Maximum PC games for windows RSS Feed

Hard Case: Games for Windows Live versus PC Gaming

Loyd Case — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:45:00 -0600

Whenever I think about Games for Windows Live, I feel like Charlie Brown, trying to kick the football that Lucy is holding. Ever optimistic, Charlie runs at the ball, only to have it jerked away at the last second. Games for Windows Live is like that – heavy on of promises, light on delivery. Someone needs to wrestle Windows gaming from the gaming group at Microsoft and give it back to the Windows team.

In other words, give the Games for Windows task to someone at Microsoft who actually cares about the PC. Windows 7 has been an impressive success, and it would be great of the team that’s responsible for making a better Windows for the PC take on the chore of making a better gaming experience for Windows.

Right now PC gaming at Microsoft lives in the Entertainment and Devices division, those edgy folks who brought you the Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune, Windows Mobile and Windows Automotive. While the Xbox 360 is finally profitable, the system has certainly has had its issues – red ring of death, anyone?

The real issue is that Games for Windows Live feels clunky and just gets in the way. While it’s come a long ways since the fiasco that was the PC version of Shadowrun, it’s far from an elegant experience.

Steam and Impulse, as examples, usually offer day one downloads of tier one titles. New stuff appears on those services practically daily. There’s little new that ever appears fon GfW Live. Or maybe it does, and you can’t see it (more on that in a moment.) Games for Windows Live offers no games, but does offer downloadable content and an auto-patching mechanism. However, that autopatcher is intrusive and annoying, unlike the way Impulse updates its games.

There are other oddities. For example, it had been some time since I’d played Fallout 3. So I’d forgotten exactly which DLC I’d bought. So I logged into the Games for Windows Live client to see which packages were available. Imagine my surprise when I saw nothing for Fallout 3 at all.

As it turns out, I had to install the game, which wasn’t on my latest production PC. Once done, the Fallout 3 DLC list “automagically” appeared. That’s pretty dumb behavior, assuming that you’re always going to log into the client from your gaming system. I can install the Steam client and see what games I’ve bought, even if I don’t necessarily want to download them.

What’s really going on, of course, is that Games for Windows Live is the bastard stepbrother of Xbox Live. All the attention goes to Xbox Live and the Xbox 360, which is the big moneymaker. What’s worse, Microsoft seems intent on making Games for Windows Live become more like the console connectivity experience, and less like the PC. All those cool features on Steam, like the Steam Cloud? Nope.

Services like Steam and Impulse certainly have their own set of problems, but both services are updated on an ongoing basis, adding new features and new technologies.

I suggested, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Microsoft move Games for Windows Live over to the Windows group. In truth, I’m not sure that’s a good idea either – just take a look at the lack of functionality in the Games Explorer. Well, with Windows 7, you can now at least see your games in the Start menu.

What I really think Microsoft should do is become a tool provider for online gaming infrastructure, much the way they make tools available to applications developers in general. Instead of trying to manage a patching system, make the tools available for game developers to do it themselves, in a consistent, uniform way. Instead of game publishers relying on broken technology (I’m looking at you, Gamespy), offer a rational, uniform set of online connectivity APIs and tools.

Or maybe it’s just hopeless. Anyone remember DirectPlay? That was Microsoft’s attempt to supply wide area networking connectivity APIs inside of DirectX. It was abandoned after DirectX 8 in favor of – you got it – Games for Windows Live.

Gears of War PC Pulls a Zune, Just Stops

Nathan Grayson — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:58:26 -0600

Maybe the aliens only hate Microsoft? After the company’s recent ~~red~~ ring around the rosy of ker-splosions, the idea's certainly not implausible. And now, a new player's bumbling onto the stage: the Games for Windows edition of Epic’s Gears of War.

Apparently, the game’s digital certificate walked toward the light on January 28, causing players to receive the following error message: "You cannot run the game with modified executable code. Please reinstall the game."

