So we meet again.

Back from a terrible writing grave, it's Wiener, bringing you a little something today.

Having spent a lot of time on Star Craft II as of late, the competitive spirit runs deep in my veins. Skilled or proficient, I am not, but between the brooding nature of laddering and the many tournaments that have been on (Intel Extreme Masters in Cologne, MLG and right now GOMtv's TG-Intel StarCraft II Open), there's a lot of game to be played and to be watched.

Speaking of MLG and competitive gaming, the Razer Onza - a third party Xbox 360 controller, has been banned from competitive play by MLG.

While I'm not particularly interested in the direct ramifications for Razer's first foray into console peripherals, it does pose an interesting issue. How should unconventional technologies be treated in the competitive scene? It was the Onza's auto-fire capabilities that largely outlawed it from MLG play, but for the PC scene, keyboard macros, even mouse macros are analogous if not superior in function. Are these functions severe to the point that they are unsuitable for a competitive league?

The degree of customization and programming that can fit behind some of these macro buttons is quite impressive. While the cheaper, simpler versions on keyboards or mice can only manage a key press or two, most premium products offer a much more precise experience. They can offer programming for a timed sequence of any number button presses that is fully reproducible with each use of the macro. Some even allow for mouse movement, which can prove valuable for bread-and-butter motions like rocket-jumping. It becomes a science, allowing (near) inhuman execution of actions.

Some argue that such technology is widely available, and that choosing not to utilize it is merely a waste of what is considered the new standard. Others also say that it takes as much skill to prepare and code a macro. Yet others rationalize their macro use by only using recorded macros - that which they can physically perform, to eliminate the advantage of computer-perfect timing. Their opponents cry foul by stating that macros are the most obvious inequality between players, which is only too often rebutted by what would have been the rift of disadvantage during transitions between ball mice to optical mice, and later, optical mice to laser mice. All these arguments are thrown around heatedly in discussion of competitive play.

In the end, I cannot definitively say that these technologies should be made illegal in all competitive scenes. For an 'as-equal-as-possible' approach that console tournaments (e.g. MLG) uphold, third party products are perhaps very jarring. On the other hand, the PC competitive scene has, for a long time, allowed players to find what input devices are most suitable for them. It's unorthodox for a PC tournament to disallow personal choice of headphones, keyboards or mice.

However, that is not to say I approve of complex macros in competitive games. The programming behind it offloads the responsibility, and the actions required, for the player using them. A person reliant on perfectly coded macros to play a game properly, to win competitively, is a person who innately does not have the skill to play or win the game. You strip the player of his special equipment, and he cannot perform. A player who practices traditional, physical execution of all his moves can perform his best even without such equipment.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever make heavy use of macros. However, you'll never catch me off guard with a mouse that doesn't have a 'reload' key bound to its side. It's a fine line we walk, but my conscience rests easy. Even if it means I lose StarCraft II matches like no tomorrow.

Late E3 reflections, Part M

Sorry for not actually throwing anything out there while E3 was still ticking away. Wasn't really sure on what to write about. We'll start with the Microsoft keynote, and how it wasn't really all that impressive.

I was giddy as I watched along with everyone else, but perhaps was more excited about E3 in general than what the keynote was actually made of. The keynote started with a very quick run-through of existent and known games. Call of Duty, Gears of War, Halo, were all very stunning, but were too transient - there was a short demo or trailer, but very soon passed along to the next title. There was no real surprises - Halo Reach alluded to some outer-space dogfighting, but nothing all too stunning. The big titles that would usually receive a large slice of attention were hurried along.

Then it came to Kinect-hour. It was during this hour that Microsoft summoned the actor/model families - a bunch of 'regular' people enjoying the experience we once called Natal. It was unnerving - they had somehow found a way to manifest the uncanny valley right there in the theater. There was a lot about the Kinect already known - both from official releases, as well as leaks and insider previews. Quite a few of the game titles seemed interesting enough, if not particularly original. If anything, I was more impressed by third party ideas like Harmonix's Dance Central, or even Ubisoft's Your Shape Fitness Evolved. Some of the features I, at the time, thought would be interesting as augmentations to the traditional hard-controller, but more on that later.

Perhaps the most eye-catching thing about Microsoft's keynote was the reveal of the new Xbox 360 model, a sleek glossy little brother to the older machine. As Don Mattrick revealed it, having been sitting under the shell of the old design, which had been sitting on stage the entire time, I couldn't help but grin. Microsoft's lenient pricing also proved to sit well with the members of the press, who were all given a unit for free for being at the keynote. Of quirky note, the new model forgoes red LEDs, meaning they literally cannot RRoD.

The Microsoft keynote failed to deliver for me - it lacked a showing of the core catalog of games, but redeemed itself in part by introducing a quieter, more efficient system. Kinect doesn't impress me as much as it used to - the limitations of the system seem a bit too great. I'll save that for another day.

Before I say anything, please take a look at this video:

Sunday, June 13, 2010. A pre-E3 show called Experience, with contributions by Cirque Du Soleil will be Microsoft's grand reveal for the dressed up Natal. Let us all hope their scripted, directed and choreographed videos turn out better than this one.

My first reflection is how similar this seems to the execution and reception to the Wii. The keynotes and press conference thoroughly dressed up the experience. Then the 'real' (read: 'embarrassing' videos hit the internet, and the haters flamed along while the fanboys (and fangirls) threw out all their defenses at the comical play style. When the Wii hit retail shelves, every new owner looked stilted, either stiff or agitated as they played. While the haters will never truly relent (i.e. 'haters gonna hate'), most people soon settled down, learning to be more proficient and exact. Amongst them, the lazy soon accustomed to competent play with a brisk waggle whilst seated snugly on a couch.

Hopefully the Natal will follow suit, at least in its users' adaptation to awkwardness. Perhaps the more pertinent question is how Natal will differ from a next-generation (PlayStation) EyeToy, but the exact criticism can be applied to the Move, an amped-up version of the Wii remote. Ultimately something that will be understood in due time, as E3 draws near, as details are still scant at best.

Definitely keeping close tabs on E3 this year. Thankfully the rest of my agenda seems to line up just right - by the time I'm done with my current set of work, the show will have just kicked in. Hoping to catch all the keynotes live, and deliver some insight fresh from Los Angeles.