Welcome to the MEANS System!
The MEANS System is a method of identifying attributes and rating games based on their viability and enjoyability at LAN parties. MEANS testing is not intended to deeply assess or pass judgment on the overall quality, artistic merit, or other critically relevant attributes that may otherwise be relevant for game reviews. Rather, it simply asks: “Is this game a good time?”
Though this is an effort to be systematic (and, in some cases, taxonomic), MEANS is intrinsically subjective. While individual reviewers should seek to be as objective as they can, they will nevertheless refer to their own memories and experiences in using the system for their review. This is by design, and multiple MEANS tests of a given game from different perspectives are valuable and encouraged, as it increases the average usefulness of the resulting score.
Assessment
The system assesses five specific elements of a given game: Moments, Energy, Accessibility, Novelty, and Simplicity (hence, MEANS), with a rating chosen on a 1-10 scale. The elements are defined as follows.
Moments
How many times a game elicits reactions from the players. The number of times one curses, jokingly, a fellow LAN attendee. The frequency of cheers or jeers. Opportunities for team collaboration and communication. How much players want to discuss the events of the game at its conclusion.
Energy
The amount of laughter the game generates. The level of liveliness resulting from a game being played. The overall excitement and intensity level of players. The observable amount of fun everyone seems to be having. (related to Moments tangentially)
Accessibility
The speed at which players can, from a full stop, set up and join a lobby or game-in-progress. Network stability, lack of bugs and frustration not resulting from the game itself.
Novelty
The game's ability to provide unique experiences. The ease with which players can create new criteria, variations, and methods of play. Replayability, customizability, and diversity of play modes.
Simplicity
The speed at which new players can, with limited prior knowledge of the game, grasp the fundamentals and start having a good time. Game and systems complexity, frustration resulting directly from the game itself.
Type
Type describes the role the game plays in LAN rotation. In short, it attempts to describe the overall vibe of the game session, and when it may be played over the course of an event.
Arena
Intense, competitive games. A relatively level playing field for players to test their skill against other groups at the LAN, or against players online.
Big Team
Games that can fit everyone. Frenetic, generally team-based, with the ability to drop in or out at will.
Casual
Chill games for chill times. Low-to-no skill barrier, typically lower energy than the related “Party” category.
Chaos
Absolute mayhem. Usually free-for-all settings with a difficult win condition, best played in short sessions to boost group energy.
Co-op
Small-group games played against AI or (in the case of Battle Royale) exclusively against online players. High-communication, moderately less competitive edge versus Arena.
Party
High-energy games with clear, low-to-no skill barrier mechanics.
Format
Format describes the method by which a game is played -- specifically the input and view style. This has been condensed to genre descriptions used in contemporary game media and marketing.
Unreal Tournament 2004
Type: Chaos, Arena
Format: FPS
While many LAN groups of the era coalesced around Quake rather than UT99, Unreal Tournament 2004 was an inescapable juggernaut of the arena shooter genre, and battled with the likes of Call of Duty and Battlefield 1942. Today, UT2004 has aged relatively well compared to many of its contemporaries, and sees limited play at CELAN events.
Moments: 7
Energy: 7.5
As with most arena shooters, UT2004 play is lively and naturally encourages yells of excitement, delight, and general chaos, though it can be frustrating for less experienced players. Team-based modes, either standard deathmatch and CTF or more intricate modes such as Onslaught and Assault, encourage collaboration and can be played versus other players or against AI.
Accessibility: 7
UT2004’s GOG installer and few networking hassles make it easy for most attendees to install and play with a minimum of technical headache (getting the game to run at a contemporary resolution being among the minor frustrations).
Novelty: 5
Better than the average arena shooter thanks to the inclusion of diverse game modes. However, it’s still an arena shooter -- for those not deeply invested in the genre, UT2004 will wear thin fairly quickly.
Simplicity: 5.5
As FPSes go, UT2004 dates to an era of less complex systems and high skill ceilings. As a result, there’s less to learn than other FPSes, elevating its simplicity somewhat -- though habitual reloaders may find themselves typing gibberish in team chat.
Warcraft III
Type: Arena, Party
Format: RTS
Easily one of the GOAT games in CELAN circles, but more due to its map editor flexibility than its core RTS gameplay. Warcraft III is best in its un-Reforged form, and copy-and-play copies are still widely available to scratch itches that StarCraft II can’t quite reach.
Moments: 6
Energy: 4
Few emotions quite match the terrorized panic of a group of tower defense players realizing, in sequence, that their defenses are failing. However, being an RTS, overall Warcraft III energy is low, and players generally remain locked into a lobby for 15 minutes or more at a time.
Accessibility: 6
As long as everyone is on the same copy-and-play version, WC3 is fairly harmless. However, version disparities can cause headaches, the resolutions aren’t up to snuff for modern devices, and the Battle.net version is incompatible with the OG version.
Novelty: 8
One of the undisputed kings of novelty. WC3 maps transform the game into the relatively benign (tower defense, hero siege, footman wars, MOBA, etc) or the exotic (a kart racer, a Mario Party analogue, a survival RPG), and more.
Simplicity: 4
Being an RTS from 2003, WC3’s controls aren’t the simplest to grasp, and for those not already steeped in it, it can be daunting to pick up for the first time.
Battlefield 4
Type: Big Team
Format: FPS
Widely panned for a sloppy release, over time BF4 became a staple LAN FPS in some circles through the 2010s. Its near-future military aesthetic is an acquired taste at best, but its capacity for shenanigans and silliness is almost unmatched in the genre.
Moments: 8
Energy: 7
In a vacuum, having everyone join a server and randomly populating opposing teams leads to a constant stream of laughs and jeers. With more coordinated play, deliberately setting up squads and specializing to shut down opposing vehicles, crew aircraft, and more can lead to dynamic and exciting moments for the team.
