It’s easy to roll one’s eyes at the seemingly Tolkien-esque trappings of Fable II. Another high-fantasy RPG? Well yes and no. Fable II was one of the first times I understood the appeal of steampunk; the game’s not completely without the staple swords, mages, and trolls, but the game has some fantastically designed early modern cities that had me wishing for a time machine. The city life mainly resolves around Bowerstone, a port-town with the entire range of shops (clothes, weapons, food, furniture,etc.), a buzzing population that loves to follow you around (if you’re good to them that is), a job site or two, and all sorts of nooks and crannies to poke around in. Cellars, the old town, a blooming pub, and houses of all sizes and shapes. There’s something inherently cozy about Bowerstone, -and with that the couple of other towns in Fable II- that’s hard not to like.

The attitude Lionhead took towards the city can be seen throughout the entire game. The world isn’t designed to be entirely functional or utilitarian, yet at the same time the game doesn’t steer towards the kitchen sink attitude either. It’s this sort of attitude that really showed how focused on adventure the game was. Within seconds of leaving your initial camp, you’re in a wide-open space where you could start wandering around the forest for treasure, bad guys, or just for unknown places. There’s plenty of times throughout where you’ll be trekking amongst farspread plains or valleys, all places that don’t really need to be there. But they’re there to make the world feel real, and that is an aspiration that most RPGs have trouble touching. A more linear player could go from each story mission nearly one after the other, although there’d be a lot of great moments to miss along the way if one took such an approach. Even going along the same roads with my newly upgraded treasure hunter, the dog Mars, was an enjoyable experience because he’d always manage to find new places to dig or treasures that had been cleverly hidden away. I didn’t have to make the world seem interesting, the opportunities were all around me.

To push the feel of the adventure more, the game does not contain an obsessively designed battle system nor intricate dungeons. The battling, a combination between standard melee fighter, ranger-style shooting, and slow but strong mage, is fun as a whole and fantastic when it wants to shine, but rightly does not take away the focus from the rest of the game. I would recommend that any player mix all the main combat styles together, it creates a lot of potential outcomes when done correctly. For the majority of the game I’d been neglecting the shooting style since it lacked the powerful response of the melee-geared style. But when I threw some points in towards the end, I was amazed to find that I could decapitate and destroy some enemies with a shot or two.

What is amazing about the action and questing is how nicely it is rolled into the overall adventure. I never felt like I was going back and forth between dungeon-crawling and town work. The few dungeons were rather small, and in general most of the action took place right out in the fields and forests. It felt closer to a real hero’s story than the through-the-motions approach other RPGs take. It’s common to find games that have a desert dungeon, water dungeon, foresty dungeon, etc., an approach to give each new one a sense of freshness. But this tactic has been so overused in gaming that it’s become a tired method of design. In Fable II, I never wanted to be too far from the towns or from my job at the blacksmith as usually that’s where I wanted to end my adventure for the day anyway. Back in town, I’d spend time buying up the local properties, walking around looking for new things to do, and every so often stopping to watch as one of the townspeople stopped to play with my dog. It was as much of a home to me as it was to each of its fictitious citizens.

Most games are so intent on shoving a new experience to the player at every corner that they forget to create a place in that experience where the user can relax in or to get their mind off the end-of-the-world. Fable II has that, and overall is designed with such a sweet and lightheartedness to it. One of my favorite moments came near the end, when upon winning some pirate’s treasure, the game showed me the new spoils I’d won, with some text that commented whether the treasure might be cursed. The sentence right after said: “Don’t worry it’s not.” For gamers who are wondering whether Fable II is like every other RPG, don’t worry, it’s not.

This approach is relieving at first; I’ve gotten through most of the human campaign with one control group more or less. In WarCraft II or StarCraft, one control group would rarely make a dent in the enemy’s base, but this game barely allows for more due to the unit cap. Also individual units seem to be more powerful; a force of footmen and rifleman is formidable, whereas in Blizzard’s prior RTSes, a player wouldn’t typically touch the footmen/archer combo once midgame was reached. (response continues after the jump)These choices have an effective impact, although I question the kitchen-sink approach that Blizzard seems to have taken with the units and abilities. The human race has (not including the heroes building) at least 4 attack/support unit producing buildings. From what I can remember, WCII used roughly the same amount of buildings, but most races in SC only really used about 3 buildings for units more or less. And since heroes are so important to multiplayer, you’re now at 5 buildings. Why the step back? With every individual building, it becomes harder to focus on what units to make and really removes power from those higher-end units since they take so long to get to.  I’ve never actually produced a knight, and its mainly because I don’t want to upgrade to a damn castle just to get one. The abilities individual units now have also come off as a bit overwhelming. When I’m trying to control my hero and his spells during a battle, do I really want to switch over to my footmen to put on defend? I’m guessing experienced players are able to manage this more effectively, but it just seems strange that Blizzard attempted to make the game more accessible by bringing back the reigns and then threw in all these abilities that new player don’t know what to do with. This is one of those areas with a fine line; adding too much abilities will really only aid the expert player in the end and be a complete loss to new players.

