/quality control. Yes, both games, like almost every Bethesda Softworks game, have some significant bugs and scripting issues. However having extensively played both, 'New Vegas' is much, much worse in this department. The number of random game crashes I've experienced is staggering as are the easily replicable game crashing actions (for me fast traveling into or out of one region in the 'Honest Hearts' DLC crashed the game every time). That's not even counting the number of bugs with scripting issues (i.e. you give a non-player character an item and they give you the next step in the quest only sometimes they don't). By contrast I don't recall any easily replicable game crashing actions that I ran into in 'Fallout 3' and the scripting issues where much less of a nuisance. Now I realize that games as massive as these with as many variables as these are dealing with are bound to have some issues but it really seems like, somehow, the older game of the two handled this better.

So now having concluded our walkabout in the main wasteland of the game complete with all its foibles we're looking ahead to (hopefully) filling in some of the gaps in our characters back-story as we explore the DLC for the game in the 'Dead Money', 'Honest Hearts', 'Old World Blues' and 'Lonesome Road' expansions. See you all next week.

*This is a little weird as the game is made by Bethesda Softworks named as such because they're based in Bethesda, MD. I personally would have loved it if the game had simply copy pasted the entire region as accurately as possible just to see how it would have turned out. I also find it amusing that one of the few immersion killing things for me in 'Fallout 3' was the existence in game of Metro Stations that don't exist in real life mostly because it took this region five decades to fund highway expansion and I found it too hard to believe that the government would somehow find the money to build a dozen new stations between now and 2077.

Sports games aren't well designed*

Seriously sports games aren't well designed.

*Ok, so that title probably deserves a bit more of an explanation and here it is:

Actually it's more like the sub-set of sports games dealing with the actual sport of football that aren't well designed. Now, before we get too much further it is still very possible for a poorly designed game to still be fun and popular(see also: the ~20 years they've been making 'Madden' games). That said this article was inspired by a podcast between ESPN/Grantlands BillSimmons and a friend of his Gus Ramsey discussing the newest 'Madden' football game. Over the course of the podcast they went through some of the changes from the previous version, discussed strategies, evaluated player ratings, etc. However what really stuck out to me was when Gus mentioned that he was tired of playing “jerks” online. To him jerks where those who tried risky tactics in order to get a edge (onside kicks, two point conversions, etc.) and/or those who quit the second they got behind. Now the issue of ragequitting is something I've addressed in a previous article and I believe that the solutions I proposed for fighting and FPS games are just as applicable for sports games so let's look at Gus' first complaint: the “jerks”.

According to Gus the jerks are those who play a game that's supposed to simulate an actual football game nothing like how an actual football game is played. Again ignoring the ragequitting issue when their risky strategies don't work let's look a little deeper at what they're doing and why. In the actual game of football you rarely see onside kicks because when they don't work it's either the end of the game or a huge momentum shift. The onside kick works best when it's well disguised, used in a non-obvious situation (so that the opponent has the wrong personnel on the field) or basically the opening kick-off the second half of SuperBowl XLIV between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints. A calculated gamble designed to catch your opponent with his pants down. In a video game world most of the risk is already gone as you're no longer talking about a game with huge financial ramifications for winning or losing you're talking about a video game. This makes it so that people are naturally going to be more inclined to take risks. However that's only part of it. The other part is the system that rewards such risk taking. What people seem to be looking for in these gambles are where the risk of failure is outweighed (usually significantly) by the crippling blow that a successful gamble yields. What I gathered from Gus' complaints was that whether the player was using the surprise onside kick, a new feature to which they are limited to two attempts per game, or the regular onside kick that the (successful) application thereof would quickly turn a game into a boring route that bares little resemblance to an actual football game and that in general the players implementing such tactics would, were their onside kicks unsuccessful, quite. It is also interesting to me that in researching this article that the developers (EA Sports) specifically mentioned that the surprise onside kick being limited to two attempts per game was specifically implemented in an (failed) attempt to curb dick-ish behavior. This is a very heavy handed and seemingly ineffective solution.

So onside kicks are an issue. So too are two point conversions. So too are probably a lot of other mechanics. Too many to discuss here. Going back to the original point the 'Madden' games are well designed games if you're looking for a fun football simulation but they are terribly designed games if what you're looking for is a near 1:1 replication of how an actual football game plays out. It also seems that EA Sports' solution to these issues/complaints are as mentioned somewhat heavy handed. In a real football game nothing other than common sense (and being overly predictable) is stopping a coach from calling for a “surprise” onside kick after every score so why are those who coach digital players prevented from doing so? The best solution, it seems to be, would be to implement some sort of AI tweaks under the hood that would, nearly independent of player skill, affect the success rate for such tactics. That is let the players do whatever they want but don't tell them the likelihood of what they're doing being successful. Obviously that's not an easy addition to make nor is it guaranteed to limit such player behavior but hey it's a start.

Online vs. Offline: Fate of the Netplay Continuum

Ok, so this week we're going to look at an issue that I feel isn't being addressed by enough (any?) developers and that, in my opinion, is only going to get worse going forward. The issue in this case being when the game plays very differently online than it does offline. Now, there are any number of reasons for this but I hope to hit on the two big ones though a couple of examples. Theese reasons being sub-par netcode and mechanics that lend themselves to abuse with lag. The frustrating thing is that both of these issues are something that developers should be able to control for which makes it all the more surprising when they don't. To this end we're going to look at two games that manage to screw up their online play by either shipping the game with crap-tastic netcode, developing a game with online abuse-able mechanics or both.Ok, so this week we're going to look at an issue that I feel isn't being addressed by enough (any?) developers and that, in my opinion, is only going to get worse going forward. The issue in this case being when the game plays very differently online than it does offline. Now, there are any number of reasons for this but I hope to hit on the two big ones though a couple of examples. Theese reasons being sub-par netcode and mechanics that lend themselves to abuse with lag. The frustrating thing is that both of these issues are something that developers should be able to control for which makes it all the more surprising when they don't. To this end we're going to look at two games that manage to screw up their online play by either shipping the game with crap-tastic netcode, developing a game with online abuse-able mechanics or both.