Microsoft and Epic are, as expected, staying up long past their bedtimes in order to mop up this mess, but have yet to give an ETA for their fix.

“Yes, this was a surprise to us too,” said Epic Games programmer “joeGraf.” “We aren’t casting blame or chewing anyone out. We’re trying to figure out how and why it happened so we can get it fixed.”

For now though, good ol’ Dr. Internet’s prescribed a simple remedy: set your system clock to any date before January 29, 2009.

Microsoft Still Considers PC a “First-Class Gaming Platform”

Nathan Grayson — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:52:02 -0600

After the recent 100% drop in GFW’s Chris Early content, speculation ran rampant the software label might’ve contracted a case of terminal irrelevance – curable only by some kind of miraculous economic upswing or Magic Johnson. However, Microsoft recently released a statement reaffirming its support for the platform, while also naming Ron Pessner as Chris Early’s successor.

“Moving ahead, Microsoft will continue to invest in Windows as a first–class gaming platform through great Windows out of box experiences, our online gaming services including Games for Windows – LIVE, MSN Games, and Messenger games, and through new games for Windows developed by Microsoft Games Studios," a Microsoft spokesperson said.

"Our Windows gaming service efforts will be led by General Manager Ron Pessner, who is joining Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business. He comes from within Microsoft’s Entertainment & Devices Division.”
“Beyond these changes, we are not commenting on specific personnel issues at this time.”

But enough talk; outside of an admittedly nice redesign, GFW’s actions haven’t made a peep as of late. So c’mon, guys – give us your best “Have at you!” The world is watching. Now deliver.

Windows Vista 64-Bit – Is It Ready For Primetime?

Justin Kerr — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:01:53 -0500

When Windows Vista launched back in January 2007, the 64-bit edition was clearly not ready for primetime. The driver and compatibility issues that mired the early days of the OS were even worse on the 64-bit side, and for most users Vista x64 was completely crippled or in some cases, wouldn’t install at all. Hardware manufacturers struggled to release stable device drivers but because 32-bit and 64-bit editions both required radically different drivers, Vista x64 just wasn’t a priority. Coming up on two years later, 32-bit Vista’s issues seem to have calmed down, but what about Vista x64? Well according to Microsoft, usage of the niche OS is on the rise, but is it finally ready for prime time?

What is Vista 64, and why would I want this?

The jump from 16 to 32-bit computing in Windows 95 went mostly un-protested. But then again, back in 1995, computer instability was pretty much expected. PC pioneers put up with a lot of driver issues, and punishing blue screens. Today, PC operating systems have a much larger audience to impress, and most of its users have a very low tolerance for instability. For mainstream users, and those with older hardware, 32-bit is still the way to go. But chances are if you are reading this article, it’s because your not mainstream, and your ready to risk a few orphaned devices in pursuit of something better.

The obvious reason for transitioning to a 64-bit OS is the increased RAM capacity which technically could be as high as 16 Exabyte’s. Vista x64 however, only supports 8 GB for home premium, and a not too shabby 128 GB in the ultimate and business editions. And while this might sound a bit extreme, this extra RAM actually comes in quite handy even today. Microsoft claims Vista can make use the increased RAM capacity using a new feature called Superfetch. Using this technology, the OS is able to pre-load commonly used applications into memory, and even makes use of historical access patterns to predict a user’s needs. The more RAM present in the system, the more applications Vista can prefetch. This is an excellent example of how extra RAM can improve performance, but won’t necessarily show up in traditional benchmarks. This feature alone represents a huge benefit for heavy multi taskers looking for ways to improve overall system responsiveness.

