Fornigamer

Look, an Educational Halo Video

2011-04-28T05:33:00.005-04:00

The above video I created as my final project in Composition & Theory. To make it, I used Adobe Premier Pro, and many, many hours of time. The video is an exploration into the arguments between composition and literature. If many of the jokes are over your head, that's because you aren't in an English grad program. Or you like to go outside. Either way, this was terribly difficult to do, but ultimately very fun. Enjoy!

On that whole iPad thing...

2010-04-08T16:15:00.005-04:00

I recently had someone ask me what I thought about the iPad, to which I replied something along the lines of what is to follow here. At first I thought it was a waste of time and money, but I think it's much worse than that now. It's a waste of conversation (yet here I am talking about it, oh well). The fact that it's the newest "thing that people want without knowing why they want it" makes matters much, much worse. When the iPod launched, and then subsequently became actually usable and not-too-bad, everyone wanted it, but at least there was a real purpose for it -- music on-the-go, and a lot of it in one place. The iPad is neither an iPod nor a computer, and so sits in a weird limbo beckoning to people who are too stupid to really put any research into the thing. It can do some computer stuff and some iPod stuff, but not everything (well, it can do everything an iPod can do, minus the portability). Anyways, let's stop and look into why a normal, let's say average computer user should never get an iPad...

1) Cost. It starts at $500. If you want 3g capabilities, it's $579, and then $30 a month for the unlimited subscription to that service (no contract, though, which is kinda cool?). What does that $500 get you? Not a lot of storage, for one thing--the $500 model has 16 gigabytes of storage. Here's a flash drive that costs about $35 shipped that also has 16 gigs of storage. Want to double that to 32? Then be prepared to pay $100 more. One Hundred Dollars. To put that into perspective, Here's another drive that costs $70 shipped and holds 32 gigs. Somehow thumb drives have managed to double the storage for 35 bucks, yet Apple will happily charge you 100. Interesting, isn't it? Now, if you want the best iPad money can buy, you're looking at over $800. For something that isn't a computer. It boggles the mind. Then again, Apple always charges tons of money for everything they make

2) Usability (this is a big one). Apple will have you believe that this thing is the most versatile thing in the world. Yeah..no... it isn't. It's a big iPod Touch. It has the same app store that the iPod Touch / iPhone has had for years, and it still can't run multiple applications at the same time. Want to check your email when you're in the middle of reading a book? First you have to close the book app, then go into the email, then when you're done, close that, then go back into the book app. Can't minimize, can't multitask. Here's a quote from Engadget's review of it:

"For starters, as we mentioned earlier the iPad doesn't support multitasking, save for Apple's own applications: Safari, iPod, and Mail. Everything else you use on the device is a jump-into and then jump-out experience, which means that for things like IM apps, you're either having a conversation or you're not. For those of us who are used to the iPhone way of doing things, that's at least familiar, but if you're looking to have a conversation while getting your email in order (as you would on a laptop), you're out of luck."

Apple came out and said that users "don't want that" kind of usability. On an iPhone, where it's something small and you're probably doing one thing at a time anyway, maybe, but if you're going to release a product claiming to be "magical" and "revolutionary" (their actual words, check the website), you'd think it could actually do more than one thing at a time.

EDIT: Apple just announced the new iPhone OS 4, which will support multitasking-ish capabilities. Not 100% multitasking like netbooks/laptops/real PCs, but kinda close. How nice of them to implement something that everyone else has been enjoying for years, but make it seem like some kind of amazing achievement. Bravo? Still, I'll say what everyone is saying: FINALLY.

Moving on, the thing is a complete pain in the ass to hold in your hand. Think about it. You're going to be holding a 1.6 pound, rigid, metallic minicomputer when you want to use it. There are no grooves for your fingers or hands. There is no way it can bend or slip comfortably anywhere. Now think about trying to use the keyboard on it. How will you type? Prop it up on your leg? Use one hand to type? Let's say you figure you'll lay it flat on a table -- oh wait, Apple has made it sleek with a nice-looking, curved backing, meaning it'll wobble every time you try and type something on it while it's on its back. You know something's wrong when less than a week after it's been out, people are making stands for propping the thing up. I think actually physically using this would never be comfortable.

The internet browser on this thing is great, though -- it's fast, it's smooth, it's fluid. Okay. But here's the thing: most websites use Flash. The thing needed for any internet game website, or in some cases, entire internet sites themselves. This device does not support Flash, at all. And it probably never will. Any website that uses Flash either won't work at all or will work with very limited browsing capabilities. Let me say that again: Any websites that have Flash as their main way of conveying data to you will not work ever. That's insanely stupid, and honestly boggles the mind considering Apple claimed the internet browsing experience on the iPad to be the best you could ever have (their actual words).

Apple's also really pushing the whole "Look! It can play games!" thing. If you've ever tried to play a game on an iPhone, you should know it isn't the easiest thing to do most of the time, and is heavily dependent on what kind of game you want to play. Something like Scrabble would probably be fine, but playing a platformer? Please. Touch-screen controls are not at the perfected state yet where they will flawlessly do what you want them to. Now, the iPad does have a better interface/responsiveness, but the aforementioned difficulties in holding it, combined with a very prominent home button (meaning if you hold the iPad in landscape mode, you'll more than likely accidentally hit the home button, exiting the game and pissing you the hell off) means that, combined again with the fact that the device isn't exactly pocket-friendly or "mobile" like a PDA/PSP/Nintendo DS means gaming on the iPad is virtually just a bullet-point. Why would you spend $500+ on something that isn't ergonomic towards playing games? You wouldn't, thus, it is something that you'd only do because you have the device anyway.

3) E-Book Reader. As an e-book reader, it works pretty well. It has a lot of publishers on board, and a beautiful screen for displaying the e-books. Here's my advice of caution on this subject, though. For one thing, you must understand that the books you own are never really "yours". What does that mean? Well, look at it this way: When you purchase a book from Apple's iBook store, you purchase it to your account to be used on your iPad (or other iDevices), and that's it. You can't use it anywhere else, and if for some reason Apple doesn't think you should have it anymore, they can take it away from you. "No they can't!" you might think. Yes, they can. There was a major issue with this about a year ago with Amazon's Kindle. Ironically, it was with the book 1984. Basically, Amazon found out that it shouldn't have listed a certain publication of the book as being available on its e-book store, so, they removed it from the store and from anyone's Kindle who bought it without telling them and with no notification. Yes, those people got their money back, but the whole incident showed that when you buy something for your e-book reader, it isn't ever really yours; you're simply buying the right to look at it on that piece of technology. Apple is no different from Amazon, as it has been discussed in the past regarding the iPhone that if Apple wanted, they could disable any iPhone remotely via a "killswitch". This was all over the tech sites shortly after the iPhone launched. Has Apple ever had to use it? Probably not, but it's unsettling to know that they could and you'd be screwed.

Personally, I like to hold a book, knowing it's mine, and if I wanted to, I could lend it to someone else, or, better yet, 20 years from now I can pick it up again and enjoy it exactly the same way. You might throw a joke here right now like "well, I don't know if I'll be around in 20 years." Well, haha, but think about technology...in 6 years, or even 4, there will probably be a newer, better iPad that's faster and makes this one look like an 80's cell phone by comparison. Now you have to buy that (another $500?). Sure all the books you downloaded can be used on the new one, but there will be a transfer process of some kind, and you still had to buy a new piece of hardware just to keep up with reading books. Or you could just buy the book and keep it on a shelf forever.

But all that aside, the only other "problem" with the iPad and reading books is the screen itself -- it's a backlit screen. Some people, after reading text on a computer screen for an hour+ tend to have eye strain issues. The reason why the Kindle is so spiffy is because it uses something called "e-ink" instead of a normal, backlit LCD screen. This "e-ink" pretty much mimics how text looks on paper, with no backlighting, and with no strain on the eyes. Now for some people they will never have an issue with the iPad's backlit screen for reading. Some people will...so, this is really a personal preference thing.

4) Minimal Design. Apple is known for the sleekness of stuff. Okay. Well, that's fine and all for an iPhone or an iPod, but with this thing, which is pretty much claiming to be a computer...it kinda sucks. There are NO ports on this thing. No usb, no ethernet, nothing. Actually I take that back, there's a headphone jack. If you want to have any of those ports, you have to get an adapter. Maybe you'd never need any of that anyway (like an ethernet port), but there isn't even a card reader on it so you can quickly and easily load pictures to the thing. Even the cheapest, slowest netbooks have that stuff. Some people like the minimal design because it's less to worry about, but I think it hinders what this thing could really be capable of.

Now, all of this isn't to say that the iPad is a terrible, terrible device that can't do anything that anyone wants it to do. What it does, it does pretty damn well. It works fast, smoothly, and is basically designed with idiots in mind, meaning, anyone should be able to pick it up and use it. I just think that for the price, you could easily get a laptop that does everything the iPad does, with a bigger screen and 300 times more functionality. And if you throw in the thought of getting a netbook, then your device, I'd say, is straight up better.

But my real suggestion would be to go and hold one somewhere if you can, and use it, and see if after the initial "ooOOo, look at the pretty screen and metal-ness of it" wears off, you could see yourself using it all the time, or for an hour straight, or for seriously typing on, or...etc.etc.

This is my 2 cents. I'd never buy an iPad, and if I were given one, I don't know if I'd use it. I'd probably sell it to an Apple fanboy, get a netbook with a 1.66 Ghz, dual-core CPU, 2 gigs of RAM, a 160 gig HD, and use the 125 bucks I'd still have left over to get something else that's useful...like a few videogames, or a new hard drive for my desktop (the iPad has a 1000 Mhz CPU, 256 megs of RAM, comparatively). Sure I wouldn't look as cool as the Apple fanboys do, but fuck those people.

Somewhat Modern Warfare 2

2009-12-10T11:37:00.004-05:00

A lot has been said about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I mean a lot. And most of it comes from editors required to spit out an opinion, or from people whose game-playing experiences are (surprise!) pretty much only their experiences and no one else's. This (as is usually the case) means that a large demographic of people are listening to a very small demographic of people in order to formulate an opinion on a playing experience they have yet to...well, experience. Allow me to thus add fuel to the fire in one way or another, and give my sweeping opinion on the MW2 scene.

Is the game good? You bet. There, now that that's out of the way I can move on. Oh, you want me to elaborate? Fine...

If you played Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, then you pretty much completely understand everything that there is to understand about MW2. MW2 takes all of the ideas that were initially established in CoD4, expands upon them, elaborates them, makes them prettier, and then gives them back to you for $60 more of your money. Is that worth it to you? I wouldn't say it was worth it to me, but my 48+ hours of playtime so far would beg to differ.

The graphics are better, which is a given. The multiplayer has more game modes and options, which is a given. There are more guns, which is a given. And the single player is way more out there with oodles more "offensive" material, which, again, is a given. This game is the definition of a sequel. It stays within its predefined skeletal structure, but adds a lot more meat to those bones. So, now that we have managed to cover exactly what all other reviews have covered within two paragraphs (ha!), let's move on to where everyone's panties are in bunches. Bunches in people's crotches. Uncomfortable bunches.

Bunches.

Anyways, the multiplayer. If you've played the Xbox 360 version of this game, ignore everything I'm about to type, because your multiplayer experience is the same as Halo 3, CoD4, and probably a zillion other 360 multiplayer shooters out there. You pay your $50/yr for decent multiplayer service, and that's what you get.

But us PC players who like to play their shooters the real way (read: keyboard and mouse) kind of really have the shit end of the stick a little bit. But here's the thing...for about a week before buying this game I read...and read...and read about all the problems this game has with multiplayer. Forum posts, reddit comments, editorials, you name it, all blasting the multiplayer for the PC. Saying that it's ruining PC gaming...that this is just the start. That after Activision sees the revenue from this game on the PC, they'll understand that PC gamers just don't give two shits about their online experiences anymore, and games will now be just as "broken." Yet I bought it anyway like everyone else.

But is it really that broken? In a word: no.

Now, now. Don't get me wrong, I think that the system they have implemented is full of problems, and those problems are fairly consistent. But no where near the nightmare that everyone was lead to believe (or at least the one that I was lead to believe). Here's where the problem started: no dedicated servers. Infinity Ward (the developers) decided that, for some reason, PCs should now become Xbox 360's and no longer give you a list of servers to choose from. Thus they implemented a system that chooses a host at the start of every game, and that host (a player IN that game) then becomes essentially a temporary server for that game (and maybe the next, and the next). That might sound okay in theory, but if for some reason the game chooses that one guy on the planet that still uses fucking dial up, or that other dude playing in the most north eastern tip of the US, or that little kid who's trying to play this game on his mom's 5-year-old Dell Inspiron desktop, everyone is pretty much screwed.

Dedicated servers were/are a benefit because they have excellent internet connections. They are localized, too, to an extent. So if you're on the east coast, there's a good chance you can find a dedicated server that's on the east coast, too, and you've got yourself some smooth sailing ahead. Or, if you're playing with friends across the country, you can all find a server that's in-between everyone, and everyone can have decent connections. It was simple to navigate, and a system that's been around for a very long time. And if you all found a server you liked, you could just add it to a list of favorites, and sleep easy knowing that when you woke up at 2 in the afternoon to start your next 14-hour long gaming session you had a safe, happy place to go.

Also, dedicated servers have admins. Admins can ban people...people who cheat, or, as I like to call them, people who like to fuck cacti for pleasure. These cacti fuckers are always a problem in games...but if you played on a decent dedicated server with a decent community, there was a good chance there'd always be an admin in the server to ban these people.

But alas, all of this is gone in MW2. So, in theory, you would expect games to be slower than the slowest shit on the roughest ground that's as flat a paraplegic's ass. You'd also expect everyone to be fucking cacti because on the internet, everyone is a total, total asshole. But you know what? That isn't true.

The game's hit detection (when the game determines you hit someone with your bullet/knife and where) is local, meaning on your computer. So, unless the game connection is terrible, things are pretty smooth. I've played a good deal of games with easily over 140 ping and been fine. How often are game connections really, really bad? Not often. In those 48+ hours I've spent with the game online, I'd probably say a really shitty connection has happened maybe 20-30 times. That's less than 2% of the time. I can live with that.

If the game's host leaves, the game picks a new one. This means the game pauses for at most 20 seconds (though usually around 10), and then goes right back to where it was. I haven't seen a problem with this yet, though I'm positive that problems can easily come to fruition (someone leaves, the game picks a new host, that person leaves, game picks a new host that has a shitty computer, etc.).

But the cactus fuckers are legitimately the most irritating and prevalent annoyance. There are hackers...lots of them. And because of this, everyone showing any amount of skill raises suspicion. You're almost guaranteed to come across either a wall-hacker (someone using a hack to allow them to see through walls, and thus enemy positions) or an aim botter (someone using a hack that automatically aims--and sometimes fires--their gun at enemies' heads) at least once per play session. And because there are no admins, these people often do not get banned. I say "often" because technically the game uses Steam's "VAC" system to weed out hackers...but how reliable VAC is and how soon after a detected hack it bans an account is unknown. I'd say it isn't too great a system.

What does this all boil down to, then? Well, the game is great...the multiplayer is fun to play, but there are problems surrounding that experience. Is the game as broken as everyone has been complaining? No. It just isn't. Infinity Ward's match making system allows for quick-starting games that you can easily set up with friends, assuring full games every time paired with a good variety of gameplay modes (most of which were already there in CoD4, but whatever). That really isn't a bad thing. Want to play Headquarters Pro? You'll be in a game in seconds...no server hunting required. Not that "server hunting" was any bit of a difficult process to begin with, but...a positive is still a positive.

Besides, if you want to play the new CoD on a PC, you don't have much of a choice, do you? I bought the game because I have friends to play with, and I like to have fun with cool people (you do want to be cool, too, don't you?). If you're all by yourself, then maybe this game isn't for you. Or maybe you should look into fucking a cactus.

I do think that this is ultimately a step in the wrong direction for PC games, though. If I wanted to play a console game, I'd buy a console game. This game feels the same (it even has the same price), but with a different control scheme. Infinity Ward, it seems, was lazy. They could have easily implemented the same server system in CoD4, but also allowed the quickplay party system that's in the game now, if they wanted to. It wouldn't have been difficult, especially considering that it's fairly obvious that they just imported a dumbed-down version of Xbox Live's matchmaking system to the PC. This new system is geared to dickhead hackers and frustrating lag issues that honestly shouldn't be there--whether or not they're really prevalent isn't the issue...they should not be there in the first place.

So, that's what I think. And yeah, it's just another opinion to add to the heaping pile of them that already exists, but I think it's been long enough and I've played the game enough to have formulated what I've written...maybe moreso than some of those day-1 reviews. Oh, and even in games where there are multiple cacti-fuckers, I still usually win. So, either the people using the hacks suck (which is why they are using them), or it doesn't really matter that much. I'm going with both.

Till next time.

BFG is amazing.

2009-09-24T19:32:00.003-04:00

Fuck you, I know I haven't posted in a million years. I don't really care.

Erm, I mean. Hey! Long time no see! How's it going? Good? Good! Glad to hear it. Still got that birthday card I sent you? No? Oh that's right, people usually throw those out after a week. No, no, I don't care. I understand. What's that? Oh, her. Yeah she's pretty great. I know, I know, one in a million. Uh huh. Well, look, I have a lot of stuff here, and this basket is getting kinda heavy, so... Oh yeah, yeah, just gimmie a call when you're in the area. We'll totally do something. Alright. Later.

Man, that was awkward.

Anyways, let's get to the point. A year ago from this part March I ordered and received a Nvidia Geforce 9800 GX2 made by BFG Tech. Yeah, it had just come out and man did I shell out some money for it. But I figured it'd last me a good amount of time, so, whatever. It was a pretty good card, but it started to have some pretty lame issues a few months in. Things would stutter in certain games -- usually flame effects. And those are the best kind of effects, amirite?!

