Uncategorized

It recently occurred to me that I could repurpose an old Windows PC as a Windows game server and run the Forgotten Hope 2 server on it. Testing confirmed that the current FH2 server runs fine in coop mode on Windows.

So the JDRGaming BF2 server is once again running FH2, albeit on a different physical computer.

It’s still possible that whatever prevents the FH2 Linux server from running in coop mode will be fixed, in which case I’ll move the JDRGaming FH2 server back to the main Linux server. That doesn’t make any difference to players, of course.

As usual with FH2 releases, some of the maps have problems when running in coop mode. Please let me know if you encounter any problems running a particular map.

The latest version of FH2 has loads of improvements, most noticeably in the user interface.

If you’ve never tried FH2, I encourage you to check it out. It’s more resource-hungry than BF1942, but if you can run it, you’ll be amazed at the visual and audio improvements over BF1942. I particularly enjoy the much more realistic and diverse sounds of vehicles and weapons.

Here’s a link to the official FH2 download page.

Sigh. I bought my second XBox 360 after my first died of the horrible ‘Red Ring of Death.’ I had successfully modified that 360 a few months earlier, installing padding (under the lid of the DVD drive) that prevented the drive from scratching my game discs. Unfortunately, opening the 360 had also eliminated the possibility of returning it for repair/replace as part of the extended 3 year coverage specific to RRoD issues. Oh well. That 360 is now a pile of parts in a box. I tried one of the X-clamp fixes on it with no success and plan to keep trying at some point, but meanwhile I bit the bullet and bought another 360.

The second 360 has – up to now – performed flawlessly. It is much quieter than the first one and seems to run cooler. It doesn’t scratch discs, either: I’ve tested it with game demo discs, rotating the console and moving it around with the game playing, and no scratches have resulted. Apparently this was pure luck, since people are reporting that even the latest 360s are sometimes still made with DVD drives that can scratch discs.

Yesterday on trying to start the 360, the lower right segment of the ring of lights around the power button started flashing red, and text appeared on the screen: E74. I’d never heard of this error. Research on the support site reveals that E74 is somehow related to the RRoD issue and that any console so afflicted can be returned to Microsoft for repair/exchange. My second 360 is out of its main warranty period, but well within the three year period for RRoD issues. So I spent a frustrating hour going in circles on the support site trying to get to the place where it would tell me how to do this. Eventually I got there and will send it back.

There’s just one problem: I very much doubt that Microsoft will send back the same 360, repaired. Apparently it is much more common for them to simply confirm the problem and send back a refurbished unit. Normally this would make sense, since it’s much faster to simply pop a refurbished 360 in a box than to fix one and send it back. But if they send back a console that scratches discs, I will not be amused. What to do?

Here’s my plan:

* Record everything on video.
* Attach a message to the lid of the 360, expressing my concerns and letting Microsoft know that I expect to receive either the same console back, repaired, or a different console which is no worse than the one I sent (doesn’t run dangerously hot, isn’t ridiculously loud and – most importantly – doesn’t scratch discs). I will suggest that if they insist on returning a different unit, they simply make sure to choose one that is of recent vintage that includes a DVD drive of the same make and model as the one I returned.
* I will also point to my XBox 360 scratching disc notes on this site if they want to understand my point of view.

Unfortunately, I can’t make a video of my now-nonfunctional second 360 not scratching my test disc since it doesn’t even boot up. I should have done that before. Oh well.

Anyway, I’ll post more here as things develop.

Update 2009Sep16: Here’s the message I’ll tape to the top of the 360 I send back:
Microsoft: please read! This 360 was working perfectly prior to the E74. It ran cool and quiet, and it never once scratched a disc, very much unlike my previous 360, which is now a pile of parts in a box somewhere in my shed. Despite your official statements on the subject, I know that the likelihood of a 360 scratching discs is entirely dependent on the make and model of the DVD drive it contains. Good drives prevent the disc from coming into contact with hard internal surfaces; bad drives do not. The drive in this 360 does not scratch discs and I would like the 360 you return to me to have the same characteristic. Please either return the same physical console (repaired), or return a console of the same vintage (with the same improvements in cooling and reliability) and the same make/model of DVD drive or a similar one that also prevents disc scratching. For further information, please refer to my XBox 360 disc scratching resource on the web at http://jdrgaming.com/.

Update 2009Oct04: Boxed it up and sent it back. Microsoft acknowledged receipt of the 360 on September 30. October 1 they sent more email telling me the “repair is complete” and that they had shipped it back. Given the extremely short duration between receiving and “repairing” the unit, I think it’s safe to assume I will be receiving a replacement, NOT my original unit. If it’s a disc-scratcher, I am going to be annoyed.

Update 2009Oct09: Yep, they sent me a replacement. Along with a bunch of documentation about how they had to de-register the serial number for the replaced 360 and instructions on how to register the new one. You can be sure that before I put any of my games into the new one, I’ll test it with a demo disc to see if it scratches. Also of course I’m curious to see how loud the replacement is and whether it runs as cool as the one it’s replacing. More to follow…

Update 2009Oct10: Fired up the replacement unit. I noticed that the power connector is slightly different between the old 360 and the new one, such that they are not interchangeable. That is weird. Anyway, the replacement unit, to my intense relief and mild surprise, runs quiet and cool, and does not scratch discs. I fired up a demo disc, and with the disc madly spinning away in the drive, picked up the 360 and lurched it around from side to side. It made some buzzing noises, and as I gradually increased the violence of its movements, eventually it made a grinding sound. My first thought was “oh no, here we go again” but my inspection of the disc showed no scratches whatsoever. Clearly the disc was lifting out of the tray but whatever it hit did not cause any scratches. Yay!