I have been enjoying the actual campaign structure for the most part though. At first many missions seem to be SC retreads, say for instance the “last 30 minutes” mission, but the game throws in a clever twist to make it more interesting. There’s also plenty of missions where a player must split their attention. One mission involves stopping a slowly approaching caravan near the top of the map, all the while defending the base and preparing for a full offense. Some missions  act as a combination between the labyrinth-style stages of SC and the familiar base v. base ones. It’s an enjoyable style of play as I actually feel like I’m using more strategy and care since it automatically demands more attention from the player. In SC, I often felt like I lost because I needed more units or was making the wrong ones which could often lead to hours of play having gone completely to waste as the map inevitably becomes unwinnable. I don’t foresee that happening in WCIII though.

I’m most glad that WCIII feels substantially different from SC; future games will surely distance the two franchises more and more.  Hopefully Blizzard has learned from the achievements of each style, as there are a few things one could take from the other.

(rest of my reflections after the cut)

Like other open-world games, AC hopes that the player will get invested in the world that’s been created for them, but it differs in that there is a feeling that the player is a part of something rather than having just checked in for an hour (which is the case for most of ‘em). It’s a calm world, with few cheap thrills or changes in the action. As such, the game expects a leisurely pace from the player, being that there’s long gaps between the more exciting assassination attempts. Lengthy dialogues are used to help fill in the gaps, which comes off as an annoyance at first, but end up doing a great job later in giving flesh to the world and story. They’re all voiced well and the player has some freedom to move around and switch camera angles during dialogues which makes the cutscenes more real and tangible (a feature like this seems like it should become a staple in all games). Clearly a lot of time went into thinking up these dialogues, they do a fantastic job of bringing the player to Altair’s world.

Taking a look around

It’s certain that every player is going to feel turned-off from the game’s repetitive nature at some point. For me it was around my 3rd assassination attempt, but with a little more time, it ended up turning towards the other direction and I became legitimately interested in what was still to come. Assassin’s Creed does things in a different way from the start and now having finished it, the experience felt unique, something I could not have had in any other game.  I’d say it’s in large part due to the hero, Altair, and his role in the greater world. You start the game knowing you’re tasked with killing 9 men as an agent of an assassin’s guild, and there’s no kings or gods within those 9. It’s this task along with Altair’s skill set that makes him interesting. He doesn’t have superhuman abilties (ridiculous climbing skills aside), does his killing with relatively simple means, and doesn’t know all the answers as to why he’s been given this task. He’s at times curious, 0ccasionally rude,  but also respectful, a strong protagonist till the end. The world around him reinforces that humanity, many of his targets are “ordinary men.” Doctors, merchants, people you would not assume to be automatically evil (and the game will have you wondering about this question). And then there’s “the crowd” who Altair walks through as a nobody, a stranger; he looks on as a part of the crowd, not the center of it. Although he is able to take advantage of this seeming invisibility to get around, it ultimately helps remind the player that this world is much bigger than Altair and all his rumblings won’t stop it from running.

The actual play style of Assassin’s Creed has a very scaled back feel to it as well. The missions (2-3 are required before each assassination) consist of things like pickpocketing, eavesdropping, assassinating certain guards among the marketplace, etc. They rarely take longer than 2-3 minutes and they’re never going to blow you away from a gameplay perspective. And then the rest of the time in the city is spent running around rooftops, scaling viewpoints for finding those missions (fun in a Crackdown agility orb sort of way), and stealthily assassinating guards either on the rooftops or down in the marketplace below. It’s rarely thrilling, but it magnifies the intensity of taking out your main targets. Even when the assassinations come out sloppy, they’re still genuinely fun and exciting throughout the entire game.