Then games would crash. And then my computer in general would crash. Finally, a month ago, the card made Windows cry, and it no longer would boot with it in there.

So, I figured, "Shit." I figured that not just because the card was shot, but because it wasn't under warranty. See, BFG offers a lifetime warranty, but with this card, you had to register within 30 days of purchase to receive this lifelong treatment. I did not do this because I found the piece of paper telling me so about a week after said 30 day period. Me not being one to cause a fuss (and assuming my card would, ya know, work) shrugged it off and that was that.

Well, it died. I replaced the card thinking I was screwed. Man was I wrong.

I contacted BFG via a friend's suggestion just for the hell of it last week. And they didn't ask any questions and instantly gave me an RMA for my card. I was very impressed. But then it got better. Within 24 hours of receiving my card they had a replacement in the mail for me. But replace it they did not simply do. Oh no. I got a Geforce GTX 285 as a replacement. That, ladies and gentlemen, is almost the best card that Nvidia currently makes. And, it's a pretty significant upgrade. All for free. Amazing.

So, if you want to buy a graphics card, buy from BFG. Cause if it breaks, they'll give you a better card. And if it's out of warranty, they'll help you anyway. They're fast. They're just...just wonderful. I was floored. I only wish I were getting paid to type what I am right now. But whatever.

At any rate, maybe I'll post here again, but I don't know. I don't think anyone reads this anymore. If you do, speak up! I'll give you hugs via words. Or something.

So, let's talk about L4D2.

2009-06-06T14:05:00.006-04:00

E3 has come and gone. Last year, I talked about how such a venue seemed mostly useless, especially because of the downfall of it's presentation. But alas, just when everyone thought it was over, the old skool E3 of yesteryear stormed back on the scene with its booth babes and "huge" announcements and expensive party atmosphere. Did it work? Well, in a word, yeah.

The coverage of E3 has been enormous, and with good reason. Hell, Nintendo actually managed to announce things people care about! But I digress from this post's title.

Valve, arguably one of the best developers in video games (up there with Blizzard, I'd say), announced Left 4 Dead 2 at this year's E3, and it pissed some people off. Did it piss me off? No, not really. I was surprised, though. Valve, like Blizzard, doesn't do fast sequels. Even the Half Life 2 episodes took longer than a year between each release, and those certainly aren't to be considered "sequels". At least not in a full-form, anyway.

Valve's forums erupted with anger from gamers claiming that Valve has betrayed them, with players accusing Valve of undercutting them by undercutting the original L4D. Valve told the gaming community that they would be supporting and updating L4D for a long, long time, much like Team Fortress 2, which, through constant free content-adding updates, has proven that such a strategy would pay off quite nicely. So, why change it? The answer is probably something like "because they can." L4D generated a good deal of money for Valve, so why wouldn't they want to produce a sequel, which in turn would generate more money?

Oh, right, that whole "promise" thing.

Let's look at how L4D has done with it's content-adding-ness:

1 Major update.

...And that's it. Hrm. Well, surely that update contained a variable shitload of content, yes?

Added 2 Versus maps and Survival Mode.

..oh. Well, gosh, that kind of does suck, doesn't it? Unless those Versus maps were new experiences...

The Versus Maps are "Dead Air" and "Death Toll".

...Wait, the maps that should have been in Versus when the game was released? God damnit! Survival Mode better be awesome..

Survival Mode puts players in the various "crescendo" moments that the normal maps contain, only the zombies do not stop coming until everyone dies. Difficulty increases the longer you are able to stay alive, with games rarely lasting longer than 10 minutes. Also, there is a new map for this mode, the "Lighthouse."

...But the Lighthouse map isn't a full, new map?

No.

And isn't that kind of gameplay already in Gears of War 2 and Call of Duty: World at War (with Nazi zombies for some reason)?

Yes.

So, let me get this straight...we got two maps we technically already had (and arguably should have had from the start), and then a new mode that's technically in other games and is just an extension of moments in the game already. That, and there's the fact that the new mode will always end in failure, no matter how great a team of players you have with you. So, if one were to be an over-the-top critic/douchebag, one could say that the only "new" content that was given is everlasting failure, and Valve calls this an update?

Yes.

Cool, I'm going to stop conversing with myself now.

Granted, I don't completely stand behind everything I just wrote there, but I can (obviously) see where people would get upset. Valve has always been considered a beacon of hope when it comes to post-release DLC, showing that if you do something well and make it free, people will continue to buy your game well after it's release because of the free goodies. And so we come back to the question "why are they changing this?"

I think that L4D might have been a sort of experiment. Valve had this great idea for a game, but it had never been done before. And though they could bank on selling the game based sheerly on the Valve brand, I don't think they wanted to (and it probably would have been stupid to do so). So, they made this game, and put pretty much what they wanted to put into it, and what they did release was an extremely polished starter for what they ultimately would have liked to do in the first place, which is L4D2. Would people be able to deal with a purely co-op experience on the internet, land of overwhelming asshats? Would players enjoy doing essentially the same things over and over again, only with a few minor differences in enemy and item placement? Would the AI Director actually be decent, or a pile of crap? Well, they now have their answers.

But does this mean that they couldn't simply update L4D with improvements that would reflect their newly acquired knowledge? Surely they could add new maps, characters, content, etc. without a full-on sequel. After all, they did say that's pretty much what they'd be doing.

Honestly, I don't know, because I'm not Valve. But they're walking on thin ice. They have, however, asked us to trust them, and I think they might have earned a little trust from us. They have from me, anyway. Besides, there are many ways that they can approach this whole sudo-fiasco with intelligence. There's no reason why they couldn't combine the games a-la-Rock Band 2, yes? Why not allow all L4D content to be accessible from within L4D2? That way, if they still are going to be releasing additional content for L4D, those who have the sequel can enjoy everything at the same time, seamlessly. Just something to think about.

But, taking a look at what's promised within L4D2 (entirely new location, new survivors, new weapons, new zombies, new special zombies, new crescendo moments...) I'd say yeah, there's enough there for a sequel. Maybe not a $50 sequel, but at least a $30 kind of thing that merges with the original content. But hey, you know people will buy it anyway, regardless of what it really is or how it's really done. So maybe all this hub-bub is pointless.

But maybe it isn't.

Many things coming soon.

2009-05-19T17:13:00.001-04:00

I have entered the realm of motivation via a bet yet again, and thus must complete 4 games by July 11th, 2009. Therefore, I will actually be writing things here again! Horray!

Stay tuned...

Okay, I need some motivation.

2009-04-19T14:18:00.003-04:00

Games I have started, but not finished:

Killzone 2
Resistance 2
Valkyria Chronicles
Final Fantasy X
Call of Duty: World at War
Ratchet and Clank Future: The Quest for Booty
Bionic Commando: Rearmed (stuck on the last level)
Megaman 9 (stuck on the last boss)
Dead Space
GTA IV

So, anyone have any ideas on how to tackle this problem?

Oh, hi there.

2009-02-23T12:57:00.007-05:00

Yesterday I finished up Red Alert 3. Oh, what's that? I haven't posted in a while and how could I just start right back up as if nothing had happened? Well, nothing had happened. Actually, I got a bunch of games for Xmas, and simply have been playing those. One of which was RA3.

So, how does it stack up to other RTS games out there? It's fun as hell, that's for damn sure. But in its over-the-top zaniness comes the price of gaming longevity. The game is very fast paced, and, much like C&C3, online matches are more than capable of ending in under 5 minutes. For some people, that might be just fine. But I like to think about my RTS games a little bit more. And for me, RTS games are really all about the multiplayer. That's where they shine; seeing people utilize the game in newer and more interesting ways, implementing strategies you would never see outside of such an environment.

And it's a shame, too, because a lot of good thought was placed in this game. Pretty much every unit has a useful secondary attack function, for example. Take the Devastator Tank that the Soviets have: it can either fire its double barrels (ho-hum), or engage a tractor beam that pulls enemy tanks into giant metal-shredding gears, destroying them shortly thereafter (!). Each of the three factions has its own unique building process, too--though not as diverse as, say, Starcraft or Warcraft 3. The Allies have to wait until their structure is fully built before placing it, the Russians can start building on the ground immediately, but their building is vulnerable until completed, and the Japanese can build anywhere, but must unpack their building via mini-MCV-like things.

Like I said before, things happen very quickly, though. And like most things in life, when stuff happens too fast, it leaves those involved disappointed. Many times during the single-player campaign I would attempt to strategically construct an army, only to have it wiped out by sheer brute force not more than 10 seconds into my invasion. This meant that several times during play I was forced to simply build a massive unstoppable force of quantity, rather than quality. That kind of crap, to me, is an RTS no-no. There are the basic unit counters, though--artillery is powerful but vulnerable, tanks have no anti-air, blah, blah. Outside of that, though, the unit countering isn't anything compared to the intensity of Warcraft 3. Units have a minimal Bar O' Health above them, but no hit points by which to compare to other units. Damage functions the same way, where you just have to figure "big laser beam must make stuff go boom better than missile."

All of this is geared for the game to be, essentially, a run-and-gun RTS, if such a thing can exist. C&C3 did this, too, and I hated it for it. It was a great game, but I can't remember the last time I played it. When you're forcing players to race to end-game units because that's where the key to victory is...I don't know. It seems kind of easy. But it's weird, because the thought and unit variety put into this game begs the player not to do such a baseless strategy. I'll just have to play a few more games online and see what happens, I guess.

Oh, and let me just say that graphically, it's beautiful. Everything in the game is very pretty, especially the water effects--not only are the physics nifty as hell, but the water reflects everything in a spectacular fashion that, during a heated sea battle, lights up the whole experience. Even ships, when they kick the bucket, sink beneath the surface and stay there for the rest of the battle (and of course they are distorted accordingly depending on the waves, etc.).

Simply put: RA3 is a good RTS. It isn't great, but it's fun enough to be more than worth the purchase. I sunk well over 20 hours into the single player campaign on the Hard difficulty. The missions are varied nicely, and really make the game shine strategically. If multiplayer could only be like the campaigns, it'd probably launch the game into greatness. But no one wants that kind of constraint in multiplayer. So, whatever. Also, there are plenty of boobs in this game. Plenty (see above picture).

Moving on, I also finished up Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction for the PS3. Wonderfully fun game. It played just like the R&C games on the PS2, but with much prettier graphics. The game is pretty easy, but it's supposed to just be stupid fun, with lots of shooting crap with wacky guns. It is this to a T. Also: you can throw disco balls at enemies which force them to dance like John Travolta before you annihilate them. Pure genius.

I'm working on Valkyria Chronicles and Resistance: Fall of Man, too. I have a lot more to play through beyond those, too. I love videogames. Till next time!

And a year ends...

2008-12-31T04:13:00.002-05:00

...and I'm a bit older. My wonderfully beautiful girlfriend is here with me, and I am now 23 years old. It's been a good year, I'd say. Hopefully this keeps on, and I keep posting here to the (I assume) very small volume of people that may or may not actually read this "blog" (I hate that term).

I've been playing Left 4 Dead on a massive scale thus far (over 35 hours since I got it on Xmas). And will be discussing it at length in the future. So, for now, Happy New Year, and may gaming keep flowing through your veins and hearts for years to come.

ggkthxbye.

THREE!

2008-12-22T11:39:00.005-05:00

Last night, at around 2 AM, the ending cutscene of Twilight Princess concluded, and the words "The End" boldly, yet still somehow subtly, displayed on the left side of my screen. I dropped the Wiimote and nunchuck, satisfied.

It took me, as I've said several times, about 2 years to finish that game, and I finally did it. Total play time (which does count game pauses, sadly, so this is somewhat inflated) was over 41 hours. God damn. I mean, you have to figure about 2 hours for every dungeon, and there are, what, 12? 14? of them. Plus all the shit in between them -- all the running around, talking to people, cutscenes, minigames, and general being fucking lost, which comes with most games. I didn't get all the pieces of heart. Nor did I get the third armor type, which, from what I understand, allows Rupees to be subtracted instead of hearts when Link takes damage. So there's easily another 5 hours to be played if one were going for perfection, but, ya know, fuck that. I think I died less than 10 times the whole game, though I'm not sure. Maybe less than 5.

Is the game hard? Well, that depends on what you would consider "hard." The game challenges you to think differently, but none of the puzzles are painfully over your head (coughOcarana'sWaterTemplecough). The game does a great job of consistently allowing the player to feel like they're accomplishing something. Progress is always made. It's really an excellent feeling, and one that doesn't occur all that often in gaming experiences. Though Nintendo is, I'd say, one of the best developers that can pull it off. But if you're one of those gamers that can't really grasp lateral thinking or any form thereof, Twilight Princess might make your brain cry a little. Just a little, though.

Comparing it to Ocarina of Time is...well...it's something I wouldn't really feel comfortable doing. But what the hell, I'll do it anyway. This game does some things better, and some things worse. The places this story goes are definitely more interesting. The items are more diverse. And the size of everything is monumental compared to Ocarina. But Ocarina has all the elements of classic Zelda games perfectly in place, whereas Twilight Princess simply does not. Towns and people from the earlier games are here, but it's all so very new that the nostalgia that Ocarina's same towns and people had is either lost or overlooked.

Also, you don't have to turn into a fucking dog in Ocarina. I don't think there's a single person that really liked those parts. Sure, they were fascinating and had some nifty puzzle elements in them (dominated primarily with the "sense" ability), but I never really looked forward to the next part of the game where I might have to be a dog. Or wolf. Wait, no, "Sacred Beast" is the term the game uses. Whatever.

It's a great game though, and if you own a Wii and actually use it to play games (something I'm not sure people know it's designed to do -- there are better dust-gathering paperweights out there) you should have this game. It's easily one of the best games on the system, which, considering it was a launch title, is pretty fucking awesome.

Now where's my beer; I earned it. Also, I need to do more of these bets because they force me to finish games.

This takes me back.

2008-12-12T10:13:00.004-05:00

Last week a strange but beautiful coincidence took place in my life. I found myself, late Saturday night, sifting through various "Let's Play" videos, which for the uninformed are full videos (some with audio commentary) of members from the Something Awful forums playing through entire games. One game that I actually watched all videos of, back-to-back, was a play-through of I Wanna Be The Guy, an impossibly, hair-tearingly, controller-smashingly, screaming curse words...ily...difficult PC game that pays homage to all the old NES games that were just as hard. You can download it here, if you dare (I think I played it for about 25 minutes before deciding there were better things to do).

Anywho, watching such a stupidly hard game got me thinking about those games I used to play a long time ago. See, I never had an NES...or an SNES, Genesis, etc. My parents' logic was "You have a computer, so, just play games on that. Computer > than NES, et al. anyways." So, though my Commodore 64 did kick ass, I missed out on a good chunk of super-hard games. But, I when I was 5 years old, I was given a Game-Boy. And eventually, I got Megaman for it.

The hours I poured into that small, small game cannot be measured. I mean, the game was hard enough for a full-grown teenager at the time, and I was maybe 6 or 7 when I played through it. I remember writing down the password grids after each finished boss. I remember dread washing over me every time I lightly brushed into the evil, evil spikes and Megaman burst into a bunch of pulsing circles.

So, the next morning, I said told my girlfriend about the I Wanna Be The Guy game, and then my recollection of ye olde Megaman on the Game-Boy. I even fired up an NES emulator to show her what I was talking about. Her first response was "Wow, that's really hard to see," even with full-screen on my 19-inch LCD monitor. Oh Game-Boy, the youth today do not know how easy they have it.

I never did beat Megaman. I got all the way to the final level -- the Wily level -- and died at the final boss battle. I gave up after that, knowing I'd never be able to get that far again.

The day after I talked to my girlfriend, she presented me with a hoodie with Megaman's extra life sprite blown up on the front and words "The Man" below it. All I could do was laugh and say, about a dozen times, "this is awesome." I then declared, "I need to finish Megaman, goddamnit!"

But I wanted more of a challenge. I wanted such a blisteringly hard game that an hour's time would only amount to one level completed. I wanted to feel, every time a boss was beaten, that I accomplished something inhuman. Long ago, this is the feeling that older games were able to bestow into the hearts of every gamer. Games today really don't have this same feeling, and if they do, people complain of the difficulty. Seriously, grow some balls -- we had it a lot worse off 20 years ago.

So, I got Megaman 9 from the PSN. And holy shit, this game is hard. But in a very, very good way. Every mistake you make (usually resulting in death) forces you to learn and adapt yourself to perfection. After 20 or so run-throughs of Magma-Man's level, you'll know what I mean. After I beat the first boss, my yells of jubilation were clearly those of decades past. And yeah, it took me an over an hour just to finish one level. My thumbs kinda hurt, and my hands were clammy with concentration. It felt wonderful.

Bionic Commando: Rearmed projects a similar feeling, too. But Megaman 9's NES-look and completely old-skool atmosphere completes the experience. I Wanna Be The Guy pushes the feeling so far above both of these games that even finishing a part of one level brings great joy, but IWBTG isn't Megaman, so, pfft.

I have less than two weeks to finish another game. I'll do it, no problem. I've decided to finish Twilight Princess. My fancy-shmancy new Wii HD cables will allow this to happen smoothly (yay 480p! ::sigh::). But if I finish Megaman 9 somehow, that'll count, too.

Two.

2008-12-04T21:45:00.006-05:00

Well this makes two games finished towards beer. That's right, I got Crysis back last xmas and I just finished it now. You got a problem with that?

I didn't think so.

Why did it take so damned long? Well, there's several reasons. For one, I formatted my computer shortly after I started playing it and, for some reason, wasn't able to transfer my saved games over. So! I had to start it all over again. That took effort, considering I was several hours into the game.