A co-op game is one that allows two or more human players to play on the same side, cooperatively, versus the computer. I’ve seen alternate definitions, such as “working together with friends to solve the single player game,” but to my mind that’s pointless hair-splitting. When I’m looking for a co-op game, anything that will allow me to play on the same side as other humans versus the computer will fit the bill. So the definition I started with is the one that makes the most sense to me. The key word in “co-op gaming” is “co-op.” Why dismiss a game that offers cooperative play just because it doesn’t offer a co-op campaign? Especially when the sub-category “co-op campaign” works so well. Finally, using that other definition would mean excluding some of the best games I’ve ever played cooperatively, including EA Sports NHL and Battlefield 1942/Vietnam.

What’s the point of co-op gaming? Surprisingly, there are gamers out there who have friends. I know, because I’m one of them. I find it much more rewarding to work with my friends to compete with bots than to compete against my friends. If I want to compete against humans, I can go on-line and find some juvenile nitwit to destroy. In particular, those of us with multiple PCs on a LAN are more likely to be in the same room as other human players, in which case working together can be a lot of fun.

Sounds reasonable, right? Prepare to be disappointed. I’ve been gaming on PCs for over ten years and can’t think of more than a dozen or so games in which true co-op vs. bots gaming is possible. Game developers clearly don’t think this type of gaming is in demand. Frankly, they’re probably right. My own on-line gaming experiences tend to support that point of view. Most gamers out there seem to prefer killing each other to helping each other. A sad commentary on our society? Perhaps.

One reason gamers may not be interested in co-op gaming is that, at least in some game genres, the computer-controlled players are pretty dumb. They tend to be predictable. They get stuck in loops and against scenery. You can find locations from which to kill them off systematically, and they never figure it out and come after you. Human opponents can be a whole lot smarter than that. On the other hand, there’s been a lot of progress in making bots smarter – particularly in first-person shooters. They now take cover, dodge, flank and work in teams.

With some exceptions, cooperative play in a game requires the following:
1. Multiplayer support. This can be done on one computer via split screen (the screen is divided into two or more frames) or shared screen (all players see the same view), or with multiple computers on a LAN or the Internet, or some combination.
2. Cooperative multiplayer mode. There must be at least one multiplayer mode in which human players can play on the same side or team, cooperatively.
3. Computer-controlled players (aka “bots”). This can be humans versus bots and/or humans allied with bots versus other bots.

The availability of co-op vs. bot gaming depends to some degree on genre. Some game types feature this type of play as a matter of course, while in others it’s extremely rare. Here’s what you can expect for some of the more common genres:

First-person shooters (FPS)
A typical FPS supports one or more multiplayer modes. Almost all FPS games have a single-player “campaign” – a series of missions, typically scripted, to be played by one human player versus a bunch of bad guys. Although their actions are scripted to some degree, the bots in these games are also able to react to the actions of the human player. Shoot at a bot who hasn’t yet seen you, and they will typically start shooting back. In almost all cases, however, there’s no way to get more than one human playing the single-player campaign, and the multiplayer modes that are offered are restricted to “deathmatches” – where humans are pitted against each other with no particular storyline involved. Sometimes, you can team up with other humans, but in most cases you can only fight other humans, with no bots. I’ve seen plenty of titles where you can set up a multiplayer co-op game, with all humans on the same team, but when the game starts, there are no bots – hence no players on the other team – and the human team immediately wins. How dumb is that?

Role-Playing Games (RPG)
Traditional RPGs are single-player experiences. Occasionally an RPG is released in which the campaign (which is basically all you get with an RPG) can be played by more than one human player, cooperatively. Online RPGs are the exception. There are also a few 3rd-party add-ons or patches that allow certain RPGs to be played cooperatively.

Racing Games
A typical racing game allows a single player to compete against bots, but in multiplayer mode the bots are missing, even where split-screen is supported. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. Sadly, some of my favourite racing games are missing multiplayer bots, including Carmageddon and Insane.

Sports Games
Sports games have perhaps the best record when it comes to cooperative play. This makes sense, when you consider that you can’t have a proper game in any sport without sufficient players. Without bots, multiplayer modes in a (team) sports game are basically useless. I suppose there are probably sports games out there that prevent two humans from playing on the same side, but I can’t recall any.

Real Time Strategy
As with some FPS games, I’ve seen RTS titles where you can set up a multiplayer co-op game, with all humans on the same team, but when the game starts, there are no bots – hence no players on the other team – and the human team immediately wins. Most often, though, RTS games simply don’t let human players team up at all. This is unfortunate, because an RTS can be a lot of fun with human allies.

A theory about the game development process

I’ve spent a lot of time wondering why co-op gaming isn’t more prevalent. Why is it more common in some genres (e.g. sports) than others? Most importantly, if a game supports multiplayer modes and has a single-player campaign where a human player takes on bots, why the heck isn’t there a co-op multiplayer mode? It seems to me that most of the code required is already there, so what’s the deal? Based on my own experiences as both a software developer and as a computer gamer, it appears that the problem is lack of planning. If a game’s developers plan from the start to include a co-op mode, it’s fairly straightforward. But trying to retrofit co-op gaming into a complete or nearly complete game presents certain difficulties, such as:
a) Which computer will control the bots?
b) Where will progress be saved?
c) If the action of bots (including spawning) is scripted, how will having more than one human affect that scripting?
d) How will level transitions work with multiple human players?

I think that some developers look at these problems and decide that they’re not worth dealing with because the audience for co-op gaming is so limited. Too bad.