The city functions both high and low

While Altair is the star of the package, the world design gives it that extra shine that really makes this game standout. It still looks fantastic 2 years later, the cities bear incredible details (the devs. also did a good job making it very easy to stay on rooftops if the player wished by leaving plenty of platforms to get around on), charm with their colors, and the great ambient soundtrack by Jesper Kyd really strengthens the mood and sense of place. And the value of having the Crusades as a backdrop cannot be underestimated as a good deal of the plot revolves around its participants and what role the creed itself may play between the two sides.

Finally it’d be a mistake to not mention Desmond’s aspect of the story which occur between the larger chapters of the main game. Desmond is Altair’s distant descendant who is being used to bring out the memories in Altair’s mind. These portions are provided solely for plot purposes and although the connection between Altair and Desmond seems initially forced, the game does a good job connecting the two plots by the end. Still, with the next game, hopefully Ubi Montreal does a better job with these specific portions to give them more weight.

I can’t help but feel that I should be mentioning more of the issues with the title, but those aren’t the aspects I’m remembering now, rather it was the unique experience it provided. A setting that’s barely been touched in gaming, along with a plot that has intriguing social and political arguments attached to it.  Altogether, it was enjoyable functioning within Altair’s body and mind as the gameplay and plot both helped realize each other. You’re not just playing an assassin, you’re a man living in the time of the crusades who faces the same uncertain future as the rest of the people around him. How often can you say that about a game these days?

PS. If you’re going to play this game, I’d recommend using your non-primary controller. The game really does a number on the left analog stick (since it’s being held down for the majority of the time).

This discovery came when I stumbled upon Mozilla Firefox, which if my memory serves me correctly, was around version .8 at the time I first started using it. I was amazed by this new sensation of “tabbed browsing” along with promises of better security, pop-up blocking, mouse gestures, and a seeming limitless amount of functionality that IE couldn’t even touch. I quickly fell in love with the program, its open-source roots made it quite the rebel back in the day and it was endearing to many a tech-geek with its campaign to “Retake the web.” At one point, I even considered buying a promotional t-shirt, but upon actually seeing someone with said shirt, I realized that browser campaigns were perhaps best left for the internet. In general, the Firefox team could do no wrong at the time. 

This love affair with Firefox went on for many years, but slowly Firefox began to lose that pep and freshness that initially drew me in. It didn’t help that I’d occasionally check my memory usage to see 200,000 kb, 300,000, kb, even 500,000 KB occasionally, often without good reason. The problem with Firefox was that it had became closer and closer to that “MonSter” that it longed to defeat and eventually I started to ‘lose the faith’. Firefox had become the standard in web browsing in my eyes, but along the way, it had also become bloated and complacent.

A secret link in Netscape/Firefox releases detailing the campaign against "Mammon". Go to about:mozilla in Firefox to see it for yourself.

Like many others in my situation, I chose the “natural progression” and switched over to Opera. I had tried using Opera in the past but there were quite a few irritating transitional steps that I’d have to take and at the time I couldn’t stomach it. Now on my second try, I’ve been better and I can see why many power-users favor Opera. Firefox may be the most customizable browser on the market, in good part due to its respectable userbase, but that potential had come at the cost of the base-browsing experience.  I chose Opera for its robustness, speed, and dependency and yes, it’s no exaggeration to say that many of the functions that are popular through Firefox add-ons are built-in to Opera (that Quicktime and Flash support seem built-in is a major plus). It doesn’t have that fiery, upstart attitude of the Mozilla guys, but after having been burned repeatedly, I think I can live without that.

Nevertheless, this whole process has made me realize that no browser will ever be perfect. Opera renders some sites awkwardly (including my own blog), it’s not fully supported by gmail, Facebook runs like garbage, etc., but I could probably think up a list that’d make anyone wonder why I switched in the first place. I think the silliest thing is that some of its nuances seem there only to give the browser a sense of uniqueness. The “Personal Bar”, its closest equivalent to a Links bar, is flat-out clumsy and hard to work with even though such a feature should be an afterthought by now. And then there’s Widgets, which I assume are safer than Firefox add-ons since they’re less involved with the core code, but most of them are completely useless wastes of time, see for yourself. Even after searching Google for “useful Opera widgets,” I could only roll my eyes at the results.