For two, the story is pretty lame/generic. Very generic. Super war-hungry general that wants to use nukes despite overwhelming scientific reasoning as to why that would be him an asswipe failure? Check. Hot scientist chick? Check. Guy that "dies" early on but "magically" comes back later, complete with line, "You think I'd be killed that easy" (or something like that)? Check. Crazy aliens that look like the Sentinels from The Matrix? You betcha! If only there were Nazis instead of North Koreans (today's "modern Nazi"), it'd be the focal point of awesome. But what can ya do.

For three, the graphics are irritatingly pretty. I wanted to play this game at high settings -- I really did -- but despite 4 gigs of RAM and a Geforce 9800GX2, it would choke at points, and I demand smoothness, goddamnit. So every time I'd think about playing, I'd know that it just wouldn't look as good as it could, and I'd feel gypped (and somewhat lonely).

But I overcame these hurdles, and finished it. Man, that ending boss fight is fucking stupidly difficult. Though, for what its worth, ending boss battles should be difficult, and some games have really lost their way with that concept (I'm looking at you, Doom 3). Of course, the game was set up with a sequel in mind, a la Assassin's Creed, but that didn't bother me, because the sequel is already out. Or the expansion pack. Or whatever it is. Warhead. I might get that someday, but not anytime soon.

I probably had about 6 hours or so left from when I last touched this game, back...in...the summer? Something? I'd say total play time was something around the 10-14 hour mark. Considering I played it mostly on hard (and died a fucking lot...so much so that it stopped being fun and I switched to normal near the end. Seriously, it took more bullets to kill the Korean assholes without super-fantastic armor -- see above picture -- than for them to kill me) I'd say that isn't too shabby.

So what's next? Dunno. Something totally awesome, I'm sure. Maybe I'll finish Zelda. Wouldn't that be cool...only two years overdue, right? That's not too bad, is it? Guys? ..guys?

The Comparison Game

2008-11-30T13:37:00.003-05:00

MTV sent me a Rock Band 2 bundle (!!!), but not before I had already purchased Guitar Hero World Tour -- don't worry, I only grabbed the game with guitars to replace a broken one, not the full package (I have enough plastic instruments, thank you very much). And now that I've spent way too much time playing RB2, I think it's time to compare them in my own words.

Both games do a lot of things right, and I will say right now that if the world were perfect, the two development studios would combine themselves into a mass of dense, pure awesome and all music games would be absolutely perfect. So, let's start with GHWT.

GHWT is still a Guitar Hero game, hands down. Yes, they have drums and singing and the obligatory bass, but really the only instrument that holds all the fun and fame is the guitar. The songs clearly focus on this because, let's be real here, Hendrix was not known for his drummer. Nor is Ozzy. Nor is...Sting? So, with that said, the guitar is done well, as usual, but that was to be expected, right? So let me explain why the drums suck ass in this game. Bear with me.

Apparently the people at Neversoft just aren't on the same (read: logical) page as the guys at Harmonix. It was nice of them to make the game rearrange the drum track and condense it down to 4 lanes instead of the game's standard 5, but even still, the drums are just mapped poorly. For one thing, you will hardly hit the green pad. I don't really know why, but that pad isn't a crash cymbal, ever. The condensing method they seem to have implemented goes as such: all yellow, raised cymbals of the GHWT kit are pushed into the yellow pad of the RB2 kit, and all the raised, orange cymbals are pushed into the blue pad. Okay, that's fine. But it makes certain songs unplayable on any kit (on expert).

"Everlong," by the Foo Fighters, has a very fast, constant high hat beat with an off-note hitting the snare every so often. The song is in both games. On RB2, the beat's mapped with the red pad (the left) getting the high hat, and the yellow (on the right) getting the snare -- this makes logical sense, because on a normal, right-handed kit the high hat is to the left of the snare. But in GHWT they have stuck to their guns with those raised cymbal things and reversed logic itself, making, for a right-handed drummer, the song impossible to play because the mappings are reversed. I understand their urge to be "different" with those raised cymbals, but when you're so gung-ho to your own design that you lose fun-ness... that's just, well, stupid. Case in point: I was able to finish the song in GHWT with lefty flip turned on, but not on the standard mapping. Hm.

The song list in GHWT isn't quite as good, either. Sure, they have the Doors and Hendrix and Tool (one of my favorite bands ever, and essentially the reason I grabbed this game), but aside from those few bright spots, I really have no desire to play the other songs. RB2 has me constantly wanting to play almost every song on there, with only a few falling (very) short of awesome (The Go-Go's? Ew.). And the virtually recreated GH artists and kind of cool and all, I guess, but I kind of question why they are there outside of being some kind of marketing stunt. Or, maybe to make up for GH3's kinda "meh" offering.

They have Billy Corgan for...one song, which is also in RB2. Ozzy is there as a singer (naturally), but any song outside of an Ozzy song puts him in a very, very weird place (he sings Dream Theater at the end...huh?). Travis Barker is there, again for...one song (which is downloadable in RB2). The chick from Paramore is there for some reason (again, one song). Sting plays bass for his single song offering (fun fact: I didn't know he played bass before playing this game), and no one cares. And Hendrix is awkwardly brought back from the dead for this game.

There are things GHWT does improve on, though. The sustained notes are a blast to come across, allowing you to hold one note down but still play other, single notes at the same time. And the open bass notes (where you only hit the strum bar, sans buttons) is really quite cool. RB2 has its new things, too -- drum solos and hammer-on chords. Both are welcome, but if all of these features were in both games, it'd be the best.

Now, the little, little things:

-GHWT loads between songs faster than RB2, but you can only make a 6 song setlist.
-The singer in GHWT's stage performance does a lot more than RB2's, but their drummer looks like a lost and scared child at a kit for the first time (still!)... ..or some kind of mentally challenged robot, if such a thing could exist (something that makes Travis Barker appear hilarious when he's on the kit).
-RB2's drummer animations are fucking amazing (still), and I will never understand how they got them to be so fluid (and I'm guessing Neversoft won't, either).
-GHWT offers much more song-breakdown stats between songs than RB2 -- WHY...WHY can't I at least know my note streak between songs, RB2? WHY!? You do it for individual songs, but not setlists? The hell? Ugh.
-The tour mode in RB2 still shits all over GHWT's, which is essentially a bunch of quick setlists. RB2 offers challange tours and "battle of the bands," too, which are pretty great, though I question their longevity.
- GHWT's "new" guitar has a slider bar thing, that (supposedly) lets you slide up and down notes to play them in certain parts of songs. This mechanic is broken and stupid. Not only is it awkward as shit to try and quickly use, it doesn't work nearly as well as you would think, with lag and inaccuracies making super-hard solos impossible to use it with. RB2's mini-button thing is still kinda weird, too, but at least it's usable.
- GHWT's menus aren't nearly as pleasant as RB2's. Song selection is bulky to say the least, and just doesn't feel...clean. RB2 has album art, a clean interface, and plenty of breathing room.
-And then, finally, there's RB2's content...all songs from RB1 can be transferred, and there's something like 350-400 songs available to download online. GHWT can. Not. Touch that. They never will, either. Oh, you have that shitty new Metallica album? Go fuck yourselves, I have motherfucking RUSH. And Foo Fighters. And The Red Hot Chili Peppers. They have nothing on the Rock Band guys. Their weekly song additions are the best, most awesome thing to ever happen to videogames. There, I said it.

What it breaks down to is this: GHWT is, like I said before, a Guitar Hero game, where you pretty much only want to play the guitar. It does some cool things, but really those things only make you wish RB2 had them, because that's the game you're going to be playing more. Everything about RB2 is better than what was offered in RB1, too. Everything. If something bothered you about RB1, it was probably fixed in 2. So, just go buy RB2, it will make you happier. It will make you enjoy life. It will make you smile. I promise.

One Down.

2008-11-08T12:01:00.005-05:00

A few weeks ago a good friend of mine and I placed a bet that I couldn't finish 3 games by X-mas. The victor would receive a 6-pack of excellent beer (though what that beer will be remains a mystery). So, I have started this journey by completing Fallout 3.

Let me start talking about this game at the same place that a lot of people seem to start: is it Oblivion with guns? Well, if you strip the story away, the atmosphere, the physical environment, and the characters, pretty much yes, it is. You have the same kind of enemies, who act essentially the same way, the same "I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU SO ZOOM INTO YOUR FACE" speech system, and the same feeling when walking around in the D.C. wasteland as you did in Oblivion's Cyrodiil. Of course, whether or not this is a bad thing depends on whether or not such things annoyed you about Oblivion. They didn't annoy me, so, I was fine.

But adding back on all of the attributes I previously mentioned places this game in an entirely different realm that is not only brilliantly crafted, but a blast to sift through. I simply love the 1950's-future future that's in the game. Now, I didn't play the other installments of Fallout, but I did read on them extensively so to completely understand the universe I was getting myself into. Everything about this game is fascinating. You will find yourself saying "that's cool" pretty much constantly, which, aside from being a great way to pull you into the game's offered experience, really shows how much thought was put into this installment.

And even though I beat the game, I still know that there were probably several hours of other side quests I could have gone through. And if I wanted to explore everything, whew, that'd take me forever. This is, after all, a life-sucking RPG at its core.

The notable addition to the game's FPS nature is the inclusion of the "V.A.T.S." (Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System). This was something I thought would get annoying very fast. Essentially, you hit a button and time stops. Then, your view will zoom in on an enemy in front of you, and you will be presented with the option of firing at any of its various body parts (torso, arms, legs, head). Your decision will most likely be based on which part you have the best chance of hitting, which the game aids you with by telling you what percent chance you have to hit each area. Each attack launched on that area uses up "action points" which then need to be recharged before you can use the V.A.T.S. again. Oh, and the attacks are done in super slo-mo for maximum awesome. See how that can get annoying if you use it over and over and over?

Well, it didn't. Not for me, at least. There's something extremely satisfying about blasting a creature's face off in slow-motion that never seems to get old.

The real prize of this game are the options given to the player. You can be pretty much whoever you want to -- from Jesus to Satan. Want to kill everyone and wreak havoc everywhere? Go for it! Want to help everyone out? You can! Want to help most people but every once in a while shoot a shop owner? Kinda weird, but, sure! The options are yours and the story you can create has a ton of possibilities. This play through I found myself being nice to everyone and by the end of the game I was a "Wasteland Savior" -- like I said, Jesus. Maybe next time, if I go through it again, I'll be a total asshole.

Simply put, this game is great. Though I wouldn't recommend getting it if you don't like the color gray. There's a shitload of that here. Like, it's everywhere. I understand that the post-apocalyptic world is supposed to be dreary, but damn. Any other shortcomings can be overlooked. There were several times that the game sucked me in and I didn't want to stop playing not because the gun play was excellent, but because the particular story I was following at the time was so damn intriguing.

So, what's next? It's 12:40 on a Saturday...hm. I don't know. Someone leave a comment with what to play next: Metroid Prime 3, Wipeout HD, or Crysis. Eh, I'll probably just end up coming to a decision on my own.

To quote a reddit comment

2008-11-05T01:08:00.006-05:00

Dear Rest of the World,

We didn't fuck it up.

Signed,

America

On The Rain-Slick Precipice of AWESOME.

2008-10-30T10:22:00.008-04:00

When the announcement that Penny Arcade's RPG was going to be released for the PSN I knew my patience had paid off. And last Thursday, that saved time was rewarded. Not only did I buy the monumental first episode, but I finished it in two sittings. How's that for never finishing my games?! BOOYAH!

I rather like this particular iteration of episodic content. Getting an extension of an excellent game every couple of months provides a somewhat consistent, warm feeling to the recipient. This is how you do episodic games. Half Life 2 has it all ass backwards, which has been addressed several times (the best, I'd say, by Yahtzee) -- releasing a game that only extends the story by a few hours every year or so doesn't make any sense at all. It's like a long-distance relationship with a whore -- you hardly see her, and sure, there's sex when you do, but it just doesn't make you feel good when you pay for it.

I like analogies.

Episodic gaming is something that's desperately trying to find its place in the gaming community, and I think there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way would be Valve's way of doing it. They release an episode without having the next completed. That's just lazy. If a TV show recorded and released and episode each week, the show would feel rushed and production would be crappy. Shit, I think I just described soap operas. Hm, well, the point remains. So, to combat the high probability of crappiness, Valve "takes its time" between episodes in order to release quality instead of, well, quantity. But isn't the point of episodic games the quantity (coupled with established quality)? Instead of releasing just one long, solid game, you release several short, solid games in the same universe? I understand that Valve may really, really like its HL2 plot and so want to keep it rolling for as long as possible, but releasing episodes of games in the same time that whole other games could be made is more of a gimmick. They might as well just call their episodes what they should be called -- expansion packs.

Then again, expansion packs tend to have additional weapons, characters, and environments, and while HL2's episodes have new characters, it's mostly lacking with the other two. Whatever.

Penny Arcade has done more than just properly release content, though. Their genre is much more adaptive to episodic releases. RPG's generally take large amounts of time to finish, so with an episode of an RPG, you're probably going to get something like 6-8 hours of solid gameplay out of it. FPS's are quick and action packed. A run-through of full FPS games can take only 6 hours if you know what you're doing.

The game itself is brilliantly funny, which is it's biggest strength. As an RPG, it has that real-time-combat style that I've actually never played before (but I think was in Final Fantasy X or something -- I don't know, I hate the FF games), so the combat is surprisingly not-boring (like other RPG's can be). The game just made me want to finish it. The humor alone was a major factor there. I mean c'mon, one of the enemy types -- clowns -- bleed rainbow-colored blood when you hurt them. That's fucking great.

When episodic gaming is done correctly, it really is a great idea. You get the feeling of a new game with each addition, you don't have to devote a week of your life just to finishing a game, and the injection of pleasure arrives at fair and consistent intervals. Good shit.

I also got a new TV. A 42" LCD TV. It has 4 HDMI ports. 1080p. It's a Philips. I love my Playstation 3 right now. I also got Dead Space. And Fallout 3. And Wipeout HD. I think it's time to make a video gaming schedule, because I have quite a catalog to finish before X-mas. And goddamnit, I'm gonna finish them all.

Impressions/discussion of Dead Space and Fallout 3 next time (maybe tomorrow? probably not).

Someone Cares...

2008-10-07T13:46:00.004-04:00

A long time ago -- and I mean long time ago -- I would often, while spending time with a friend of mine who has long moved on to I-don't-know-what, dream of creating a video game. We had ideas, or what would appear to be the illusion of ideas, and with these we would paint on the canvas of imagination. At the time our obsession was a game called Total Annihilation. Some of you might know it as that game the guy that did Supreme Commander made first (Total Annihilation is still better than Supreme Commander, eye-em-aach-oh). But we were, in our 12-year-old selves, sold on the idea of somehow utilizing that game to create our own story, world, and universe. We even wrote down some unit stats.

Of course, nothing happened. We liked the idea of making the game much more than the work required to actually create it.

Last weekend I played through a good chunk of Timeshift, a game that I believe emulates my youthful ambitions rather nicely. The game is, at times, broken. And at one point in play, it froze -- sound loop and all. I have heard of console games freezing, but honestly, I never experienced it myself without a 5+ hour play session being a major factor. At another point in my time with the game, I got stuck in some corner that, physically speaking, no living thing could possibly have managed in to within the confines of reality.

And the story...the story yearns to be taken seriously. You can feel it. But its holes are so wide, and its delivery so muddled that, while playing, you wonder if the game might just be better without it. At one point a loading screen was used to explain to me who I was and what my character's role in the story was. I'm sorry, but complete characterization for an interactive experience such as a video game cannot be achieved with two sentences.

But the game itself is relatively fun. This is why I look at it the same way as I did that imaginary game concept I had so many years ago. Someone inside Timeshift's development team wanted this game to be something. Someone had an idea for something. But the effort clearly could not soar across the chasm of production. Put bluntly, this game fell short, massively.

There is a consistent feeling of satisfaction when you stop time, run through a landscape of suspended raindrops, blast three enemies in the face with a shotgun, and resume normal time to watch them all fall down together. Or, after an enemy throws a grenade your way, reversing time to dodge its destruction altogether.

A game like this makes me wonder if my assumptions are correct -- if there is honest passion buried someone in the development team, but it just isn't enough to make a full artistic construction. What does such a person feel after their dream is released and sold unfinished? Like publishing a book with chapters 4-8 lacking vowels? I know I would feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment in myself. Yes, maybe my bills will still be paid at the end of the month, but the money used to do so would feel dirty. Or, in a way, counterfeit.

I understand that companies have deadlines, and the longer a project is development, the more money that company loses until said project is released. I get that. But where is that line drawn for the passionate within the company? I think Blizzard is the best at handling said line's metaphorical existence -- remember their games are always done when they are done. And you know what? They make the best games (or, at the least consistently kick-ass games). I guess that at least seeing your dream realized in even a partial form is better than nothing, but that shouldn't be the accepted way of thinking. If Timeshift were done, and done right -- the way whatever mystery development person really wanted it to be -- I'm sure it would have been awesome.

Artistic ability is always better when given liberal amount of space to work in. The more confined the creator feels, the more rushed, unfinished, and unpolished the end product is going to appear. So I will use my little corner of the internet here to implore video game developers to cater to that guy that wants it done right instead of done fast. It's a fairly well-known demand, but still. Crappy games are still made despite such a phrase's understanding (Haze?). At least Timeshift is good enough to make me want to finish it.

Oh! All this talk just made me think of a game that should be made....okay, hear me out........

I got nothing.

2008-09-19T11:35:00.005-04:00

I've finally taught myself photoshop. My first actual effort is above...it's a fictional box art for a fictional game that was for an actual contest on Kotaku. I know I won't win because mine is "serious" or whatever. And Kotaku's elite editors will surely go for the totally retarded for the sake of getting attention. That and I have no confidence in my noobishness. Whatever.