Vista 64 Bit Software Compatibility

One of the most common myths about 64 bit operating systems is that old software doesn’t work. What you lose in stepping up a 64-bit OS is in fact, only 16-bit program support. This includes items from the DOS / Windows 3.1 era, but not much else. 64-Bit copies of Windows implement a technology called WOW64 (Windows-on-Windows) to enable backward compatibility with 32-bit applications that been emerging since the mainstream adoption of Windows 95 more then a decade ago. WOW64 creates a 32-bit environment that allows older applications to run unmodified in a 64-bit OS. Backwards compatibility with 8 & 16-bit applications isn’t impossible under Vista 64, but it requires a bit of creativity. An excellent choice for working with very old applications is Microsoft’s free Virtual PC 2007. This utility allows you to install a virtual copy of any Microsoft operating system including Windows 95, 98, or even MSDOS. You can then run it in parallel just like any other application.

To make life even simpler, If DOS compatibility is your only concern, DOSBox is an excellent free 32-bit alternative that will have you chasing Vorticons as Commander Keen in no time flat. Here is another important tip for 64-bit gamers. The Games for Windows brand might not add up to a lot, but for x64 users it signifies that the game was tested for compatibility in both 32 & 64-bit environments. Some games even ship with a native 64-bit executable, such as Crysis, and Devil May Cry 4 which in my case, greatly improved CPU efficiency. Many popular mainstream applications have gone 64-bit as well including, Adobe Lightroom, ESET NOD 32, and even Apple iTunes. Veteran Photoshop users can also look forward to 64-bit version that will substantially benefit from the additional RAM capacity.

Vista 64 Bit Hardware Compatibility

Working around software incompatibilities can be challenging, but at least workarounds exist for almost any scenario. Drivers on the other hand are a different story. 32-bit drivers are not compatible at all, and for the most part security improvements which will be detailed in the next section are to blame. While it safe to assume in advance that your 10 year old parallel port scanner won’t work, how will you know if your 2 year old USB printer is compatible? For that Microsoft has launched the Vista Compatibility Center. Simply browse the categories, click the 64-bit system filter and learn what hardware is, and is not compatible before you take the plunge.

Here is another Microsoft specific tip. When seeking out new hardware look for the “Works with Windows Vista” or “Certified for Windows Vista” logo’s. Hardware devices baring these badges have undergone testing in both 32 & 64-bit OS’s. Only a small number of devices bother to file for this certification however, so in most cases the Compatibility Center or the manufacturers website will be your best bet. Drivers have come a long way in the past year and I have yet to run into a device I couldn’t get working, though I must admit, I don’t tend to keep hardware for more the a few years. Nvidia, ATI, and even Creative Labs all have mature and stable x64 drivers at this point as well.

Vista 64 Bit Security Improvements

Oddly enough, one of the biggest improvements in Vista x64 bit is actually the enhanced security features that go far beyond what is offered by Vista 32. Microsoft has been able to utilize the lesser used 64-bit editions as a way of putting software developers on notice. They are attempting to encourage less destructive software/operating system interactions. Initiatives such as Kernel Patch Protection were implemented to help keep the Windows core operating system safe from threats that come from both Malware, and sloppy applications that like to plant their roots deep in the OS. It prevents kernel-mode drivers and 3^rd party software from interfering with critical Windows services, a defiantly plus. Sadly, this feature is no longer enforced post SP1, but many developers were forced to find workarounds during the delay and Microsoft isn’t making it easy.

Additionally, new security features such as Address Space Layout Randomizer and Data Execution Protection both help thwart hacking attempts to which 32-bit OS’s are still somewhat vulnerable. Other stipulations such as the requirement for signed drivers has also been dropped, but Microsoft is clearly using the OS as a way of previewing security features that make life difficult for programmers, but will benefit users in the long run.

Is Vista 64 Ready For Prime Time?

Ultimately, the decision will be up to you. Some compatibility sacrifices may need to be made, but the price of transitioning to 64-bit Vista today is much less painful then it was a year ago. It probably isn’t a good solution for casual users who only want to surf the web and watch Youtube on 5 year old hardware. But it is the future of operating systems, and it is finally stable enough to give a reliable user experience with most modern hardware. Microsoft has publically stated that Windows 7 will be the last 32-bit operating system, and if memory prices continue to crash, 32-bit Windows 7 may not even be a popular choice. OEM Vista 64-bit machines are also finally beginning to appear at retail, and within a few years it is not hard to image even mainstream users wanting 4GB of RAM or more. A new chapter in PC history is about to begin.