There was an article on maximumpc some weeks back that compared 9 browsers (some were beta versions) and it was clear from the article that no browser was clearly ahead of the others. In fact, the writer seemed delighted in such a heated, modern-day “browser war” (much like the days of IE vs. Netscape) as it showed competition to be fiercer than ever. I’d agree that competition is fantastic for such an integral aspect of computing, but I would want to see more acknowledgement from devs. of their competitor’s successes, even if it meant “stealing” functionality. Too often it seems like one group goes out of their way to do things differently, just to claim uniqueness. In reality, they’re only fooling themselves (‘sup Personal Bar). And when Opera isn’t even making the effort to increase compatibility with Facebook, you have to wonder whether they’re really thinking about their users or their own egos.

I’m going to keep using Opera for the time being, even if it means having to use Google Chrome for gmail and Facebook. This whole process has made me surer than ever that no piece of software is ever going to be perfect, and too often will the user have to make up for what’s lost rather than the other way around. But on the other hand, I wanted robustness and dependency, and for the most part, I’ve gotten that in spades. It’s as if Firefox is the hormonal teen trying to please everybody and do everything without realizing what it wants for itself, and Opera is the cool, focused 20-something who is moving forward in their life rather than around and around. I helped them “take back the web”, but now they’ll have to win me back as well.

This is not to say it’s a perfect machine. But Microsoft still has room to grow, and as someone who would call themselves a fan of the company’s general console direction, I’d love to see their next console not only duplicate the multiple successes of the 360 but iterate on its success as much as possible.

The following article is a general bullet-point esque argument on what I’d like to see the next hardware shape up to be. More after the jump.

Hardware
Going from the ugly, behemoth-esque Xbox 1 to the modern, inoffensive 360 was a major step for Microsoft. Aesthetically, it was designed well enough. There’s been more than a few problems under the hood though which MS needs to put more time into the next go around. No more rocket-fans, overheating issues, and some standardization of the quality of the different DVD drives would be nice. Also give the user more options in terms of peripherals. There have really been only two major controller options as of now, the MS route and Mad Catz recent Fightpad. Retro gamers with a 360 had little choice but to use that terrible 360 d-pad, they need to have their own classic controller out at launch next time, it’s not like they’re going to drop the Arcade aspect anytime soon. MS has also monopolized the accessory market for the console and run everything with an iron fist. Using a wireless router would still cost you $100 bucks if going with the “proper” product and that is inexcusable at this point.

Blu-Ray
MS has done nearly everything possible to keep Blu-Ray from building an audience, but sticking with DVD again would be incredibly stubborn. Any issues with slow read speed and overall cost will likely be a non-issue by the next console cycle. And with games only going to get bigger and more graphically-intensive, devs are going to want more space to access w/o having to go multi-disc. It’ll hinder their blooming Video Marketplace, but it’ll also prevent Sony from using that big bullet point again.

Live
Not much to say here but MS should be getting the subscription price as low as possible at this point. A $20-$30 yearly subscription rate would be much easier to swallow. Aren’t they making enough on licensing costs from the ridiculous amount of DLC available?

Japan
Going based on numbers alone, the 360 hasn’t been that much bigger a success in Japan than the original Xbox (it doubled the Lifetime-to-date but these are still sub-1 mil. numbers). However the big success here was gaining the support of many small Japanese developers who give a console much of that rich, but niche (wow what  a rhyme there) support that people rarely take into account. I’m not even talking jRPGs but the 360 has seen a good deal of shmups, action games, anime-licensed titles, fighting games, etc. The original Xbox was great for Western titles but had little in the way of Eastern support. If they can keep pushing on this front, that’ll do a lot to keep the fans they won over this generation. They’d also be smart to build their relationships with the bigger Japanese developers like Capcom, Namco, Konami, etc. who carry a lot of weight with the hardcore audience.

Forget 1st-party, work on the 2nd party
Aside from Halo 3, have any 1st party titles been that significant for MS this generation? Nothing comes to mind and yes I remembered Rare. However they’ve had a great deal of success with their 2nd party titles. Gears, Mass Effect, Fable, exclusives that gamers associate with the 360. Microsoft doesn’t seem to have the in-house resources to put out a barrage of great titles, but we all know they have the money to get those nice exclusivity contracts to build the Microsoft Game Studios repertoire.