Not much to talk about this week, as I haven't really been playing many games. Rock Band 2 is out and happily being enjoyed by what I hope is millions of faux rockers across the nation. Do I have it? Nah, still waiting on MTV to ship me one pro-bono. Money is extremely tight for me, so I'm planning on finishing the games I still have sitting untouched in my game-rack (Mass Effect, Metroid Prime). And I still haven't finished Twilight Princess, and it's been, what, almost two years? Three? I should be ashamed.

Actually, if I really think about it, there's a good chunk of games I haven't finished. And I probably never will. Which is a shame because most of them I've invested many, many hours into already. This is a problem for me, I guess. Others have talked about this-- I'll call it "syndrome"-- before. Maybe it's because of the amount of games I have. Maybe I just lose interest in trying to complete a 20+ hour game (Usually the unfinished ones are RPGs). Who knows.

I seem to go through gaming phases. For bursts of time I'm zeroed in on one particular game, or, in some cases, genre. Two months ago I played Warcraft III constantly. Now I can't remember the last time I touched it. Nine months ago it was Diablo II. Seven months ago, CoD4. These are games I hardly even think about now. But then, after much time has passed, I find myself back in these games' doorways, broken umbrella in my hand and soaked with rain, begging for another chance. Of course, they always accept me, and hold be tight for another stint.

I still to this day wish I had beaten Dragon Quest VIII. That would have been the first real, solid RPG I have ever beaten. I've blasted through countless shooters...but RPGs require real attention. You dedicate a section of your life to those games. Just once, I want to know what it's like to lose that section for something so monumentally...digital. Hrm.

I don't know. I'll try to play something new this weekend, so that, ya know, I can actually talk about something here next week.

On MMO Fun.

2008-09-13T17:42:00.007-04:00

I've been playing around in the Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning beta and I must say...bit disappointed. Is it like WoW? Well, sure, pretty much any MMORPG from now on will be in some way. And it is interesting...the new skills, the new game mechanics, the new classes...it all goes to proclaim that though it is like WoW, it's still its own beast. I personally love the atmosphere. There are no gay-looking elves dancing around giant cow-creatures here. Things are always on fire, screams can constantly be heard bellowing across the seared landscape, and the bad guys really like to watch blood flow like ravenous rivers. One thing this game doesn't lack is tone.

But is it fun? Well, it's still an MMORPG, so, whether you think those are fun will heavily bias your opinion. The quests are all still massive grind fests, albeit with a little more flare. But one thing I noticed in my 5+ hours with the game so far is the extreme lack of human interaction. Now, later in the game I'm sure this will be more rampant, but even at the lower levels I expected to see some kind of otherly human presence. The chat airwaves are virtually vacant, and even in towns no one is asking for groups, help, directions -- nothing. No one is selling low-level gear. No one sees that you're doing the same quest as they are and offers help. Once, one time, during a public quest someone decided to make an open group for it. And it was cool and all, but everyone was still stark silent -- like an 8th grade dance where everybody is too awkward to talk to each other.

Will this change with the game's official release? Hopefully, yes. I found it a little disheartening that the public quests -- the new MMORPG additions meant to bring people together -- had little to no effect on doing such a thing outside of slaughtering monsters and waiting for loot. Yes, instances in WoW in can be the same way, but people will at least talk to each other throughout the endeavor. I view MMO's as a different tier of human interaction -- after all, that's essentially what you're paying for with that monthly fee. Sure, the game is kinda fun and all, but really there are other ones out there that offer you more, better, faster, and better-looking rewards for less money. The human interaction is what makes the MMO. Now, this may be somewhat of an "O RLY?!" kind of thing, so just bear with me for a second. Take that same tier, and apply it to other, non-MMO games, and think about which ones are more fun.

Team Fortress 2, with it's team-based gameplay and diverse array of characters (each with a fantastically developed personality) offers one of the best social-rich planes to interact in. Counterstrike is the same way because death is more than a stat penalty -- it (though temporarily) ends the game. Games that offer the slightest bit of originality to the player will often receive the benefit of being the most fun. Which is almost a shame, because games that, mechanic-wise, are really fun can spiral into nothingness because of this lack of diversity and interaction. Warhawk, for the PS3, suffers with this. I think the game is extremely fun. But, again, you're playing with a whole mess of people with no actual interaction there, and, aside from the paint-job of your Warhawk or clothes, everyone really seems the same. Unless everyone has microphones, of course, but that is rarely the case.

I guess, then, if you're going to make a game based around thousands of people being in the same gamespace at the same time, only to have the people not talk to each other, it's going to be somewhat of a problem. But going a step beyond that bit of obviousness, something that makes this interaction even more important is the MMO's lack of player-importance. Let me clarify what that means. In WAR (or WoW, or any number of games like those), you accept a quest to destroy an enemy camp, and rid a friendly city/town of constant murders, rapes, and desecration. You do this, get some XP (maybe an item) and move along. But, if you were to stick around for 4 more minutes, you would watch all of the enemies you just slain respawn and gear up for the next "hero" to come, save the day, and gain the same rewards. Kinda stupid (and exasperating), isn't it?

Now, many would argue that there is no way to overcome this stupidity because so many people play that same game, and, well, how else are they supposed to level up? How else is the story of the game world supposed to unfurl? Okay, those are valid points. But! If you, the player, are forced to accomplish the same extraordinary tasks that thousands before you have just completed, despite the (misleading) veil of worth being placed on such tasks, what, exactly, makes any of this worth the time? Other people. Doing such monotonous crap over and over by yourself borders the realm self-defamation, because ultimately you're unimportant. But with people, it's having a good time. It's socializing. It's accomplishing something as a team. And again, it's this interaction that you pay that monthly fee for.

I think WAR is trying some new ways to push this sense of worth further. The constant sense of war and forever good/evil changing battlefields certainly makes things feel important. And the public quests, in theory, are a great way to bring people together in order to achieve a common goal. But until people step away from that 8th grade awkwardness, help each other, and talk to strangers, these mechanics aren't going to do much. I remember back when I first played WoW (I don't play it anymore), even at a low level people were offering to help me, extending group invites and pointing me it the right directions. These feelings of interaction, although virtual, speak worlds for these games. It's no surprise that games like TF2 manage to tap into this sense of personal teamwork and succeed so well.

People in these respective gamespaces know each other even if they don't, and that's the kind of stuff that games should be known for. Years from now, most people will remember Warhawk for it being a good time, but not so much as being a social bridge. WoW, despite its soul-capturing abilities, will be mostly known as a social continent. I think so, anyway. Hopefully WAR is fun enough to do the same. We'll see.

Resurrected

2008-09-08T11:31:00.005-04:00

Sorry about that. I was distracted by a very, very, shiny object. Considering I don't have ADD, ADHD, or any hallucinogenics to speak of, I hope this helps you understand the substantial glare of this famed object that would cause me to neglect what I can only assume now is next to zero readers. What was this object? I cannot say. For this, I apologize.

Did a lot happen in the past almost-two-months? Sure! Will I be re-capping it all here? Nah, other places did that just fine.

I did go up to New York City back in August to MTV Game's, we'll call it, "headquarters" (one of them, anyway) and got a chance to play Rock Band 2 as well as check out all of its very, very spiffy features. A lot of it has already, of course, been talked about in other places. With their official website proclaiming a ship date of September 14th, this is a soon-to-be-here-no-brainer. I can safely say that this game improves upon the original in every possible way. Suck at drums? Well you can practice now without embarrassing yourself in even the easiest of songs. Want that impeccable re-creation of Trent Reznor you made to play drums instead of guitar? You can do that, too. Online "World Tour Mode"? Yup!

One of the best additions I found was the "no fail" option. While going into practice mode offers the same essential ability, this option extends that same graciousness to a party setting. Let's face it, the chances of getting 4 people that are halfway decent at every component in the game is almost impossible (I'm looking at you Vocals). This ensures, nay, demands, that fun can be had in any party setting, regardless of any amount of delicious, barley-infused beverage that may be consumed.

But enough about Rock Band 2. You know it'll be great, I know it'll be great, now we must simply wait.

I also snagged and and am building my resolve to finish the last level of Bionic Commando: Rearmed. Much has been said on the subject already, but more praise cannot hurt such an achievement as this game, no? The visual style is fucking wondrous compared to other "remakes" that have spiraled out of various woodworkings. This is a game that actually makes you feel cool while playing it -- something many games strive for, but few achieve. Some have complained about the difficulty, and to them I say "grow up." Guess what? Games used to be really fucking hard. Considering this is a remake of a hard game, one would also expect this to be hard, yes? That said, it's still fun as hell. There is an unmistakable moment of sheer clarity towards life that is experienced after beating some of the levels held within this game. Brilliant.

The sountrack is fantastic, too. Find and download it by any means if you can. Hell it's worth it even if you don't own the game -- again, something most other games can't claim.

Because I have returned to my happy place here, expect new postings more frequently. As in, I'll have another one up later this week, and then more in weeks to follow. Rejoice Next-to-Zeroers!

Good For Nothing

2008-07-19T23:13:00.005-04:00

So, apparently E3 blows. Not that I had any doubt of such a revelation upon reading the (too many) articles revving up to this year's not-so-neon-lighted event. There's something magical about unveiling a new game, or a new concept, that somehow was whisked away to some other, alternate fairyland instead of being at this year's, as it is so painfully called, "conference." Remember when it used to be an "expo?" Remember when people wanted to be there?

Not that I was ever a huge fan of the thing in the first place. I thought it was interesting, and would passively read through the numerous previews, screenshots, and announcements each year, thinking to myself, "My, how nice that someday I will see these games made. Isn't that kind of cool." The affair would always offer, even at the printed level, a sense of an exclusive, somewhat-high-brow party atmosphere that I had always wanted to experience just once. To stand at the kiosks and play games no where near completion. To bask in crowds of PR people being nice to me because they have to. And the always fleeting chance I might meet someone who helped make one of my favorite games. Stuff like that would make my heart flutter. But still, I'd only want to try it once.

This year had some, as the youngsters out there would call them, "hip" moments. As each company vied to be more "rad" than the next. And no reporter/blogger/opinionated douchebag there could walk away without claiming to have whitnessed at least one "tubular" moment (alright it's out of hand now, sorry). But their audience was lacking. Like I said, this wasn't so much an "expo" as it was a "conference." And the latter term stinks of the musk of cubicles and humming fluorescent lights. There were obviously less attendees there, as most were well aware of. And Nintendo seemed to have no fucking clue what, exactly, they should do there. Pretty much everything can be summed up by this extensive, and well-written article here. I find it a shame to have an announcement party only to then announce that which is already known.

I don't know. E3, something that was kinda cool every year is now, well, lame. Companies will have to show off their stuff privately now, I'd imagine. But is that such a bad thing? Blizzard seems to be able to get along with that just fine. Publishers like EA, Activisition, et al have enough under each of their belts to display a smorgasbord of content. Maybe not for a week straight, but who cares?

The bottom line is that E3 existed for the sake of previews, really. Announcements and previews. It'd essentially be the same as going to the movies and, instead of seeing the next best thing starring Ed Norton, you watch two and a half hours of previews. Upon exiting, you're left feeling both anxious and incomplete. I think this system is somewhat flawed. Previews will always be displayed. That's fine, I guess. I just find it pathetic that, in some cases, their existence is so....expected...that they can manifest into sheer pointlessness. And then, too, companies will present them eons before said game will ever be completed. I'm all for being on the edge of my seat, but for eight months? Two years? My legs start to burn and I lose all feeling in my midsection.

But gaming is a business, and hype is a key part of its structure. I wish it weren't so irritating. And I'm sure that after this year's E3, lots of people wish it could be executed correctly. But that rarely, if ever, happens. I remember the days when games were announced with a demo. A playable demo. Not screenshots and months of subtle changes to an official website. Companies, in my mind, should say, "Look at what we're working on, and here, see where we are," to the world, not a few "lucky" journalists. Hmph. In a perfect world... in a perfect world.

In other news, Rock Band 2 has all but been released, with the song list, peripherals, and even a concert pushing the hype meter into the stratosphere. It all looks great. Can't wait. That rhymed.

Till next time (rhymed again, sorta).

Well it Un-Happened

2008-06-21T22:28:00.002-04:00

Fixed it!

Xbox 360 works fine now, thanks to that handy-dandy repair kit I got from that website. Good stuff. Still not a fan of Microsoft anymore (is anyone these days?), but at least I can continue to enjoy Rock Band.

I did get myself a Playstation 3, though. Yes, the MGS4 Bundle. Yes, that game is far surpassing my expectations. Yes, the Ps3 is a better system compared to both the Xbox 360 and the Wii.

People have been complaining here and there that the cutscenes in the game are too long. And while a conventional, or perhaps new IP game would warrant such a criticism, MGS4 is neither of those things. It's legacy is categorized primarily by its epic storytelling and immensive world. I played all the previous installments, so going into 4 I knew exactly to expect. Are the cutscenes long? Yup! But weren't they always long? And if they're well done, does it matter?

The game's presentation is phenominal. The level of polish that went into this game is astronomical. I would even go so far as to say this game is worth buying a Ps3 for. Hell, people said the original Halo was worth buying an Xbox over. And this game is leagues better than the Halo franchise. So, wrap your brain around that one for a few minutes if you're on the edge.

At any rate, I also purchased GTA IV (for the Ps3), and I'm planning on having oodles of fun with that. Oh the hookers I will kill. And the drugs...the drugs! I can even practice driving drunk now! I can't wait. And maybe, just maybe, if I play the game enough, I'll come to the international conclusion that killing people at random is perfectly okay. Fingers crossed!

Well, it happened.

2008-06-09T18:50:00.005-04:00

It was a Sunday night. The dense summer humidity outside streaked the windows with an eerie dew, and the setting sun drifted into the living room of my apartment with an unnatural sparkle. My roommate and I, fresh beers in our mitts, sat on the cool, black leather couch. We were prepared to watch House -- a TV show we'd been slowly making our way through since the beginning of summer. Being oh-so-tech-savvy, my Xbox 360 game console was setup to stream from my computer, located upstairs, so our only effort in completing our endeavor was pushing the well-known Xbox logo on the wireless controller to get the relaxation party started. And push we did.

But our efforts were immediately squandered. Three lights, all blinking an evil red -- a red darker than the most vile of blood -- emanated from the power button of the console. And thus, my Xbox became victim to a Red Ring of Death. We gaped in horror.

I sprang from my spot on the couch, leaping over the footrests and nearly dropping my precious, precious beer. Maybe it was the A/V cable, I thought. Maybe I just need to reset it. But no. Nothing would ressurect my dead console. I stood there, staring at my collection of Xbox games, my heavily modified Rock Band equipment, my investments. Was all to be lost?

"Maybe it's under warranty!" I exclamed, and ran -- just as vigorous as before -- to my computer and found the infamous Xbox warranty page. They demand a recipt, and this is an item I did not have. My only option would be to face hours upon hours on the phone with Microsoft Technical Support -- also known as "Satan's Earthly Playground." I was doomed.

But I did find a nice website, in between my overwhelming bouts of misery, that offered Red Ring of Death Repair Kits.

And so, I now wait for an Xbox repair kit to arrive at my house, thus making a last-ditch, $29.99 effort to repair my console. Will it work? Only the Gods know.

--

Well, maybe it wasn't that dramatic. But close. Very close.

Damnit.

*WARNING* Small, angry rant:
Fuck you Microsoft. Fuck you and your inability to create a simple piece of functioning hardware. Fuck you for not being able to create a simple piece of functioning hardware after 3 years. You just lost a fan.

Anyway, fuck it. I'll be heading to my local Best Buy this Thursday to snag a MGS4 PS3 bundle. Then I won't have to worry about RRoD's for a while. And from now on, any games that come out on both consoles, I'll be getting for the PS3. Gamerscores are meaningless anyway.

Oh, and my roommate and I did get to watch House, after all. I simply burned a DVD and put it in my PS2. My 9 year-old PS2. That still works. After 9 years. Yup.

Calm down, calm down

2008-06-03T21:33:00.002-04:00

I'm still here. Been taking a break, kinda sorta. I'll be posting something somewhat substantial sometime soon (tongue-twister!). In the meantime, I got a new set of Rock Band drum pads annnnd...they work! Wowzers! Now I can get the 900+ note streaks and constant 99% completions I so much knew I could get before but without really knowing because the god damned pads missed for no reason what so ever. *cough* In the meantime, enjoy this Penny-Arcade comic (click to enlarge):

Haha. Fantastic.

Another Thing Crossed Off

2008-05-15T21:28:00.009-04:00

Well, I'm done college. Did the whole graduation thing and all that. So! Anyone need someone with a BA in Literature? Anyone? Hello?

FINE! I'll go to graduate school...

Anyway, now that it's summer and I have virtually nothing to do except make money and drink beer (awesome!), I have free time up the wahzoo. I'm currently blasting my way through House, the TV show. Good, good shit. Procured all of the seasons in a magical, complicated process involving stuff that rhymes with "florrents." I don't really know how it all works. Something about tubes.

I also grew a beard because of my inability-to-shave inspired hospitalization. Looks kinda cool. I figured it's playoff season, so, why not roll with it for a while.

In other "interesting to mainly me" news, Nine Inch Nails did something wonderful and released their newest album for free via their website. My overwhelming support for such a valiant presentation of artful work drove me to buy tickets to their August 29th concert at the Wachovia Center in Philly. I'll be going with my dad (jealous? should be.). I can't wait.

In the world of videogames it seems there's been a nice trend going on in the musical world of stuff: Rock Band Fever, it should be called. Guitar Hero IV is supposed to have a drum kit, and Konami has announced its own Rock Band knock-off entitled Rock Revolution, thus titling their game something the entire country of Japan will be unable to pronounce. Will it succeed? Time will tell, but I doubt it.

Rock Band has managed to net a huuuuuge fan base already, and its weekly release of usually decent content is more than enough to keep people loyal. Yeah, Guitar Hero was first, but they've been trumped. They have. Face it. As of now I can play Rock Band for over six hours and not repeat a single song. Can Guitar Hero claim that? Well, with combined games, sure...but who counts that?