Accessibility: 5
At its most accessible, BF4 is… fine. In the past, it required slogging through the Battlelog web interface, which was bad but useable. Today, it has a menu system that is resource-heavy and unintuitive. Also, Origin sucks, but at least works consistently. Picking servers is only a minor hassle, and getting into games is doable, if not the easiest.
Novelty: 6
While playing mostly on a single mode (‘Conquest’ / the ‘Conquest Large’ variant) might seem inherently limiting, the maps and scenarios are so large that a degree of flexibility is inherent. Go anti-vehicle, go anti-infantry, fly a helicopter, fly a jet, drive a tank, ram explosives-laden jeeps into enemy tanks, stab snipers, launch bomb-defusing robots toward the enemy spawn -- for an apparently realistic military-themed FPS, there’s a lot of silliness to be had.
Simplicity: 4.5
As with many shooters of the mid-2010s, BF4 is replete with numerous skins, weapons, attachments, and gadgets. In a vacuum, it’s a bit much to take in -- with at least a couple friendly teammates at a LAN, it’s not insurmountable.
League of Legends
Type: Arena
Format: RTS
The undisputed king of MOBAs; though many have taken their shot at the throne, nothing in the genre quite has the longevity, technical prowess, or fanbase of League of Legends. While this analyst has long blamed LoL for the implosion of the BYOC LAN party at PAX, he’s attempted to set aside his feelings for the purposes of this analysis.
Moments: 7
Energy: 5.5
While there are few experiences in gaming that feel worse than losing a round of LoL, there are few that feel better than winning. Collaboration is a must, and wins are truly sublime. However, interplay between groups is impossible, and players are sequestered for the length of their play session.
Accessibility: 7.5
Free to play, runs on damn near everything. The only strikes against LoL are its always-online nature, and its lack of drop-in/drop-out play options.
Novelty: 2
One mode, two tops. LoL’s distinct roles allow for somewhat diverse playstyles, and private lobbies are an option, but its lack of custom gametypes and modes stifle LAN flexibility.
Simplicity: 1
League’s learning ‘curve’ is more of a brick wall covered in spikes. Complex and with a high skill ceiling, LoL punishes new players -- and often, judging from the exasperated sounds made by teams at LANs, experienced players too. Approach with caution.
Battlefield 2042
Type: Big Team
Format: FPS
While plainly cut from the same cloth as BF4 (and sharing a similarly sloppy launch), Battlefield 2042 is most glaringly plagued by a number of underbaked features -- most notably broken server browsing / setup, and an inability to join 128 player servers with more than 4-player groups. The potential is there, but it’ll only become a LAN staple if those issues are addressed.
Moments: 7.5
Energy: 7
Parts of BF4’s success are readily visible in BF2042. Action is fast, fluid, chaotic, and invites a variety of playstyles and general silliness. Vehicles are tougher nuts to crack in 2042, which is somewhat stifling, but the biggest issue is not being able to play with (or against) fellow LAN attendees as readily. Update (2022/4): It’s easier to play on LAN, score adjusted slightly.
Accessibility: 3
BF2042 requires either a $60 purchase or a $10/mo subscription, redlines even the latest and greatest hardware, and is prone to broken installations and bugs that test even the most devoted fan. In around a year it’ll probably be great, but right now it’s very rough.
Update (2022/4): A few rounds of patches have drastically improved the ability to join friends in play. It’s still not quite to BF4 levels, but it’s better than it was.
Novelty: 2
Without a working server browser or an easy way to launch custom Portal modes with friends, BF2042 is limited to its competent All-Out Warfare modes (Conquest and “Definitely Not Rush”), and a confusing co-op Escape From Tarkov-like that may or may not be any good.
Simplicity: 4
Similar to BF4, though with a more limited armory and changes that have added more of a learning curve. Character-specific abilities take some getting used to (though team identification isn’t too bad), and the “plus menu” means of handling weapon attachments can be confusing for new players.
Worms: Armageddon
Type: Party, Chaos
Format: Artillery-like
An OG LAN staple from the heady days of 1998, Worms: Armageddon dates to the earliest sparks which eventually led to CELAN’s founding. Though it iterates on some truly archaic games (Scorched Earth and GORILLA.BAS among others), its cartoonish style and goofy elevate it above its predecessors. There have been many Worms games since Armageddon, however none quite reach its lofty highs. Armageddon still receives updates today (somehow), and as a result is the version played contemporarily.
Moments: 7
Energy: 4.5
The madcap action of WA is akin to playing an episode of the Animaniacs. Skillshots, ludicrously overkill weapons, inexplicable movement, emergent rivalries, and pixel-blaming all abound. However, its turn-based playstyle and locked lobbies do limit energy somewhat, not unlike RTS or MOBA games.
Accessibility: 5.5
In its GOG (and possibly Steam) forms, WA runs at native resolution on modern systems and uses modern networking standards, meaning technical hiccups are uncommon. However its base menu system still runs at low resolution, and UI interaction is stuck firmly in the 90s, meaning new players may require assistance to get in a game.
Novelty: 6
From team customization to game rules, WA offers a delightful degree of flexibility in play. Weapon selection, item drop rate, turn length, team size, player health, gravity, movement speed, and more can all be adjusted prior to game start. However, the result is always Worms -- don’t expect anything too transformative.
Simplicity: 3.5
On its face, it should be simple enough -- move two directions, aim in a circle, shoot at baddies. In practice, WA struggles with its 90s legacy, and its relatively archaic control scheme can be extremely frustrating to new players. A couple rounds of the single-player tutorial are recommended for people who haven’t been playing for most of their lives to date.