Low Pricepoint
$400 should be TOPS for console launches next generation and I’d naturally prefer MS go back to a $300 entry price (although with the rate of inflation, this is probably impossible). It’s definitely made a difference for Nintendo to have launched significantly lower and considering gaming is rapidly advancing towards that graphical ceiling, they’d be smart to cut-back on going power hungry and go with modest gains for more immediate advantages. Lower price, less adjustment time for developers. Give the developers better tools to work with instead; the 360 being easier to program for in comparison to the PS3 has done a lot to maintain them as a powerhouse. At this stage of the game, it’s really up to the developers to use as much power as they want. Give ‘em a gold mine to work with, some devs. will crank out a lump of coal instead. What’s the point of all that power if no one is using it? [I'm saying here I'd like to see a more powerful console the next time around but really that competition hasn't helped anyone to "win" in a long long time. With diminishing returns, they should only push it as far as developers can reasonably use].

FLEXIBILITY
Flexibility is not a feature you just slap on the box, it’s a multi-pronged plan and MS seems the most resistant to letting the user make the box want they want it to be. Give the gamer more controller options, HDD flexibility like Sony does, more choices in interface, and what’s the point of sharing videos across a network if half of it doesn’t play? Also let’s see some more price ranges here. All I’m seeing at retail is 60, 40, and 30. Where’s the other half-dozen other pricepoints? Console makers are growing increasingly more insignificant in the console making process (unless you’re Nintendo that is who turned a vision into a money-maker) and these companies need to acknowledge that so gamers can use these consoles however they see fit. Much of Sony’s failings this generation were due to a few albeit significant, shortsighted decisions that appealed to a very select few (although ironically they tend to offer more choices than MS ever does) and they’ve suffered tremendously for that.

———————————————————————–
There’s many questions surrounding the next console cycle that few, if anyone could really answer at this point. Who will start it off and when? To what extent will Sony and MS try to duplicate Nintendo’s “casual” success? Who’ll go batshit crazy with their direction this time around?Will we see 360 Mark IIs and PS3 Mark IIs just as people ridicule the current GameCube Mark II?

With all these questions in the air, I’m only commenting on what I personally assume will positively strengthen MS’ brand in the future. They’ve managed to make themselves a strong force in gaming in less than a decade and have shown potential as a leader for the “hardcore” side of things. There’s still room to grow however and MS has a lot of tough choices to make. They can certainly continue on their current path and still see moderate success but they have the potential to be a market leader if they handle things the right way.

Although it may easily fit into the third-person shooter genre, neither Lost Planet nor Dead Rising are run-of-the-mill titles, much in part to their controls. Capcom has a long and, almost proud history of doing things differently and both titles continue that tradition. And while I’d say DR’s controls were less conventional, LP is the one that has gotten more flack. The game has been called stiff, slow, repetitive, janky, and all the other comments you’ll inevitably hear about titles with unconventional controls. And honestly, Lost Planet is kind of stiff, and slow, and maybe even a little janky, but it fits in with an incredibly well-done experience that makes it more than just another action game. Lost Planet isn’t about making a spectacle on the battlefield with precisely executed combos, last-second dodges, or timed hits; it’s about holding your own against dominating opponents via your ability to outmuscle, outmanuever, and outlive them.

Level design has long been one of Capcom’s strong suits, and not only does Lost Planet reaffirm this, but shows how there’s still much room for experimentation in that regard. The game often plays around with conventional pacing, so while you might go in expecting a slow crescendo as the level goes on, sometimes the biggest obstacle is often at the very beginning of the map. One of the earliest levels plants a giant, underground worm right outside your base that haunts you until you get to your destination, and getting by is far from easy. And once you’re out of that mine field, the boss of the map is the only thing left for you to complete in the mission. It’s this kind of approach that has the player walking on glass since you never quite know what could pop out of the ground at any moment. Are there more conventionally paced levels in the game? Most definitely, but the player doesn’t have the option of lazing around between the various encounters due to the game’s T-Eng meter (essentially an extendable clock, that will occasionally run out if you’re not mindful of it). The game constantly has you on the move, so it makes those difficult encounters even more intense, forcing you to choose whether you should fight (and perhaps get some more T-Eng) or run, and in this game, running is not necessarily for the weak of heart. Later on in the game, there’s another level that places 3 massive mechs right at the starting point that you must defeat. They’re also on the move forcing you to chase them down, but the only way to win is to get your own mechs and beat them despite their sheer numbers. This level is one of many sandbox-style encounters where the game puts a lot of tools at your disposal, but it’s up to the player to decide how they want to go about it. Come on strong in the beginning, wait for an open space, or wait and gather up the best weapons for your mech? It’s never as simple as run-in and shoot.