Rock Band 2 will be nifty. I know details because I work with some little company called "MTV," but I sure as shit can't spill any of my beans. Which is fine because I get to know stuff you don't (this is where I stick my tounge out).

The point is, Rock Band did something cool, and so now everyone wants to be cool. So, copycat games are going to start flooding the gamespace. Does this surprise anyone? It shouldn't. The problem here, though, is that these companies aren't copying some simple game mechanic (like, say, timed button-pressing boss fights a la God of War), but an entire game experience. If you have Rock Band, 60 downloaded tracks, and the whole instrument setup, are you going to re-buy that for a Guitar Hero game? For a Konami game (which has a chunk of the same songs, by the way)? Unless you're rich as hell, I'd imagine not. These new iterations can try to appeal to gamers by offering additional "cymbals" or "drum pads," but beyond super-duper hardcore music fans, this stuff will easily fly over everyone's heads. Shame, too, because if all this had come out at the same time, it would have been quite a showdown. Oh well.

I applaud the attempt at competition, though. Maybe, maybe if these new games are amazing in their own new and exciting ways, I'll grab them, but the addition of two more drum pads (Konami) isn't going to be enough to force over my cash.

In the meantime, I'll just keep enjoying what I already have...even if I know I'll have to exchange my drum kit for a forth time. Damnit.

Echo...o...o...o...o...o

2008-05-01T18:55:00.005-04:00

Alright. Okay.

..okay. So... Alright.

Echochrome is incredible. I must say it has definitely set itself apart of the rest of the puzzle games out there, and proves that just because a game lacks glamor doesn't mean it can't still woo you in the best of ways.

If you've never seen any Escher drawing or concept, then, well, you have some catching up to do. Go look him up. But if you have, then you know where the foundations of this game lay. Echochrome is a game that relies heavily on perspective in order to solve is mind-numbing puzzles. Each level is...well, they're kinda like that picture at the top there -- minimalist wire-frame-ish black and white in an open, free floating 3d world.

The game is part Lemmings, part Super Paper Mario, and part Snake (the once popular Nokia cell phone game). So how does it work? Well I'm glad you asked. You play the role of a little mannequin-looking guy who has to walk around aimlessly in these strange, blocky levels. His goal is to collect all of the "echoes" in each level--those are the fuzzy, black shadowy-looking things standing around the level up above. Think of them as the pixels/mushrooms/apples in Snake (depending on the version you're playing), each one collected bringing you closer to the end of the level.

Your little guy moves around on his own -- the only control you posses over him is the ability to make him stop and "think," allowing you to examine you next possible approach in the puzzle. In this respect, the game is like Lemmings...he just keeps walking around until he either bumps into a wall and turns around, or falls to his death. Thankfully, you don't have a set number of lives, so every time he "dies," he gets warped back up to where he was (complete with the female computer's voice saying, "oops!") for you to give whatever you were doing another shot. So, on top of the puzzle aspect of the game, there's a small level of strategy needed, as timing when your little guy stops and starts is key to completing certain puzzles. Very cool.

The perspective stuff is the where this game really shines (a la Super Paper Mario...sort of). I have the game for the PSP (there's also a PS3 version with the same number of puzzles, though all of the puzzles are different), so for this system you either use the joystick or the D pad to rotate your perspective of the level. Depending on how you look at everything depends on where your mannequin can walk. For example, if there is a path that is broken up by a space, but there is a vertical pillar also in the level, turning the camera view to make the pillar block that space in the path from a certain perspective (making it appear as if there is no space) will magically connect the path -- essentially, if it something appears to be something...then it is. Confusing, isn't it? Here's a video:

Much like the Escher drawing of the never-ending stairs, this game begs you to bend your mind and accept/solve puzzles based solely on appearance rather than real-world physics. This, in a world where we always crave realism, makes this game all the more superb. If there is a path that ends, shifting the perspective to a different angle might bridge it with another path, moving the puzzle forward. If there is a hole, your mannequin will fall through and land on whatever is directly underneath, even if physics tell you otherwise. Suspension of reality is, again, key.

The few problems I encountered were almost not worth mentioning. But I'll mention them anyway. Sometimes -- especially when you first set out to play -- its hard to tell where your little guy will go if there's a fork in his path choice. After playing about the first dozen levels or so, you'll figure it out, though (he prefers left). Or, if you're very thorough (I wasn't), this factoid is embedded in the second page of the "tips" that are accessed from the main menu when you start the game. Perhaps they should explain that outright, but...whatever.

Sometimes the perspective-matching can be a little wonky, too. There was one level in particular I was certain I matched up a path, but no matter what I did, the guy wouldn't take it. Granted, with a game like this it's almost impossible to make every puzzle perfect and every perspective-created path work. Also, by pushing the square button, the perspective will "snap" to what seems the most appropriate place -- though I avoided using it as it sometimes put the perspective somewhere I didn't want it to -- it's still helpful sometimes. So this issue is minimal at best and only happened maybe three times the whole time I played (of over two hours). I'm just saying don't expect every single path you see to work...there has to be some boundaries in a puzzle game for it to really function as a puzzle game.

The music is wonderful, with a classical, violin soundtrack lulling your brain a la Mozart so that even in your most frustrated of moments, you really aren't that pissed off (well, maybe you are...not everyone likes classical music). The presentation is simply wonderful. The included tutorial gets you up to speed quickly, proving that what might appear very simple at first can get difficult very quickly. But the pacing is fine, so by the time you start to hit the painful puzzles (there are 56 total on either system, with the PS3 getting downloadable content later), you've probably been expecting them, instead of them suddenly blowing up in your face.

Simply put, this game is original, awesome, and extremely fun. Tack on the fact that it's only a 10 dollar download, there's an included level creator (allowing you to come up with puzzles to hurt other people's brains or show off your creative muscle), and it only takes up 44 megs on the PSP's memory stick, and you have no reason not to get this game if you have a PS3 or PSP. This here is a perfect example of how Sony can outshine Nintendo or Microsoft. If only they could do this all the time, they'd have it made.

I definitely give this game a 9.5/10, and suggest you get it. Right now.

Fundraiser Bump

2008-04-29T16:39:00.000-04:00

It's been quite a while since I got any comments here (::stares intently at the internet::), so I figured it's a good time to bump it and hope for some more. Please leave a comment so that I can do this whole thing -- I really want to. Hell, I was in the hospital for a week, so I know how much those places totally blow ass...don't you think the kids of the world should get some games while they're there? Comment.

Original post picks up here:

So, here's my proposal to the very few people that read this blog:

If I get 250 unique comments total asking for this (that means not just this post, but it'd help if this was the post. I'll bump it every so often for reminder's sake.) I will play through every single Guitar Hero game IN A ROW in order to raise money for charity. I would be donating to Child's Play because they are fantastic. And... If I raised (somehow) more than 500 bucks before Guitar Hero III is finished, I'd go through Rock Band on drums, including all the downloadable content I currently have (with the exception of "Blackened." I just can't do it. I've tried many times, though I'll do it on practice mode). Otherwise, Rock Band will be excluded. All games would be played on EXPERT, regardless of how badly my hand(s) start(s) to hurt. And! The only time I'm allowed to take a break is after I complete a game. Or I have to go to the bathroom. I think that's acceptable.

I'd lower the number of comments required to do this, but it'd be stupid to do this for a charity, and then get no donations. That's not the point of a "fundraiser," now is it? I need to have support for possibly permanently damaging my hands. I'm not personally going to send this to any news websites (Digg, Kotaku, Joystiq, 1up, etc.). If you want this to happen, it'll happen, I can't force it. But if you send it, I won't stop you, certainly.

Why 250? Well, I figure if each person donates, say, 5 bucks...well, that's 1250 bucks! That's really good! Even 4 bucks a person is decent. Considering the sheer number of people on the internet, 250 isn't asking for much. The fine details would be ironed out after I get all the comments...if I get them. I certainly hope I do. Oh, and how about I'll throw the name of every person who donates in an entry, too (if they want to). Sound good? Cool.

More rules:

- The comment has to say the words "Do the fundraiser." Just any ol' comment won't work.
- No "anonymous" comments. Please leave SOME kind of name.
- For every failed song, I will donate 1 dollar (might not sound like much, but after many hours of playing, GH3 will take its toll, I'm sure).
- For every 100%'ed song, I will donate 5 dollars (and I'll try, I promise).
- The date of all this will, obviously, happen as soon as the 250 comment mark is reached. It'll be a weekend, though.
- Minimum donation of 1 dollar. Makes sense.
- That's all I can think of for now.

If you think about each game, and its length in the music...this would take a while. Probably 3 hours for Guitar Hero, 4 or 5 for Guitar Hero 2, and another 5 for GH3. Then Rock Band is easily 8 hours with all the content I've downloaded. Energy drinks away! I'd be playing the Xbox 360 versions of GH2, GH3, and Rock Band, too. Remember, I'm just one person, not several like the Zelda thing, so I can't really play SUPER long games.

So, charge those PayPal accounts and start commenting! C'mon "internet's ability to do stuff!" Do stuff!

Senior Seminar

2008-04-27T17:12:00.008-04:00

Well, this is going to be a good deviation from any normal post that I'd put here. This one is dedicated to my Senior Seminar, and thus will be used purely for my "presentation" occurring Tuesday. What is this all about, then?

Monsters.

Well, for me, just one monster...or monster type, I should say. This semester's Senior Seminar deals with monsters, monstrosities, and everything demon-ish in between. Now, I've been in the hospital for the past week, as some of you may recall, so while my paper isn't even close to finishing itself, at least I can briefly discuss what my monster is here.

My monster is, well, there isn't really a name for it. It's The Thing. Literally the monster from John Carpenter's 1982 film The Thing, I've chosen to examine the creature in-depth and, hopefully, with a bucket or two of intelligence.

What is The Thing?

Well, it's a monster. Duh. But more importantly it's a monster that deviates from the normal things (ha ha!) you tend to see in scary films and literature. This monster is one who appears to be exactly like either you or someone you know. Meaning that until it is exposed (or kills you), there is no way of knowing what is and isn't a Thing.

Why is this monster awesome?

Good question. There is an exorbitant amount really interesting stuff surrounding this monster. From the psychological point of being a possible victim, to the philosophical point of its ability to redefine who you consider yourself to be as a human or a person, this monster absorbs you, literally, and infects everyone surrounding it with total, absolute fear.

Where did it come from?

In the movie, (and the 1938 novella Who Goes There? that the movie is based on) outer space. Yes, that means it's an alien. But before all of the "modern" adaptations of this monster, there had to be something "old" that it came from. Enter the medieval period. Back then, they had a monster known as the Donestre (pictured), which was essentially the building block for The Thing creature. Only the Donestre was clearly monstrous (a unclothed creature with the head of a lion) and thus did not appear to be like a human in any way. So then how is really it a monster? The Donestre would approach travelers and immediately start to speak their language. This calmed the travelers into putting their guard down, at which time the Donestre would attack, devouring all of its victim save for the head. Then, and here's the really odd thing, it would weep and feel sorry for the act it just committed, crying over the lonesome head of its victim.

In my paper, I explore the psychology of this monster, coming to some nifty points about what it is to be a human, and how this monster's remorseful weeping is able to actually thrust it back into the realm of humanity, thus preparing it for whatever victim might come along next -- after all, if it killed someone and kept crying, how would it kill again? How would it re-dignify its humanity? Very interesting stuff.

Back to The Thing.

The Thing, after a nice examination of The Donestre and other monsters slowly spawned from it (friendly werewolves in Bisclavert and friendly giants in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), I can say with complete certainly that The Thing is completely lacking in all humanity, but yet its very survival depends on the ability to be human.

This means that it is a reflection of our selves in respect to the monsters we consider each other to be. Essentially, The Thing is a physical representation of our fear of ourselves. Rapists, murderers, and people who betray us are perhaps the most feared and hated people in existence. The Thing is all of those things wrapped up in a nice, horrific package. It rapes you by absorbing everything about you and psychically entering your body against your will. It murders you by, well, murdering you. And then it betrays you by turning on every friend and other person around by -- and this is the kicker -- looking like you. Rinse and repeat. Until, of course, it's exposed. Then it looks something like this:

Pretty scary stuff, isn't it? It either looks like you, or...something undefinable. Truly a high form of terror.

Anyway, that's what my paper is on, this is what I'm exploring, etc. So, let me end with two nifty clips that deal with The Thing.

First, a clip from the movie. The clip explains itself nicely, but I'll add some minor comments. At this point in the film, everyone has turned against each other, no one really trusts one another, and MacReady (the leader, played by Kurt Russel) has figured out a primitive test to weed out who is and isn't The Thing. The tension in the air is thick enough to cut with a knife, and the paranoia is very, very rampant. Enjoy:

Second, a clip from Aliens vs Predator 2, the PC game. In this game, you can play as either an Alien, Predator, or human Marine. This can be tied to The Thing because you are placed into the role of the monster. You enter someone as the alien and for the rest of the game are killing humans -- biting their heads off and ripping them to pieces. Yet at the same time, you can switch to the same humans you are drawn to kill and fight off the monsters. It's a very cool game if you've never played it, but here's the opening sequence as the Alien (fast forward to 1:45):

So, there you have it. I'm still doing the paper, but this is what I've been looking at. Pretty cool, isn't it? Especially for a 30-page research paper, anyway.

Hospitality

2008-04-17T23:22:00.003-04:00

So as I'm typing this I'm hanging out at the local hospital--Atlanticare's mainland facility. Well, no, "hanging out" isn't quite right. People don't hang out at hospitals, do they? Ah yes, I've been "admitted." Admitted is the word.

Friday I woke up with a horrible pain in my chest, shortness of breath, and wheezing. I almost passed out in the shower (that's right, I shower). But after lying down for another half an hour, I felt much better. I figured I sat up too fast, pulled a muscle in my chest (diaphragm?). So I went to work... my chest hurt, but it slowly got better throughout the day. Sleeping was a pain, but again, after a little bit, it was okay, and I was knocked out no problem.

Saturday was better, and Sunday even ..more..better. Betterer, if you will. But after Sunday, there was no improvement. There wasn't a change for better or worse, but my chest just...wasn't right. If I could compare it to something tangible...I'd say it'd be like a D cup girl suddenly waking up with B cups---sure you still have boobs, yeah, but it...it just isn't the same. You understand.

So I decided to get it check out. The local doctor I saw said that one of my lungs wasn't getting as much air as the other, and I should go to the hospital and get a chest x ray at the least. So off i skipped to the hospital, wheezing and sputtering all along the way. After waiting only a few minutes at the ER (gasp!) I was taken in and x rayed and gol-ly! I had a collapsed lung.

I needed a chest tube. It was going to hurt. Fuck. Well, I got through all that, and I still have the tube between by 6th and 5th ribs. But I get painkillers every so many hours and some really interesting-looking fluid has been filing this bubbling device sitting on the floor behind me. A note to the world, though...chest tubes hurt, so they weren't lying about that. Even with more anesthetics floating under my skin in the immediate area to make a stab wound feel "casual," it was hellish. Don't want to do that again, I can tell you that.

Unfortunately, I haven't touched a videogame since I've been here. My PSP died and I don't have the charger, and this laptop blows. Not to mention that the painkillers I've been taking have been so intense that...I...oooOOoo...look at the lights....they're...they're beautiful....la...la..la..alalala...

Hm? What?

Oh, yes. Well. Hopefully I'll be out Tuesday. And hopefully by then I can laugh without it hurting. Wouldn't that be nice.

Finally.

2008-04-13T20:44:00.005-04:00

I beat Assassin's Creed. About god damned time, too. Does it feel good? Well, yeah, I suppose it does. I can see what everyone was in an uproar about over the game's horribly anti-climatic (but still climactic) ending. I don't know...after all the time put into that game, the ending didn't really phase me, so, I found myself thinking "Hm, cool, okay," and then putting the controller down.

Assassin's Creed is a game that makes you very, very aware that you're playing a game throughout the whole thing. The story is compelling and all the assassination jobs are really nifty, but everything in between is just...meh. I swear, if I have to hear another peasant tell me that "all of the city will know of my sacrifice," I'll just snap and start flinging throwing knives everywhere. It's stuff like that that games should at least try to avoid. I mean, I could take the gazillion helpless citizens that need rescuing if they each had something different to add after I helped them. But you can't skip those mini-cutscenes. So by the end of the game, you don't want to have anything to do with the assholes anymore. But again...it's just a game. A very obvious game, too.

And I'll still never understand why in the hell you can't ride your horse with any degree of speed ever not once in the whole game without guards immediately saying, "LOOK! THAT GUY IS FAST! HE MUST BE AN ASSASSIN! I'M RETARDED, TOO! SO LETS CHASE HIM ON FOOT EVEN THOUGH HE'LL QUICKLY OUTRUN US IN A MATTER OF SECONDS!" Sorry for the caps, but that's what I image they always said, I was just always out of earshot to hear it--because I got away....in a matter of seconds.

::cough::

At any rate. It's still fun. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop like some kind of ancient middle-eastern Spiderman. Carefully gutting people in broad daylight with no one noticing. And defiantly throwing-knifing those idiot rooftop guards whenever they tell you to "leave." That stuff doesn't get old. And man it's pretty, too.

Course, the fighting leaves a lot to be desired...the whole "mash one or two buttons for every singe battle no matter what" idea supposedly died with Street Fighter II or something. But if over-simplicity doesn't really bother you, then it doesn't really matter, now does it? Besides, it leaves room for improvement in the 1000000% inevitable sequel.

So, the positives, I guess, outweigh the negatives.

I'm just glad the thing's over with. Now I can start Mass Effect and never finish it until three years from now. Right?