Useful Links

- Nvidia Graphics Card 64-Bit GeForce Drivers

- ATI Graphics Card 64-Bit Catalyst™ Drivers

- Creative Labs X-Fi 64-Bit Sound Card Drivers

- Microsoft 32/64-Bit Compatibility Center

- Microsoft On The Differences Between 32 & 64 Bit Versions Of Vista

- Order 64-Bit Media From Microsoft For Owners Of Vista 32-Bit

Microsoft Caves to Consumers, Frees Games for Windows

Norman Chan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:50:07 -0500

Update: More details about the announcement here, along with DirectX11 news.

Remember that old economics lesson about supply and demand? If demand for a product rises, the company producing it can raise the price to the point where the supply and demand curves intersect. But when the demand for a product is almost non-existent, the invisible hand of economics demands that price falls. In the case of Microsoft’s Games for Windows LIVE initiative, the price has now fallen to zero. Microsoft just announced today that Games for Windows LIVE will be free for all users (both Silver and Gold accounts), which is the price it should’ve been at all along. Gamertags, buddy lists, and achievements will be enabled on all accounts without an annual fee, though gamers who play on Xbox LIVE will still have to pay for that service.

Check back later today for our interview with Kevin Unangst, Senior Global Director of Games for Windows, who will reveal what other plans Microsoft has next for the GFW program.

From Microsoft:

Effective today, all Games for Windows – LIVE multiplayer features are now completely free. Achievements, enhanced TruSkill ® matchmaking, cross-platform play with XBOX 360 (in games that support it), voice and text chat, a friends list that is consistent across both Windows and XBOX 360 – everything – is now free to Windows gamers.
This change immediately affects all currently available Games for Windows – LIVE titles and all future titles.
Microsoft will also announce plans to deliver a Games for Windows – LIVE marketplace this fall, which will offer downloadable game content (free and paid, determined by the publisher), demos, trailers and more.
Microsoft is also making the Games for Windows – LIVE in-game interface much more PC friendly, and reducing the technical requirements for developers.

No BS Podcast #72 The "Our New Website is Crazy Awesome" Edition

Norman Chan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:45:02 -0500

On our leanest podcast ever, Tom, Will, Norm, and Andy put on their best suits to go over the fancy features of the new Maximum PC website. Norm recaps his visit to a recent Games for Windows press event, and shares details about the upcoming Ghostbusters and Call of Duty: World at War PC games. No listener Q&A this week, but listeners are challenged to come up with nicknames for our two new interns. A photo of these young nerdlings can be found after the jump. All this and more on this week's No BS Podcast!

Do you have a tech question? A comment? A tale of technological triumph? Just need to get something off your chest? Email us at maximumpcpodcast@gmail.com or call our 24-hour No BS Podcast hotline at 877.404.1337 x1337--operators are standing by.

Ready to feel the wrath of Clan [FU] in Team Fortress 2? Join our Steam group. Feel like stalking us? Check out our Facebook Page.

Modders and modding aficionados, head on over to Mod Shop! Check out all the hottest mods and stay tuned for some special announcements.

Subscribe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/maximumpc/1337

Post your nickname suggestions in the comments below!

Five Ways to Save the PC Gaming Alliance

<a href="/david_murphy">David Murphy<br /></a> — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:48:03 -0600

Right now, the PC gaming environment cannot compete with those--dare I say--heathen console machines and their sack-fulls of fresh, original, and damned-fun content. And I'm not the only one who thinks, and fears, this growing problem.