Solid Snake may or may not have been spotted prior to this image capture.

Alright so first up is a game that I often cite to friends as an example, outside of its gameplay (which is a more subjective sort of thing), of how to do things. Things in this case referring to its implementation of training mode, challenge mode, replays, button configuration, etc. Basically, in my opinion, 'BlazBlue: Continuum Shift' is a game that gets everything outside of its gameplay correct. And yes, for purposes of today's discussion that would also include its netcode. So then, you may be asking, what's the problem. Well remember way back in paragraph #1 of this article how I said there are two problems that can cause a severe disconnect between how online and offline play. Well 'BlazBlue' has a big issue with one of its gameplay mechanics. Namely how it handles throws.

The game really wants you to know you screwed up if this throw is successful.

Every fighting game that I'm aware of has a system to allow for throws as at the most basic level (most) fighting games need to have a sort of rock-paper-scissors system in place where: Attacking beats Throwing beats Blocking beats Attacking. In this sense 'BlazBlue' is no different from any other fighting game. Also like practically every other fighting game 'BlazBlue' has a system wherein when one player attempts a throw their opponent has a (small) window to tech or break the throw. However where it mixes things up is that it's the only game I'm aware of that allows for throws to be attempted mid-combo (opponent in hitstun) and again is the only game I'm aware of where throws to do anything other than whiff on a blocking opponent (opponent in blockstun). Now going back to the throw breaking mechanic 'BlazBlue' allows for 13 frames (~1/6 of a second) to break a normal throw and 27 frames (~1/2 a second; an eternity in a fighting game) to break a throw that was during hitstun or blockstun. The issue here is that the player can attempt a hitstun or blockstun throw at any point and, if it is successful, they're rewarded with significantly more damage than they would have otherwise gotten. So why is this a problem? Well offline it really isn't. As you can see from the visual indicators that accompany throws both the normal and hitstun versions are basically break-able on reaction offline. Online is another story where it takes very little lag for those windows for breaking throws to get shot to hell. Now I don't fault people for playing to win I fault the developer for implementing a mechanic that causes a severe disconnect in how the game plays (or can be played) online vs. offline.

Our next example is old favorite whipping boy and a game that I didn't think I'd be talking about again before November in 'Marvel vs. Capcom 3'.  Now 'Marvel' unlike 'BlazBlue' manages to be a game where both the netcode and a game mechanic issues are serious issues that serve to differentiate its online play from its offline. Now there really isn't much to say about bad netcode other than its bad. It results in matches that take a fast paced game and make it feel like your characters are moving underwater. Now it isn't to the point of being totally unplayable but my rough estimate would be around one in ten matches is. The simple solution here is to develop and implement better netcode. The other issue is one less easily fixed and judging from early videos of 'Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3' one that they're less incline to fix in team aerial combos (TACs). This mechanic is one in which during a combo the player performing it may press the 'special' button and a direction and tag in one of the other members of their team. The direction pressed influences the properties of the hit in addition to conveying other benefits to the player performing it. Downward exchange gives a lot of free meter, side (either) exchange gives some meter and better control over which character is tagged in and up gives the rest of the combo a better damage multiplier. Now it isn't all peaches and cream as the opponent has an opportunity to break up the TAC by pressing the 'special button' and matching the direction that the opponent is pressing (with left and right being interchangeable guesses). This results in a rock-paper-scissors guessing game that is ridiculously skewed in favor of the player initiating it. So what's to stop your opponent from going for it constantly? Well, if you guess correctly their character takes some damage, the combo is broken and the tag fails. It's also worth noting that the window with which a player has to counter these exchanges are in my opinion pretty reasonable. At high level play they definitely add an extra dimension of trying to out think ones opponent. At every other level of play, especially online, eh not so much. Online is especially problematic here as what becomes a high reward moderate risk maneuver offline becomes with the addition of lag a high reward no risk option online. That's because online not only are you guessing the direction that your opponent is going to exchange you're also basically praying to whatever deity you believe in for the game to accept your input within the necessary window to break the exchange and more often than not (usually way more often than not) that's just not happening. The knowledge of how difficult these exchanges are to break has lead to a large sub-set of the online player population eschewing doing actual combos with their characters in favor of continuously doing exchanges as the latter will, if never countered, do more damage than traditional combos in addition to generally being more idiot proof with regards to dropping the combo.

If 'BlazBlue' pioneered the phrase “How netplay was his netplay?”*. Then 'Marvel vs. Capcom 3' perfected it. That's not a good thing. Now with 'BlazBlue' the throw mechanics have remained more or less the same with every iteration of the game so it would seem that the designers are indifferent to this issue. However with the upcoming 'Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3' they're supposedly overhauling the netcode (we'll see) and they've made some tweaks to the TAC mechanic. So I guess file that under 'wait and see' and I'll see you all next week.

*What this is basically asking is how bad was the guy you where playing and how much did he rely on tactics that could be generously classified as 'online only'.