In other news, I'm up to 11 comments as of this writing for the Guitar Hero charity idea. Not bad. Most of those people are my friends, but still, there's 45 bucks announced outright within those 11. And I didn't even ask for people to announce that, so, cool. You should go comment, and tell all your friends to comment, and they should tell theirs. Obviously, people aren't doing that. My guess is laziness, which....I understand. Still. Do it. I want to play through all those games in a day, damnit, and it better be for something.

Sorry for the Delay

2008-04-06T14:18:00.003-04:00

I've been having terrible Writer's Block. Well, no, that's not entirely true. I've been working consistently at my Senior Seminar final paper/thesis, which has happily been devouring all of my creativity (and energy). The damn thing has to be 30 pages long, all told, which really isn't that bad, but it's still a massive amount of research.

Regardless, I've still managed to play a few games, though mainly Rock Band and Call of Duty 4, those being easy to pick up and play without diving into a novel-istic story. I have a story due tomorrow, too, and I still haven't the slightest idea what to write.

::sigh::

At any rate, I'm stuck. I promise to have something intelligent to put here this week after my research's first draft is due. To think, I bought SSBB the day it came out and have played it one time since then...what have I become?

Shhh! 50 Cent is making a game.

2008-03-26T22:48:00.006-04:00

Where do I start with this one. Hm.

Videogames, like movies, are often hailed for their fantastic stories. Sadly, that hailing doesn't happen quite as often with games, but what can ya do. At least the appreciation is there, albeit only sometimes, right? Now, I've talked about the importance of writing before. It's my assertion that writing for a game should be at least in some dimension of the term "acceptable." It's always at least appreciated when a game, though being somewhat sub-par with its gameplay, can still in some special way soar because of its story. Those things, I think, rest in those "warm and fuzzy" moments of our lifetimes...when you can walk with your character through their tremulous life and emerge, after a series of impossible circumstances, victorious. It's wondrous.

However, I would say it's pretty fucking rare that a game is produced with a fantastic story, but horrible gameplay. Usually, there has to be some kind of symbiosis in that chemical mix. That, and I doubt most people would push through really bad gameplay just for a story. I mean, why piss yourself over terrible controls or horrible voice-acting when you could be reading, I don't know, a book or something. Playing through one of those games would be like getting cozy with your favorite novel, then blasting Bjork as loud as possible while you enjoy it. It just doesn't make sense.

Well then. I just have to mention this up and coming doozy. It's called 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand. Rather than give a quirky introduction, I'll just post the excerpt supplied by Kotaku from an IGN interview with the producer of this next fantastically amazing in every awesomistic kind of way game:

"...what's inspired the title is, 50 and G-Unit are putting on a sold-out performance somewhere in a fictional Middle Eastern setting. This is where the 'blood on the sand' comes in. They put on the performance; the people are pleased, but the concert promoter stiffs them and doesn't give 50 and G-Unit their payment.

So, of course, 50 isn't going to leave until he gets paid, so he hassles the concert promoter, [saying] if he doesn't come up with the money now, there will be consequences. And instead, the promoter offers him a very valuable gift - something that's valuable to this particular country - a diamond encrusted skull.

So 50 gets the skull, and as he's about to leave this war-torn country, when they're ambushed and the skull is taken. They escape the ambush, but they're without the skull. So 50's motivated to get what belongs to him. So basically, throughout the game, he's trying to track these people down and find out who they are and why he was ambushed."

You see that, right there. That. That is why I want to be a writer. That's gold. GOLD. I mean, just look at all of the possibilities. That story can go anywhere. Nazis? Oh I think that's doable. Nukes? Fuck it, let the Nazis have them. Hell, throw Angelina Jolie in there for no reason what so ever. What's that? She needs a reason? No she doesn't. O-- Okay, fine, she's fucking Bin Laden. No, no--she's making porn with Bin Laden. And 50 Cent gets caught up into producing it. See? GOLD. I am not talking to myself. Pass me the crack cocaine please.
Honestly. I mean...really? Is that really what's being made into a game? A multi-platform game!? Give me a moment.

See, games that are produced with a foundation like that are the prime reason why the gaming industry isn't taken seriously. That's also why writing for a videogame can appear as almost...unprofessional. If you were aspiring to write for videogames, and you read that, I'd imagine you would think one of two things: Either you would try harder to gain access to that most prestigious of job positions because you know you're better than that, or you would give up because that's what the industry wants. So, which is it?

I don't think it's the latter--yet. Though it's disturbing just to see something like that taken under serious consideration and get published, I don't think such a terrible staple will ever make it to the point of engrossing the industry. Us nerds just aren't that stupid. I hope not, anyway.

Let me just give you all my thoughts onto what that game will be like... I think it will incorporate every major videogame mechanic that's been proven to work in the past five years, but each one will be utilized in completely the wrong way and thus (hopefully) this game will burn like the pile of shit it isn't yet.

It will have cover fire mechanics (because it worked in Gears of War), but they will be horrible to maneuver. Your character will stick to the wrong walls, be shot when they shouldn't be, and the enemy AI will have NO IDEA how to use the mechanic.

It will have a billion multiplayer modes (because it worked for Halo 3), but the servers will be in such shitty condition and the controls will be so awkward that it just won't be playable. Either that or the servers will be vacant because no one will be playing.

It is set in a war-torn fictitious Middle-Eastern country (because it worked for Call of Duty 4), but, as proven, the story will blow.

It will have some kind of RPG element (because it worked for Bioshock), but the abilities will be unbalanced, and thus near-nonexistent. You will also be able to unlock the most useful abilities only after playing the game through at least once--something no one will do.

It will have button-timing cut-ins or fights (because it worked for God of War), but they will suck because every fucking game since God of War has tried to implement that mechanic--badly--and it's gotten to the point of being an annoyance rather than something "cool."

I could go on, but I think that's sufficient. Though a part of me wonders... what if this game turns out to be absolutely fucking incredible. What if the gameplay is stellar and every mechanic is so tight and perfect that it tops every chart imaginable. It outsells Halo 3. It kills CoD4 in multiplayer. Remember, there have been good games with bad stories before (Resident Evil for one...oh come on, the story really wasn't that good at all... okay, fine. Serious Sam. Happy?). It is possible. Man, that's a scary thought.

Now I need a beer.

But I don't have any.

Oh no...it's happening...

You can has shut up.

2008-03-19T22:20:00.008-04:00

First, there was h4x0r. And it was fine, because it wasn't really taken all that seriously. It was atrociously annoying to type and ultimately resulted in just giving up and resorting back to "old(e) English." It decidedly fell into the realm of "stuff that we do or say every once in a while to be funny but don't use with any level of realism because everyone would hate us if we did" things. Or something.

Then, we moved on to the next big thing...the internet abbreviations. These are fine, and still widely used today, imho. The problems with them arise when people start to speak--orally--these time-saving necessities of typing. I cringe whenever I hear someone say "lol." Why? Because 9999% of the time they aren't laughing. Sure, that's fine online because no one can see you. So when you aren't laughing but typing it there, it can fly. But saying "lol" and ending that..we'll call it "outburst"... with a mild smile (at best) borders on the psychotic. And you look like a total retard.

Even semi-understandable abbreviations like "brb" make no point when spoken. B-R-B = three syllables; BE RIGHT BACK = three syllables. Shut the fuck up and talk like a normal person. If you're going to go there and abbreviate something that needs no abbreviation, you might as well make fun of yourself and throw a "bbq" on the end for no good reason. Then you'd at least get a smile from me. I probably wouldn't lol, though.

Anyway, the above kind of stupid stuff is relatively rampant across all modes of verbal communication--in-game chat especially. I guess people figure that because they're talking through a virtual landscape, they might as well blend in with the scene? Maybe? My logic has failed me here.

But the worst comings-about are just tipping over the horizon. And this is much, much worse than anything that preceded it.

It all started with a kooky picture of an owl who looked, for a legendary yet unknown reason, rather surprised. Someone then in a burst of immense cleverness pasted the words ("words") "O RLY?" at the base of the picture. And thus, an internet phenomenon was born. People everywhere started looking for pictures of animals to place "funny" captions on. But there was a catch--those captions couldn't be normal. No, they had to be cute, and broken. "I has a bucket" a walrus cried. "I made you a cookie, but I eated it" an adorable cat spoke with its eyes. These captions infected pictures the world never even knew existed. And the internet stood back and said "it is good."

But it never stopped.

The captions moved beyond found-photography. People would put time and effort to construct the perfect pictures of their pets, their friends' pets, nature--anything--to slap a caption to. The humor became sparser. The walrus with a bucket died. And the world hung their heads in grief.

Hundreds of websites spawned across the globe, all dedicated to the now-known sensation that is "lolcats." Oh god make it stop. For some reason all of the other species were dropped for the feline. They, the internet somehow deemed, are the most funny. They are the cutest. And they are destined for endless captioning.

Sure, a lot of those pictures are pretty funny. How can they not be? Though an equal number are extremely dull. The problem doesn't reside with the pictures, though. The problem has to do with the language of the pictures.

People have started speaking in lolcat. That's right, it's now a type of speech. Let me allow that to sink in. I bet your head hurts. Mine does, too. I wasn't completely aware of this until one of the people I know at work decided to invest in a new girlfriend. Aside from being markedly ugly (sorry, she just is), she speaks consistently in lolcat. What does that mean? Well, let me give you an example. If she were to, say, print something, but there's a paper jam, she would exclaim, "I can has no paper to printed my paper." Does that make any sense? Nope! But it wouldn't stop there. Let's say you were in the room and, after giving her a short glare, said, "Is the printer jammed?" she would reply, "Ya. Itz no printing ma paperz. You can has fix'd it?"

And then somewhere, someone would light themselves on fire.

The thing is, the guy that started dating said girl has now adopted this language because of her--it's spreading. There are, if you check here (scroll down and look carefully), messageboards full of people who type entire paragraphs in lolcat. They think they are funny. I see no one laughing.

Excerpt:
"sry yur wethr so bad. Springteim in cal fur nees. 2day –maybee nawt stay. maybee ranes 4 eestr. Eggses get colurs al runed."

Whew.

I understand that internet trends are cool and everyone wants to be cool, but speaking a "language" that doesn't even warrant typing in the first place is just ignorant and insane. If you speak like this, please stop. Though a part of me wants someone to completely adopt this language just to see them hauled away after getting pulled over because the cop thought they were drunk. "Pleez ofizer. I can has no beerz. I iz good driverz. Om nom nom."

I mean the internet isn't that cool...is it? Is it? Guys? ....guys?

God Fucking Damnit.

2008-03-10T20:36:00.006-04:00

So this weekend I sat down to play Rock Band for another 3-6 hour stint like I usually do (that's normal, right?), and after a good three hours had gone by, my bass drum pedal snaps. Now let me explain. See, I know all about the billions upon billions of drum pedal and pad issues that people have been having since (it would seem) this game's conception. But my case is totally absurd.

Why, you ask? Well, this is the third time my pedal broke. "Oh, so you've gone through three pedals?" No, Timmy, this is still the same pedal. The first time it broke it was the actual pedal itself, so one of my friends took the damn thing home and had the entire foot pedal surface grafted with diamond-plate steel, then topped with skateboard grip-tape (something I'm seeing more and more often online). It was bolted in at least seven different places, and re-enforced with plastic cement. There was no way that was going to break again.

Oh, but something else did. About a month later, the bottom, support-part snapped in half. That would mean that the back of the pedal's base no longer was attached to the front of the base. So! my dad, being the awesome dad he is, grafted the entire base of the pedal--in five secure places--to particle board. Thus, the bottom was impossible to break. I thought I was in the clear.

But this weekend proved that all forms of structural engineering need not apply to the Rock Band bass drum pedal. The plastic that held the back of the pedal down, thus elevating the front of the pedal, snapped apart. This leaves me now with a pedal that only knows how to half-assly hover horizontal to the base. How retarded.

This isn't unfixable, though. I know what I have to do to get this thing working again. But still. Three times this seemingly unbreakable pedal has managed to prove that theory wrong and wrong again. No amount of returns or warranty exchanges can save the planet from these horribly designed pieces of shit.

Oh, and I'm on my fourth pair or drum pads because they simply haven't worked right since day one. ...And I've had the guitar replaced once (strum bar issue).

I want to know exactly how much money EA or Harmonix or whoever was in charge of this design really saved by making plastic accessories instead of metal. At this point, I would have gladly paid another 10, maybe 15 bucks if the bass pedal were made of solid steel. "Oh, but that would have gotten in the way of the magnet!" No, Timmy. If they wanted to make it work, they could have made it work. Plastic was the just cheapest, easiest option. I'm sure of that.

The supports for the drum pads are metal...so...why not just make the pedal the same way?

Ugh. This has something to do with the retarded value system we have nowadays. I swear, if Rock Band were created in the 1940's (man that would have been awesome), we'd still be able to play on the same equipment now--nothing would have broken. But when a company has a new product today, I think that their design scheme is constructed around the possibility of fault, rather than constructed around the possibility of no fault. No normal, intelligent human being would possibly look at that bass drum pedal design and say "Yes, brilliant. In 150 days of constant use this will be exactly as it was before!" Unless, of course, they were paid to say such a thing. EA (I'll assume it's their fault because they handle the warranties) simply designed and released their product knowing it would probably break, and assumed that through a process of examining the broken exchanges, they could build up to a design that they should have released from the beginning.

How do I know they did that? Well, something about the bright, neon-pink warranty notification sitting right on top of the Rock Band box as soon as you open it gives that away. It's as if EA were declaring, "Hey! You! This is gonna break REALLY fast! But it's okay, cause we knew that already! Here's the long and frustrating path you'll have to take someday!" ..but in a more professional tone. Besides that, the drum pads I'm using now are a totally different design than the ones that shipped with the game originally--no screws on the bottom, and you can't tug off the red and green pads like the previous design (not that I did...).

But like I said, no re-working of the pedal is going to save it. That thing needs fucking metal. Plastic that you're constantly stomping on with your foot is always going to break (unless, of course, you're some kind of fairy drum player that can move the pedal with your awesome levitation powers...maybe that's who designed these at EA...sure would explain how they seem to own everything...hmm...). And really, with the amount of cash they're pulling in just on downloaded songs alone over there, you'd think they'd be more than happy to fix their shit.

Companies need to design products based on perfection first and then, if they need to, work from there. EA could have implemented the exact same warranty plan with a metal pedal instead of the plastic one, and they'd probably have a shit-load-less (is that possible?) of returns. So, their extra fronted money would have paid off in the extremes. But like I said, companies will go with whatever is easier. And cheaper is usually easier. Such a shame. Well, at least this pedal is going to be so indestructible by the time I'm through with it that I'll be able to go 20 hours straight without caring...not that I'd do that... ... . . .

At any rate. I got Super Smash Bros. Brawl yesterday, but only played through a little bit of it as Link. It's a pretty good game so far. I'll probably write up a review for it soon...like, within a week, hopefully. Till next time...

Note: That's not my pedal in the picture above. Obviously.

Video Games Taught me to Kill: A Narrative (Updated, Revised)

2008-03-03T10:10:00.001-05:00

I was eighteen years old when I first played Counter-Strike. Back then, it wasn’t a stand-alone game—it wasn’t even finished yet. I started playing at beta 4.1. And though that might not mean anything to you, let me put it this way: it took the developers four years after that to get to the working version today—1.6. You see, games don’t always start out as games. Sometimes, you need one game in order to play another game. Yeah, I know, I didn’t get it at first, either.

I was over one of my friend’s houses—Shaun was his name. For 1999, he had the best computer possible, so he also had the best games, too. His computer was a constant discussion at the lunch table. The other guys would drool on themselves when Shaun would talk about his machine. And Shaun was so sly about it, too. He’d squeeze a detail into an otherwise plain, common sentence and sit back as the reactions poured over him.

“Yeah, so, last night,” he’d say, “I was fiddling with my resolutions and figured out my monitor can get up to 1280 by 1024.” He’d then shrug and, shaking his head, add, “I didn’t ever try that high before.” Then he’d chuckle.

None of us could even get more than 800 by 600.

Anyway, while the rest of us were trudging through the Starcraft campaigns for the third time, he had Counter-Strike. I wasn’t even that good of friends with him, but he asked me over one day to show me. Like I said, he liked to show off. In fact, he’d been going around the lunch table, inviting someone else over every other day—it was just my turn, I guess. As much as I hated endorsing his ego, I wanted to see the game more. Listening to the admiration of the other guys was starting to wear on me.

I had just gotten my first car (a beautiful 1994 Sentra, tan) a few weeks before, so I was able to drive myself to Shaun’s place. And as I pulled up to the curb outside his house, he stood on his front steps, hands at his sides and a big, stupid smile on his face. I tossed the directions I had jotted down in the passenger seat and climbed out, putting my own smile on.

“Why hello,” I said.

“You ready?” Shaun asked, getting right to the point.

“You betcha,” I said, meeting him on the steps. I was such a dork.

He opened his front door and led the way inside. “No one’s home,” he said over his shoulder. “Mom works till seven and Dad’s out of town on business.”

“Cool,” I said. His house was ordinary—stairs leading up as soon as you walked in, living room on the left with a grey couch and a normal-sized TV, slight smell of some kind of pet in the air (I correctly guessed a cat). The carpet was blindingly, almost neon-white. And not a stain on it anywhere. It looked like it had been bleached just before I got there.

We made our way up the stairs and down the hall to his room—the only room with an open door. I could hear the hum of his computer half way there, and it had sounded very powerful.

And powerful it was—it certainly put my machine to shame. He offered the same weak explanation on how he afforded it—something about saved birthday money. I think the whole thing was rehearsed. Anyway, I wasn’t there to talk or stare at his computer.

He started the game up. Then everything was a blur. He showed me a quick run-around of one of the maps. Then another, and another, and another. The graphics were the most realistic I’d ever seen. The animations were as sharp and smooth as tinted glass. The guns sounded like real guns. My mouth must have been open the entire time, because by the time I left my throat was so dry it hurt.