It's a sad state that the industry is desperately trying to correct. You've surely heard the news about the PC Gaming Alliance--that big consortium of top-notch manufacturers, developers, bigwigs, and Microsoft, who are all trying to jump-start PC Gaming with a heavy pair of electric paddles and a handful of promises and dreams. I find it curious, albeit obvious, that Microsoft's taking part in this grand scheme. You could consider them the Judas of the bunch--perfectly willing to play along whilst, at the same time, destroying the industry from the inside under the guise of Games for Windows.

But I digress. The PC Gaming Alliance is doomed from the get-go. It'll never work, because I think the various talking heads will be too busy trying to squeeze their own initiatives into the picture to realize what's really needed in the modern-day PC gaming industry. And I'm not talking about some epic secret, the gaming industry's Tree of Life that's going to forever raise the PC as the champion platform. The decentralized PC community knows what's up. It's just grasping at the roots of solutions that the consoles have already figured out.

1) Multi-platform releases

Does World of Warcraft's 10-million-strong user base promote PC gaming goodness or pull away players that might invest in different genres and titles?

There's a good reason why I buy awesome games for my Xbox 360: because I can't get them on my computer. I'm not going to wait 8 months to play Gears of War, or God-knows-when to play Assassin's Creed. When I see a game, and it looks sweet, I buy it. The end.

So why don't developers recognize this fact and release all their "A++ would-play-again" titles across both platforms simultaneously? I'm way better at most games on the PC than the console, and I'd like to think that my home rig is superior to my Xbox 360. Give me the option to play killer titles on my PC--like The Orange Box--and it'll be a strong factor when I'm standing around in Best Buy, wondering if I should head to the console or the PC aisle in the ol' video game section.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop releasing ancient games on the PC. I'm talking to you, Microsoft. If it's retro, brand it as such. Stop giving us games that the Xbox has had for years, and worse yet, stop making these up to be awesome representations of the new "Games for Windows" initiative. I laugh at you.

2) Achievements

Shadowrun's achievements are perfect: you get the same accolades regardless of what platform you're playing on. Done and done.

I like achievements. I like them a lot. I don't care about putting my gamerscore/Valve name/whatever into six-digit territory, but I do like the ability for my friends to know exactly where I am and what I'm doing with the titles I play. The surest way for PCs to compete with consoles is to promote the notion of achievements--viewable by anyone who connects to a centralized platform--across all titles. Period. None of this "you do it one way, I'll do it another way" crap.

I hate seeing games with built-in achievements/accolades/marketingbuzzwordhere that are all proprietary. Valve has tapped the nail with this one, but I would hope that the PCGA can hammer this one into the ground. Otherwise, I'm going to buy all of my B-list titles (like Overlord) for my console, because even if the games are sub-par, at least my friends will be able to see what I'm up to.

Achievements are a free value proposition that invariably get gamers even more hooked on the games they're playing. At the same time, they give each and every game a level of competition that it might not otherwise exist given the game's format. For example, I like Peggle. But comparing my Peggle progress around Maximum PC's water cooler spurs me to play the game even when I don't really want to. Achievements let me do this on a far grander scale.

3) Cross-Platform Synchronicity

Why can't I play Gears of War PC against Xbox users? Why is this not built into the port of a game that came out a year after the original version hit consoles?

Jumping off #1, if a game comes out for the Xbox or the PS3 at the same time as its PC version, there's no reason the game shouldn't offer some kind of cross-platform experience. What better way to compete with the consoles than to allow gamers to, you know, compete with the consoles. Directly. Mano-a-Mouse. Why did I play Shadowrun so much? Not because it was a terribly immersive game at its core; I played it because I could play it against all my "noob" friends who refuse to acknowledge the PC as a gaming platform. Shadowrun was the whole new world that Games for Windows was alluding to, a welcome relief for those of us who swallowed the hype at the time.

But this idea doesn't have to die. Developers and platform-creators need to standardize (and dare I say, speed up) the method for updating cross-platform content: as I understand it, this is one of the reasons you don't see cross-platform gameplay on Unreal Tournament 3 right now. The game itself was rather feh, but I know I would have jumped on the PC version for quite awhile longer had I the ability to introduce my Xbox friends to a flak cannon. Unite the PC with the consoles and you'll build your audience. You'll build a ton of gamer respect as well. And the day a cross-platform MMO hits? Son, it's over.