After that, I knew I had to have that game. I needed it. The other guys would talk about it at the lunch table, but I wouldn’t bother. I kept all of my thoughts to myself. See, Counter-Strike was unlike any game that had been crafted before it. It was a shooter, sure, but it required actual skill. The guns wouldn’t always hit the spot where you pointed them, like in all the other games—bullets weren’t perfect. It was incredible. And it wasn’t bogged down by some over-reaching story. This game was all online multiplayer—all you did was kill other players. That meant it was constantly satisfying.

Now, remember how I said it wasn’t a real game yet? Well, that’s being technical. In order to play CS, you needed to have a game called Half-Life, which CS is a modification of. This basically meant that I had two major concerns at that time in my life—getting a half-decent computer and getting Half-Life. CS would naturally follow suit…it was a free download. Free. I couldn’t believe that.

So I worked my ass off all fall raking leaves. I went to every old person in my neighborhood and raked their yards—front and back. In two months I had over 250 bucks. The other guys had moved onto newer game announcements and other “latest and greatest” tech stuff, but I was only concerned with CS.

Once I had my upgraded machine, I knew there was one last thing I had to do before the end of highschool—kill Shaun in the game. So I hunted for him every day. I knew his gaming handle—“FatalDeath”—and the kinds of servers he played in. And one day, I found him. He was leading his team with the highest score in the server, and bragging about it, too. I ran up to him faster than any other players there, jumped, and swung my knife right across his face. His character doubled backwards with a spill of pixilated blood, defeated. Then, seconds after that, he disconnected. I never saw him online again.

I never told him I was the one that killed him. In fact, after that day he never talked about CS anymore, anyway. Then we all graduated, and as far as I know he hasn’t touched the game since. I, on the other hand, never stopped playing.

While everyone was getting summer jobs, I only played CS. I didn’t even bother with Half-Life. That game was like a coffee table—a simple object that’s only purpose was to hold up other, better things. I got accepted into college, but honestly, I couldn’t tell you the name of the place if I wanted to...my parents took care of everything—the payments, the shuttling, the transfers. I know, I know...how could I not know the name of where I went to college? Well, I never said I graduated.

College was just a different place I spent time playing CS. I could get 100 kills without dying. I could jump and snipe at the same time. My abilities were inhuman. I was virtually unbeatable. Somehow, I had gone through one or two girlfriends while at college. I don’t remember their names, either. I don’t even know how I met them—I’d say through CS, but girls are far beyond a needle in a haystack there.

I worked to make sure my aim was perfect—as perfect as could be. I learned the art of pistol swapping, noting the angles and speeds that my primary weapons disappeared off-screen before my Desert Eagle flipped into action. At first the pump shotgun was particularly puzzling—it seemed to deploy from the crotch of my virtual pants. But I eventually learned where its proper, non-use resting place was—just below my crotch. I began to save up empty toilet paper rolls, taping them together and practicing gun swapping with them on my own time in my dorm room. I became very good at this.

Some people online would join clans—organized teams that would “compete” as if the game were a sport. But you see, the game was more than a sport for me. Joining a clan socialized the point of CS, which was beginning to get clearer and clearer to me—to kill. I mean, why would they have bothered to make the game so realistic in the first place? I would often concentrate solely on killing those that were in clans—those whose names had a bracketed acronym of their clan at the beginning. Those people made me sick. Those socializers.

I only played as a terrorist, of course. The game wasn’t designed to have a side of good, or truth, or salvation. The maps were designed for the enemy—for the terrorist. We had the bombs. We had the hostages. Occasionally, the counter-terrorists would helplessly scramble around like ants, futilely protecting some weakling “VIP” who had no more than a pistol to defend himself. The CTs were consistently pathetic. I was always the victor.

I paid more and more attention to everything about the game. When I reloaded the AUG, I watched how my virtual arm swung down, delivering that final, defiant, almost-sideways slap to the side of the weapon, clicking the first round into the chamber. I watched how the knife was held, both before and after version 1.3, and often became lost in the swiping, its lulling shink-shink entrancing me. Begging for replication.

When I wasn’t playing, I found myself comparing everyone to players in the game. I would go to the store for food, and know that every person I passed was a novice. I could easily rip them all to shreds, bullets flying through their lifeless bodies as I loomed over them, jumping and crouching at the same time.

I saved my money until my bank account read a clean $16,000—I’d have made more, but that’s the limit in CS. Don’t ask me what I did, I don’t remember. I don’t think I raked any leaves, though. I know I got fired a lot. Trust me, it took years to get that money. I knew that I had enough for anything at that point. So, I read about the laws. And then, I got a gun permit. Yes, it was that simple. After all, I was above any kind of social life and had no criminal history.

I went to my local gun store, as we all have, because I knew I needed to start with a pistol, armor, and maybe a grenade. Later, I hoped to get a P90. Or a scout, perhaps. Anyway, I knew exactly what I had to ask for.

The store was small, cramped, but fully stocked. The walls were covered with various firearms, and some larger weapons were suspended from the ceiling. A built, stocky man stood behind the glass-case/counter, cleaning the barrel of something very large. I casually walked up and stared at him until he noticed me.

"B-eight-two", I said to the store owner.
"’Scuse me?" he asked. He stood up and crossed his arms.
"B-eight-two," I repeated, then, "B-eight-four."
"The hell are you saying, boy?" he asked me.
"B-eight-two," I said, slowly.
The owner kept his arms crossed and remained silent.
I gave a frustrated sigh. "Alright," I said. "Alright, how about B-three-one. Have any of those?"
He looked at me with an irritated, blank glare.
I hadn't used a graphic buying interface for at least five years, and I knew it'd be tough to properly recall the weapon names. But I tried anyway.
"USP…45?" I asked. I scanned the wall of weapons that hung behind the counter. Nothing looked familiar.
"I don't know what that is," he said. "But unless you're gonna start making some kinda sense soon, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave."
I suddenly remembered something simple and asked, "How about a Glock?"

He stared at me for another beat, then dropped his eyes below the counter and reached down. A few seconds later and I was staring at the terrorist spawning weapon—the Glock 9mm. It was beautiful. So I filled out the paperwork then and there, and after the “allotted waiting period,” had my own spawn weapon, though it had cost considerably more than the normal $200 in-game price mark.

That college I went to, whatever it was, eventually forgot I was there. At least that’s how it felt. I never went to any classes—I don’t even remember enrolling—and no one ever asked me to leave. My parents thought I was just “taking my time,” so they kept paying the bills. After staying there well over six years, I guess I just blended in with the walls. Students came and went, no one paying any attention to me, which was fine—I needed the privacy to practice my out-of-game skills.

The first time I held the gun—really grasped it in my hands—was beyond exhilarating. I knew exactly how to hold it. CS had taught me everything. So, I took the gun, and held it at the absolute bottom-right of my vision, with only the very front of my arms visible. It felt a little awkward at first, but I knew I could get used to it. Sure, my hands were bent at wrong angles, but that was only noticeable outside of my point of view. And my point of view was where all the action and skill came from.

I couldn’t practice shooting it, though. That would have been too loud. I mean, if I was going to fire it, I’d want to shoot an enemy, anyway. I couldn’t be wasting my ammo on nothing—that’s what new players did. You had to play every game as if there was no respawning. So after I practiced my pistol swapping and my gun positions, I knew I needed to get more guns.

Here’s the problem, though: You can’t buy any more guns until after the first round. That’s how CS works. You start with the spawn weapon—the pistol—and then go from there. Sure, I had the money, but I couldn’t break the rules. That’d be like cheating. And I’d be damned if I was going to start cheating. Players got banned for cheating. So I had to start the first round. Thankfully, I was surrounded other players, and because they were all novices, the first round would be over in no time.

I suited up in the best character attire—pale greenish-tan cargo pants, a tan long-sleeved shirt, and reflective sunglasses. Just like CS. I drove to a nearby office complex—the place was exactly like one of my favorite CS maps. My Glock was loaded, I had two extra clips, and my sunglasses reflected the world around me. I was in the zone. I moved my gun up to its perfect viewable position, and the round started.

“Novice” didn’t remotely describe these players. No one had so much as their knife on them, and they didn't even know how to attack. But as soon as I tried to fire, my gun locked up. Nothing happened. Like I said, I didn't think I needed to practice anything like shooting the gun. My mouse clicks were always spot on, after all. In CS the gun just always...did what it was supposed to do. But this gun didn't do anything. Most of the people just stared at me, confused. Finally, I shook the gun enough that I was able to squeeze a round off.

The bullet zinged into the ceiling, sending flecks of plaster realistically floating to the ground. No one was staring anymore. I guess they figured out the gun was real. But when I fired again, my wrists snapped back at an angle I didn't think possible, and pain shot through my arm. No matter, I thought, this is how it was supposed to be held. But every time I fired, the same pain would return.

Workers were screaming and running through the maze of cubicles, supervisors harboring secretaries into meeting rooms and locking the doors. Someone set off the fire alarm. None of my shots were registering.

"Bullshit!" I yelled. I had fired half the clip and not so much as a single bullet had even grazed anyone. I screamed, "R!! Reload!! R!!" shaking the gun in my hands demanding it to reload, but nothing happened. I finally ran out of ammo. I shook the gun until I thought it would fall apart, but no empty clip fell from the damn thing. When I looked up, the place was empty. Everyone had run away. I could hear more counter-terrorists coming.

I eventually shook the Glock enough to get the exhausted clip out, and I jumped when it clanked to the floor—such a thing had never happened in CS. I fumbled for another clip, and slammed it into place, but when the chamber clicked shut, the tip of my finger got caught in it.

“Shit!” I yelled, dropping the gun. I pulled my finger to my mouth, shaking my head and looking down at the gun. After a few seconds I picked it up and re-asserted my gun-holding position. When I looked around again, I saw the first CT. He looked exactly like the ones in CS, right down to his pistol. I could not have been more prepared. I turned and fired, but again, my shot went clear into the ceiling. Then he shot back.

I guess I was hit. I don’t really remember being hit. All I know is that I was outnumbered at the end. The teams were so unfair. I hate servers like that—with no administrator. Things get so out of whack when there’s no admin. Anyway, I’m still waiting to respawn. I guess there were more people on my team when I died. See, you can’t respawn until everyone on a team is killed. I wish I knew who my teammates were—I could have used the backup. But at least when I get back in there, I’ll know where the CTs will come from. And hopefully I can get a better gun. After all that practice, you’d think I’d be better at this game.

I hope you all enjoyed that. Satires are fun.

I certainly hope you enjoyed it more than I enjoyed this, anyway. NIU was/is a tragedy, and should never be belittled and demoralized by the soulless scum of existence that is Jack Thompson. Even FOX News saw his horseshit (to agree with Kotaku)--something that nearly blew my mind. Holding a mouse and keyboard is not the same thing as holding a gun. Pushing buttons is not the same thing as buying one. Shooting polygonal characters that spray pixelated blood is not the same thing as shooting a person. And if you stop taking medication for a serious mental disorder and shoot up a school, maybe the lack of meds had something to do with it a little more than Counter-Strike Half-Life...some kind of awesome hybrid game I have yet to play. Hopefully it comes out soon.

EDIT:

I just..I'm sorry. I have to post this as well. Via Rock, Paper, Shotgun, a transcribing of Jack Thompson's final sentence in that YouTube clip:

"One of the things personally disturbing for me dist, including the fact that we have a community now of survivors and victims’ families all across the country like at Perduco who go through the trauma of these type events with the families who are, uh, most immediately hit in this way most recently because they themselves have endured these type situations is the, um… err, the… uh, fact that, you’ve got, um, uhhh, uh, I wrote a, I’m sorry I lost my train of thought, because, uh, but, uh, I wrote a book called Out Of Harm’s Way for a Chicago publisher in which, the, the only chapter they deleted was a fictionalised of, of one of these incidents in which I I said that a kid should walk onto a stage in an audatorium and open fire with a shotgun and they dist they deleted it because it was too disturbing.”

... ... .. ....::explodes::

It LIVES!!

2008-02-26T23:44:00.008-05:00

My computer has been beyond ill. Since August I've been having problems...first a memory stick, then Vista problems (o rly?), then more memory issues...it all started to amount to something my mind was neither prepared or willing to grasp. Finally, I said (defiantly) "fuck it!" and bought a new motherboard and power supply. Did that fix my misgivings? No. But a simple BIOS update after that did. It's the little things that make up life.

So now I'm typing on a fully functioning, monstrous gaming leviathan. And it feels good. Unfortunately, I couldn't backup my Crysis saved games, so I'll have to play through the first few hours over again (darn?). I see that as half re-reading a bad story, but half re-living the first chilling taste of beer. It's something I'm willing to do.

But it's been a while since I actually wrote anything here, so let me start with something new for me--a review.

I gave Audiosurf another try to win over my $9.95 this weekend, but it just couldn't do anything for me. Let me make something very clear first: I love audio games. Hell, I even have Gitaroo Man and will gladly argue the awesomeness of that game to any opposition (that is, if anyone knows the game so much as to oppose it in the first place). So, when I first heard about Audiosurf last year, I felt a definite flutter in my chest. Here was a game that boasted to be interactive with anything you had to throw at it. Dodging/matching blocks based on music? Puzzle aspect? Yup, it had all of that, too. At that wondrous point in time, Audiosurf seemed to float somewhere between "dream come true" and "perfect."

My excitement mounted as I loaded up the beta, and when I imported up my first song, that excitement was well-founded. I played through The Smashing Pumpkins' "Today". The short opening build before the explosion of music was accentuated tenfold thanks to Audiosurf's killer visual presentation, and the consistency throughout the song made for a truly unique and memorable music experience. My roommate, too, standing behind me couldn't help but utter "cool" at least twice throughout the song.

Audiosurf's basic premise is kind of like Lumines, or the ancient multiplatform classic Klax, but with a fun, fast(er?)-paced presentation (well, depending on the song you choose). The music you pick is transformed into a physical medium as the game creates a literal track for whatever song you decide to play. That track is then given unique characteristics (elevation and falls--think old-fashioned roller-coaster) based on how that music sounds (tempo mostly). Thus, you are surfing your audio. Do you see what they did there?

You "drive" a sort of hover vehicle that's akin to Wipeout's futuristic hover-things. In fact, the actual visual presentation is quite similar overall to Wipeout. It's the gameplay that sets this very, very far apart. As you fly/hover through your audio's track, the game uses your music to create blocks that appear almost as barriers in front of your vehicle. Driving through these blocks absorbs them into a grid under your vehicle, Tetris-style. Matching three or more of the same colored blocks either vertically, horizontally, or a combination of the two causes those blocks to disappear, and awards you with points. Certain colors are worth more points, too--for example, red pieces (that only occur during fast parts of songs) are worth the most.

So, the strategy in this game comes with how you maneuver left and right through your musical track, matching colored pieces and trying not over overload your grid's columns with nonsensical color combinations. It's certainly an interesting and never-before-done concept. But I didn't like it.

Why? Well for two main reasons. First off, this game's ability to be fun is heavily dependent on your personal taste in music. If you don't have a certain kind of song, with a certain kind of music tempo or sound, the track that's generated for you will be annoying and unplayable. For example, I played The Smashing Pumpkins' "1979" and had a terrible experience. Because the song has a low bass line coupled with an articulated drum beat...the drum beat was brought out the most in the gameplay. This meant that the speed that my hover-thing cruised through my track was anything but cruising. Whenever the drum beat peaked, the vehicle would suddenly thrust forward, but them immediately slow down when the drums weren't as prominent. The track was also comprised of a small hill every few "feet" for the same peaking-drum-beat reason, so on top of jerking fast and then slow, I was wavering up and down and up and down like some nightmarish boat ride. Couple all of that bullshit with trying to figure a puzzle aspect into the game, and you have ultimate failure. The game wasn't remotely fun.

So, I went through my collection and played a slew of other songs. Some worked well (Slayer's "Raining Blood"), but most didn't (Pearl Jam's "Even Flow", AC/DC's "Thunderstruck", several Nirvana songs). It seems like this game really doesn't like rock music all too much. At least not the kind with definite drum beats or changes in loudness and softness. For some reason the game seems to think that "loudness' translates to "tempo speed". Just because a song is loud doesn't mean it's faster. But in the game, that's precisely what this means.

But even with the songs that are fun to race through, the puzzle aspect slowly becomes kind of shallow. It's fun to match the colored barriers to the notes and beats of your music, but it's soon tiring to properly formulate a strategy in order to do this. This is especially precedent on the harder difficulties, when you're zipping back and forth trying to concentrate more on the colors than the music that's producing them. Maybe this is just me, but that's annoying as hell. Thankfully, there are several different game modes attached to the various vehicles you can play as, which really pushes the gameplay a lot further. So, for me, the puzzle-ness failed after a while, but for you, it might be a never-ending nirvana. But I doubt it.

And when I played the final, updated final version...the same problems were front and present. Thus, Audiosurf is a great idea and possibly a fun-as-hell game for some people (and at only 10 bucks, you don't have much to lose), but not me. There's a demo out there on Steam--I'd try that first.

I give this game 8/10

There, I wrote a game review. Not bad, eh? I'll try and get better with time.

Till next time.

This is awesome on so many lev... dimensions.

2008-02-19T22:46:00.004-05:00

This is a short post because...it just is. But that video above, whew. It's like someone played Super Paper Mario (great game, by the way) while high on narcotics, said, "Woah, this would be, like, totally, like...awesome if it did every dimension. Woah," and then remembered saying that. AND that person just so happened to know how to make games. I want that game right now.

That's all. I'll post something intelligent sometime soon.

Crack, crack, crack the eggs into the bowl.

2008-02-13T22:44:00.007-05:00

For no reason at all, there's a picture of my eye. I can SEEee you. ooOOoo. Okay.

So Puzzle Quest is superb. I've had it for the XBLA for a while now, but man. I must have wasted hours playing it the other day. Took me back to a dark, swampy period of my life where I played World of Warcraft. ::shudders:: Only with Puzzle Quest I'm not shelling out a small section of my soul every month and wasting those countless hours killing stupid fucking dragon welps. Or wolves. Or yetis. This is a clean feeling. I have to think with Puzzle Quest. I have to pay somewhat actual attention. And when someone sees me playing it, and subsequently asks what I'm doing, I can give them an intelligent, interesting answer. As opposed to "WoW," and then something littered with one-sided terms and references that leaves the other person rolling their eyes and hating themselves for inquiring. Amazing.

I love games like Puzzle Quest. Games that are relatively simplistic in their nature, but offer so much to be loved. Rez HD is like this, and you know how I feel about that. But even not-10/15-dollar-arcade games can pull this off. Unreal Tournament 3 is a good example. I could very well include the entire UT series in that statement, but as all fans of the series know, UT3 is the only one that matters right now, anyway. I only ever played the others off-handedly, so this game is my first "real" (get it?) delve into in the whole UT universe. I'm glad I joined in.

In a world where games (especially FPS games) are demanding realism and complexities as much as possible, it's nice to see something as artistically crafted as UT3 succeed in it's...unreal-ness. I say artistically crafted because, well, the game is gorgeous. I almost feel bad running and gunning through some of the maps in that game. Almost. I'll be honest: my first time playing I died several times while gaping at the details put into a "simple" deathmatch game. The Oriental-style maps (don't ask me to name map names, please) are particularly brilliant.

I think it's tremendously difficult to craft a complex game that works, and when it's done properly it's really something to behold. I think it's more impressive, though, to see a simple, easy-to-play game do just as well. Well, not just as well (they never do just as well), but comparable at the least. Grand achievements often start with very simple ideas. Wolfenstein 3d started with horizontal gameplay that was limited to essentially six buttons and three guns. I remember playing that game when I was seven years old. PaRappa The Rapper was "bad" music timed to four buttons (not bad as in bad--I loved that game.. Kick, punch, it's all in the mind...). I could go on.

I really think that to develop a truly awe-inspiring game you have to start with something very basic. I also think that sticking to that basic formula, whatever it is, is never a stupid move to try out. And as long as good games keep coming, simple or not, I'll be here waiting in wet anticipation (ew?). I'd be an idiot to ignore something because it isn't triple A and over-the-top.

On an unrelated note, Valentine's Day blows. If I see another jewelery store commercial I'm going to find those corny actors and stab them in their lame, fake-kissing eyes. Oh, he went to Jared, did he? Fuck him. I went to Taco Bell.

And don't you feel bad for someone in this? I don't. Awesome.

Sly as a FOX

2008-02-10T20:17:00.000-05:00

Allow me to take a moment here to make a general statement about the news: It sucks. All of it. I say this not because the people that report the news are bad people--one could argue that they're just doing their jobs. That they're paid to sit in front of an audience of cameras and parrot the scrolling teleprompter as best they can. Well, that argument isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the news as a whole...the networks, the presentation, and the assholes that sit behind those big desks and may or may not be wearing pants.

Tonight I sat downstairs and watched a news report on CNN about a Muslim mosque that was burned down and defiled somewhere in Tennessee. Tragic, yes, I know. After the story was done, the anchor did the obligatory "Hmm...that's sad" remark before suddenly brightening up and exclaiming that, "Coming up next is our salute to LOVE! With Valentine's Day right around the corner!" Man, what a killer segue. That's the kind of crap I can't stand, and unfortunately it's always on the news.

Now let's turn to another news saga for a second. I'm not going to dwell here because I don't think I need to, but a short recap: FOX News reported that EA's Mass Effect is basically brimming, nay, overflowing with sex (even wittily titling Microsoft's platform "Sexbox" .. get it!? Like.. sex, in box form!), branding it as some kind of Antichrist of videogames that goes above and beyond all moral realms of thought. Unfortunately, they were wrong, and went so far as to have an "open" discussion, on air, with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. But they didn't want to believe they were wrong, so they did what FOX News does best--snubbed him out of any actual relevant words and overwhelmed him with idiots who were on their side. Brilliant.

Of course, one of the idiots took her words back after actually playing the game. And now there's this stagnant lake of drama between EA and FOX news, one demanding an apology and the other being FOX News, respectively. The whole thing is teeming with unclean feelings, but at least it reinforces my opinion that the news, in general, sucks. FOX News especially, but everyone knows that.

So, put that whole thing aside and make room for this. Oh FOX News, will you ever stop being assholes? Here's another tragic story: Post war vet flips out because he sees something that reminds him of the war. Hm...has that ever happened before? Oh wait, that "something" happens to be a videogame-- Call of Duty 4 (though I'd imagine any wargame could set someone off, and the report isn't specific of which CoD game he was playing). The stupid thing about this story is you know FOX is going to happily blame videogame violence for doing this. "If only games weren't so violent in the first place," I see a reporter saying, "maybe the world would just be a better place."

No, no... less wars in general wouldn't make the world a better place. It's the games. But I'm not going to fully jump to any conclusions about FOX that haven't happened quite yet. If I did, I'd be just like them.

All of this leads me to one single point: mainstream news really, truly blows. It's hard to get facts about anything in general, though. But watching the nightly news in any state can't be good for you. The news starts with death, rape, fire, and war to grab you attention, then keeps it by discussing the local adorable Kindergarten Bakeoff for Kittens. They have uneducated people join their discussion shows to talk about videogames they haven't played. In short: if they have a message they want to report, it overrides what they should report.

And that's never going to change. So long as there are TV ratings up for grabs, they will fight to the bitter end to cause controversy and get viewers. Just look at how many websites have commented on the Mass Effect bullshit, mine included. Sure, it makes a whole ton of people hate FOX, but it still puts FOX in their heads. Maybe some will flip over there while watching TV just to see the next stupid thing they report. FOX doesn't care; a rating is a rating.

This is why I just don't watch the news. I have the internet. Sure, that's tainted, too. The story I linked is from FOX, after all (they've infected the internet!?). But it's better than nothing. If you're smart, you know where to go for news and your options are limitless when compared to local broadcasts. Remember, folks, there was a time that Mortal Kombat was so violent that the news just couldn't stop talking about it. Funny how things change.

Now I think I'll make myself some Hot Coffee and watch The Daily Show...wait, it's Sunday. Fuck.

High Rezolution

2008-02-08T01:15:00.001-05:00

So, I was sitting at my desk this weekend feeding an indispensable and overwhelming boredom by scanning the internet until it, to me, ran dry. So, before Sunday's Superbowl and...other post... I turned to this white, vertical mesh of plastic and metal on my desk called an Xbox 360. Assassin's Creed? I thought. No, not yet. I need to be in a mood to play that. Usually a repetitive mood, but a mood, nonetheless. Mass Effect? No...I haven't started that yet, and I need to finish at least one of the other games I have in progress before I mount that Behemoth. I wanted something short but new, so, thanks to the previously mentioned internet-scouring, I zipped to the XBLA and stared intently at Rez HD.

I grabbed the demo. 5 Minutes after firing that up, I bought the game. It'd be easy to describe the game thusly: You're a guy (girl?) that flies through a world of stuff and shoots at... things. But that wouldn't hardly do the game justice. Go ahead, stare at that screenshot up there and try to figure out what's going on. With the plethora of reviews spread over the internet, there's no reason for me to add to them except to say this: go get the demo, and if it slightly piques your interest, buy it. It's 10 bucks. Don't buy pizza that week if you're on edge. This game will reward you more. And for me to place something above pizza, it must be something special.

I also had a stick of memory die on me over the weekend (hooray for Newegg RMAs), so I'm stuck on 1 gb, and thus, am back on XP (not that there's anything wrong with that--I use Vista for DX10 games only, trust me). But the plus side to loading back to my XP install (I have dual boot) was that I re-noticed a little gem a friend of mine had given me a few weeks back sitting on my desktop--the zip file of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. For most of you, this will be old news, and admittedly, it is for me, too. But for the rest of you...Yes, some wonderful asshole (I use the term loosely) made a game based on that whole thing.

Now, I work at my college's tech department in the faculty service desk fixing (faculty) PC issues, etc. It was here that I decided to play this game for the first time. Over the hour or so I played it pretty much everyone in the vicinity of my desk stopped by to stare at the amazingly "offensive" game. The creator used RPG Maker 2000 to craft the game, but the real effort goes into the pictures and presentation, rather than the gameplay. It's the little things: if one of your characters (Eric or Dylan, the two boys who shot up the school back in '99) equips a copy of Doom, for example, they get benefits to their accuracy. And MIDI renditions of Nirvana, Marlyn Manson, and Radiohead ("Creep") tracks as background music? Too funny.

Unfortunately, once the massacring sets in, the game gets kinda stupid. After all, you have shotguns, pipebombs, knives, semiautomatics, and rifles while everyone else has...nothing (a slight nod to reality). I don't know about later in the game, but I don't have the patience to bare through monotonous gameplay (Undertow), so I stopped after a short while. Regardless, it kept me occupied for a good hour or so, and I laughed in the face of controversy, so, go check it out yourself, if you want to see what I'm talking about. Again, I know that it's old as old can be old, but fuck it. I thought it was cool.

That's all for now. Go try Rez HD. Go. GO.

Why "Clark Gable" ?

2008-02-03T13:02:00.000-05:00

Well, I finally sat down and played Undertow this weekend--that game Microsoft decided to give out for free because of their lousy XBLive service over the holidays. It's a good game in the same way that a Mitsubishi Mirage is a good car. If you didn't have a car, and were given one of those, you'd probably drive it and be accepting, but if you already had something else, you'd probably ignore the gesture. I can see why Microsoft picked Undertow, though...it seems to say "I'm sorry, I guess, so, here, I found this, take it." Gee thanks, Microsoft, how...thoughtful.

Anyway, moving on to something completely different. I don't know if anyone noticed, but my nickname for posting here is "Clark Gable," and I thought to myself after the first post, "Hm, that might confuse some people." I mean, it isn't really reflective of the blog as a whole, doesn't have to do with video games, etc. Well, this past summer I watched Gone With the Wind (all four hours--yes, four hours) of it and after questioning why I had just subjected myself to that, realized that all the parts of the movie that were actually good had Clark Gable on screen (Rhett Butler for you uncultured losers... the guy that says, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."). Considering I had never seen anyone named as such online (though I'm sure someone, somewhere is) I decided to adopt it for myself.

So that's my excuse. I saw something I thought was original, and pushed it upon my video-gaming self. We all tend to do this. Names are very important to our gaming selves. Just ask any WoW player. Even I can admit guilt to taking over half an hour just trying to come up with the "perfect" name for some character.

Game character names are an identifier. They are the easiest, quickest way that the other people you're playing with can get to know you. Think about it...if you're playing a game online, say, a team-based game, and there are two people on your team, one named "Pvt. Parts" and the other named "NickyQ714", who are you going to want to play with again (assuming they have equal skill)? Names tell people something small and infinitely important about yourself. If you name yourself something clever or obscure, then you probably revel in the fact that some person will notice, point out your name's reference, and praise you for it. It makes you feel good.

Most people have no idea who Clark Gable is/was, though. Once, in a session of Call of Duty 4, someone in the server told me, "Clark Gable was a terrible actor." To which I promptly replied, "Well, I'll try to make him a better sniper." The other guy simply said, "Fair enough," and I went on to go 21-5 (hell yeah). Those small interactions are sometimes the only interactions people have in games. I can't tell you how many times while playing Counterstrike someone with a weird name would join the server and a conversation would erupt because of that (hell, I would change my name to "Jeffery the Efeminine Penguin" sometimes).

So the next time you're stuck thinking about naming yourself/character, let me offer some tips:

-Please avoid numbers are the end of your name. Unless you're coming up with your next AIM screen name, it just looks stupid. For example, Clark_Gable344. Gross.
-Stay away from well known stuff. This isn't because it looks like a bad name, but because chances are a lot of people will have something similar, and then you'll get lost in mediocrity. Though most games today don't allow duplicate names, which leads to the number thing. If that's the case, be more creative.
-Don't be afraid of inside jokes. Just because no one else will know what your name means doesn't mean you can't name yourself that. It'll make a nice conversation piece, anyway.
-Chicks need to accept that they are chicks. I don't know if this is as annoying as the number thing, but for some reason most of the girls (not all) I see out there announce their gender within their names. I always see "RockerGrl223" or "CutieSlayer" or, I don't know... "Ig0tT1ts". We get it, you're a girl that plays games. Amazing.
-The letter "X" does not mean you're hardcore. xXxMETALGUNN3RxXx. ..No.

I'm sure there's a bunch more I could come up with, but then I'd start getting really picky (and starting to rant, and I hate rants), and that isn't my goal here. In fact, I wasn't even planning to make that list until just now. Hm. Anyway, the next time you're playing CoD4 and Clark Gable headshots you, you know who did it. And my gamertag for XBLive is Petey Greene. Who? This guy.

Now, I told myself I would finally finish Assassin's Creed this weekend, but I don't think that's going to happen. Stupid Superbowl. Oh well, go Patriots? I guess?

I'm number one.

2008-01-31T01:38:00.000-05:00

Or, rather, this post is. I've never had a blog before. Nor have I ever liked that term... blog. It sounds so.. indigestatory (no, that isn't a word). But that's okay. Hopefully this will turn into something beautiful, or...something. I'd settle for simply "worth passing by." At any rate, I'd like it to be something done well. Well-written, even. But then again, what I may consider to be well-written could be drastically, startlingly different from what you do. And while I'd like to sit here and say something overly humane, like, "and that's okay, we all can have different opinions," I find myself wondering...is that really okay?

Well certainly it is, in a purely classic sense. We're all entitled to our opinions. Writing styles are embraced by some but most certainly not all. Some of us type "you" as a single letter, for example. Then again, some of us play Crysis for the story. Crazy, I know. All of this leaves me to wonder, then...how much does writing really matter? Or, more specifically, how much does our opinion of writing matter?

Running with the Crysis situation, I knew something was awry with that game when I flipped over the box and read "confront an ancient alien terror to save mankind from destruction" as one of the game's three descriptors. That's right, folks...not just an alien terror (no, we've never seen that before), but an ancient one. And this was supposed to be the game that set the next standard for all future FPS's. Is this really what appeals to us? A game, that for months, nay, years, has been acclaimed as a marvel in human technical achievement is marketed on its own box as a total science fiction stereotype. And to make matters worse, the gameplay reflects that very box description. That isn't to say it's not fun. It's tons of fun, and you should all go play it if you can find a computer capable of doing so. But don't expect to be blown in any direction because of the story, something the game definitely lacks.

Bioshock has one of the best stories in games as of late. Granted the ending really sucked a fat one (and if you don't agree with me, you never finished it), but the core plot was solid, presented well, and just plain cool. Thankfully, the game sold marvelously, and not because of its extreme violence, over-the-top-holy-shit-graphics (though they are nice), or "wow that's inventive" gameplay. No, it sold because it had good writing.

Call of Duty 4, despite selling mainly for the multiplayer and being shunned because of its short story, has one of the most engaging single player experiences I've ever had. Anyone who's played that can agree, and though I heard all about the multiplayer extravaganza well before I got the game, I knew from past experience that the guys at Infinity Ward knew how to present fantastic war stories, if not the best ones in gaming--and that's why I wanted it.

So with these (and I'm sure many other) games in mind, think about all the games that are created with absolutely no story at all. Or the ones with plots so bad, so cliché, they you know when you see them on the store shelf, they should never exist. Yet, there they are. And then you notice that said bad game's stack isn't as tall or thick as the one next to it, and the horror sets in--someone actually bought the thing. Stupid grandmothers and clueless parents aside, people still buy those games. How is that possible?

Well, I think it has something to do with flash advertising. Maybe this is why Crysis has what it has on the box. Because the people (no, sorry, Lords) at EA might know how to market stuff. The general population enjoys gimmicks (just look at Wii sales). They enjoy things that seem to be exciting, and they're generally going to make those decisions on 20 words or less. Sure, they could read a three-page review on the intense war experience of Call of Duty 4, or the mind-blowingly creative world of Bioshock, but they would much rather have fast, easy facts. CoD4's box reads, "One of the deepest online shooters of all time" as the only testament to its gameplay at all, for another example. This makes me quite...sad.

Crysis had the ability to trump the videogame world in every possible way--it has amazing gameplay, an immersive world, photo-realitic graphics, etc. But it has no story. Elite military group? Been there. Evil country/corporation that's found an (evil) power it can't possibly know how to contain? Seen it many times. And a superhuman main character? Not even going to go there. Granted, those staples can definitely be used well, but in a game like Crysis I find myself saying "oh come on" entirely too much.

All of this leaves room for improvement, though. Someone will make a Crysis that has a rich, wonderful story that pulls gamers to their knees and changes lives. Well maybe not that, but it'll be a lot better than what's there now (Bioshock included). And maybe on that game's box the back will be void of all stupid descriptions and simply read "buy this game." Wouldn't that be cool? I can dream.

Writing matters, then. Obviously. But I don't think it matters enough. It's good to know that games can still sell because of their great story-content. And yeah, there are games that have come close to being downright perfect (Half-Life 2). But when you have every aspect of your game down (graphics, style, gameplay), and you know that's all going to be accepted as fantastic, how can you, as a game company, afford to botch the story? Why would you want to do that? Or, conversely, if you have a perfect story, why would you surround it with shoddy game dynamics? The world may never know. Money might have something to do with it. Or time. Or both (gasp). Keep an eye out for that perfect game, though.

Hopefully my writing here will be well done, and not just in a flashy, neon sign kind of way. I'd like you all to stick with me because I'm interesting and thoughtful, just like the games you play should be. But if you aren't that kind of person: "This will be the internet's RIDE OF THE CENTURY!" - Maxim. (kidding).