4) Make Better Games

Instead of releasing a bevy of patches for The Witcher, its developers are coming out with an "Enhanced" edition. Thanks, but I like my polish with the original game, not as a ~$40 upgrade.

I realize this sounds a lot like a fourth-grader criticizing an Iron Chef because the little tyke doesn't like the taste of lunch, but hear me out. There are not enough high-quality, PC-exclusive titles on the market right now. There's no compelling reason keeping me on my PC, unlike the consoles, which have plenty of exclusive (or exclusive-for-a-number-of-months) titles.

Why is this the case? I fear it's because developers would rather sink $40 million dollars into a crappy game than sit back and understand the current gaming market. Right now, gamers want gameplay. They don't want sequels, nor should they be expected to buy sequels sans gameplay. A fun game will always be king, and you don't need to empty the vault to do it. Look at Sins of a Solar Empire--not a hugely hyped title, and not even the most innovative per se. That said, Stardock made a title that was pure fun, and that's it.

Right now, the PC gaming market suffers from a lack of good original titles. We're seeing too many high-in-promise, crap-in-production products flooding the airwaves right now. And it's a shame, because these titles had just as much hype and excitement going into development as any console game: Hellgate: London, Unreal Tournament 3, SimCity Societies, Tabula Rasa, et cetera. Ironically, the few quality titles I can think of to name (again, absent the "World" and "Warcraft" bits) are all cross-platform to begin with: The Orange Box, BioShock, etc.

Do consoles have crappy games? By the truckload. Do certain PC games make me question life, the universe, and everything? Absolutely. But blow-for-blow, the console is winning the war. Developers need to realize that a game has to be fun, and making a "fun" game isn't an equation that you can just sink a ton of money into and call it a day. They need focus more on what gamers truly want to play. And here's a hint: great gameplay will win out over next-generation graphics or pop-culture gimmicks every single time.

Consider Crysis: typical first-person shooter, right? To an extent, that's correct. Crysis ratchets up the "looks factor" pretty high, which is compelling reason number one for gamers to pick it up: the best graphical experience on a PC to date. But is that enough to make a game? Nope. So enter reason two: customizable gameplay that lets you alternate between any Dungeons and Dragons-style classes on a whim. The Fancysuit (whatever it's called) takes the "play it your way" concepts of more open-ended shooters and kicks it up a notch. Feel like being a sneaky thief? Want to punch tanks? How about absorbing damage like Ahh-nold? With but a cursory mouse movement, you're within the reach of three different playing styles.

I'm not going to belabor the point. But there's a reason Crysis is a blockbuster while Unreal Tournament 3... well... is a fine representation of the fourth anniversary of Unreal Tournament 2004. Gamers want original, fun experiences: while it's certainly possible for a sequel to work, it's not going to be a hit if it's just a reimaged version of the same ol' same ol'. The PC can be a cheaper, better gaming platform. Developers just have to stop thinking with their bank accounts and start thinking with their hearts--the kinds of experiences that made them turn to PC games when they were growing up. Hey, TIE Fighter didn't cost millions to make, but there's a reason it's still the greatest game ever created.*

*Disagree, and I will fight you.

5) Swallow Thy Pride

How many gamers, when faced with the draconian copy protection of 2K Games' BioShock, just stopped trying? How many stopped buying?

For this gaming alliance to have any chance of working, the various companies involved will need to approach the situation like it truly is: a gathering of visions, united on a common front. This can't be just another method for Microsoft injecting its marketing via another platform. Nor can this be any way for AMD to somehow leverage the playing field with Intel and Nvidia. Each company is going to have to take the high road on this one. It's a pill of poison for marketing departments, but it's exactly the kind of level-headed approach that's going to be required for this alliance to have any impact whatsoever.

Just imagine the possibilities! Instead of scrapping over copy protection schemes, perhaps these companies could use Microsoft's experience to leverage some sort of huge, open marketplace-type situation. Each member of the alliance would be free to set their own prices and such, with chunks of "featured content" dolled out according to a common calendar cycle. Obviously, it'd be a Steam knock-off. But the beauty of the service is that it eliminates the need for copy protection outright. Sign up, buy the game, and you can access it across any medium you want.

The PC Gaming Alliance could ensure that this service extends to box copies as well. Buy a copy at retail, and you'd be given the opportunity to register the game into this giant, online collective. It'd be your copy protection, and would also give you the ability to download and play the game in the same manner as before: across any medium you want.

These are all just brief thoughts. The PC Gaming Alliance has a long road ahead of itself, in terms of making the beloved ol' computer as important a platform as the consoles. And it needs more weight as well: where's EA? Where's Take-Two? Where are all the other publishers? Where are the industry heavyweights?

And what are the hardware vendors exactly hoping to accomplish? Graphics cards and fancy processors do not a gamer make; they're the means to an end. Gamers want better games, gamers want innovative games, and gamers want a compelling reason to choose a far-more-expensive, souped-up PC over that little $400 console machine in their living room. Hardware isn't the problem. In the end, it's all about the games.

Sins of a Solar Empire and Me: A Story of Addiction, Heartache, and True Love

Will Smith — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:37:20 -0600

Over the years, I’ve made some startling confessions in this space—for example, the words “I love OS X” earned me more than a few hate letters. But now it’s time to brace yourself for my most startling confession yet: I’m addicted to “4X” games, the classic turn-based, universe-domination titles in which you eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate. This genre was last popular sometime around (gulp) 1993.

When I’m at my local game shop, picking out a title, I don’t beeline for the 4X section, pining for better days. In fact, if you were to place a copy of Call of Duty X and the latest empire builder side by side, I’d probably reach for the shooter, because I know it will be eminently more fun. But if you somehow tempt, coax or coerce me into playing a good 4X game—from Master of Orion to Galactic Civilization—I'm in big trouble. This is when I start showing the signs of clinical addiction. A quick one-hour game invariably turns into a marathon session. I build my meager empire, one solar system at a time, subsuming aliens cultures weaker than mine—using overwhelming force if necessary. A negotiation here, a small-scale war there, and pretty soon it’s 4am and I’m wondering who drank all the Red Bull.

That’s when I decide I’m just going to take one more turn. Or maybe two. And then it snowballs even further. I’m zombieing through days at work and spending sleepless nights plotting my next move against the almighty Prophet Zarquon, who runs a three planet hegemony that’s the next stop for the United Federation of Will’s Flotilla of Love, Happiness, and an Array of Interplanetary Railguns On the Off Chance that Love and Happiness Don’t Get the Job Done.

So that’s my addiction, and it’s particularly topical thanks to a new game called Sins of a Solar Empire, which is going to do for the 4X genre what Dune 2 and C&C did for strategy games. By ditching turn-based gameplay for a real-time design, Sins retains the compelling depth and complexity of the 4X genre while removing the things that irked me, like waiting for your opponent to plan his turn. In return, you get glorious space battles, in which tactics, politics, and economy all matter. In short, it’s a game that I sit down to play and don’t look away from for at least four hours.

Sins is by no means perfect. It’s essentially a multiplayer-only game, single-player is limited to some rudimentary tutorial missions and a basic skirmish mode, where you can compete against a ruthless AI. Unfortunately, there's no campaign to gradually introduce players to the complex gameplay. While this is definitely a problem, the fundamental game design is brilliant and revolutionary, Multiplayer is just plain fun bordering on incredible. That Ironclad bet their company on this game, built something this compelling, and then chose to release it without any annoying copy-protection schemes shouldn't go unrewarded. Buy the game and you won't be disappointed.

Edit (2/8): Removed some hyperbole