All the action in the game exists in a sort of audio/visual sphere coated with testosterone. My audio setup is more than capable of delivering big and loud, but LP is one of the few times where I felt it made a difference. There’s tons of explosions in the game that had my subwoofer sweating and it added a lot to the fights, made me aware that I wasn’t an invincible force (since most of the time, those explosions were from my mech being devastated by my opponents). And despite being 2 years old now, the game is still stellar graphically: great motion blur, fantastically  detailed architecture, and ever an impressive scope. All the explosions lead to massive amounts of smoke as well, which sometimes completely obscures your vision and forcing you to keep on the move should another rocket come rushing through the gray. It’s not there just to be pretty eye candy. There’s also an impressive amount of destructible objects, which can be valuable cover while at the same time putting you in risk of an explosive blast. The levels tend to be large and open in size, you know it’s never going to be easy as a result.

The most captivating part of Lost Planet for me though was the boss battles (and it feels strange saying that now in 2009), for the first time in years I felt really impressed about what could be done with a boss battle. Whether it was against an Akrid (the large, orange bugs) or a giant mech, each battle was intense and over-the-top. This is in part due to the amazing sense of inertia in the game. Lots of gamers complain that player characters are often too godlike and more powerful than the opposition. And while Wayne (the main character) is capable of taking hits, he’s no god. Many attacks will force him to stumble, be it on foot or in a mech, and he’s not fast to recover so you’re forced to think defensively rather than risk getting knocked down again. It often feels like battles are as much a battle against the gravity of the situation as it is a battle against whatever boss happens to be there. Since the bosses also don’t go down quickly, you’re going to have to load bullets into them and outmuscle them in the long run. Every boss battle is mech based, and unlike Wayne, the mechs have an inevitable death if they take too many hits. This doesn’t mean game over, Wayne can still run over to another mech (and aside from one boss battle, there’s always more than one mech on the battlefield to use) but he absolutely cannot win on foot since he can’t do much but chip at their lifebar, it ends up being a dangerous scramble to find your next potential powerhouse which hopefully has some good armaments attached to it. If it doesn’t, you can switch the arms out for different weapons that are lying around, but again, the boss isn’t waiting around for this all to happen. Most of the enemeies tend to be faster, bulkier, and packing plenty of power, so that feeling of comparative weakness really gives the bosses a different feel than you might find in other games. Wayne is the hero, but in the end, he’s just another snow pirate fighting it out. Ironically the star boss IMO comes roughly halfway through the game and it’s definitely not an easy fight. The boss can chain hits against you, meaning you might not be able to move for a few seconds sometimes, and will never relent in its attacks. With limited life on your mech, the T-Eng meter slowly winding down, guns that are certain to run out (whether it be what’s in your clip or in the entire magazine), and of course a boss constantly on the assault, you’re going to be balancing multiple dangers at once while trying to survive the fight. That is really the key to what makes the boss battles different. The first thing in your head isn’t how to destroy your opponent, it’s more “how can i survive this?”

I’m not going to go and tell you that Lost Planet feels completely fresh, or amazingly original. It’s still a TPS at its core (although don’t be fooled by the demo, it’s much more mech than on-foot), but it’s an amazingly good one at that. I never imagined I’d be a fan of mech fighting, but the mech fighting in this game isn’t just standing in one spot and shooting, it’s a constant rush of guns and rockets, while constantly keeping on the move. Unfortunately the story is not even laughably bad, it’s just plain bad and full of holes. And the multiplayer may be a good product at it’s core but I had a ton of connection issues and the multi is packed with high-level players who know all to well how to ruin the experience for the new players. For the single-player experience though, I couldn’t have gotten more for my money.

9/10

——————————————————————————————–
It’s no surprise that of the recently announced Dead Rising 2 and Lost Planet 2, Dead Rising has garnered a lot more fanfare. But with Lost Planet 2 introducing 4-player co-op (and the game is definitely a natural fit for multi due to the multitude of enemies), more environments and bigger bosses, I think it’ll be fantastic. Who knows, maybe they can even make the story interesting this time?

The last time I really had any sort of love affair with a computer was with my Linux tryst back in 2005 or so. It was exciting and heated, getting to learn all these new things, but then having to learn how to get the CD drive to play an audio CD wasn’t quite what I’d call “passion.” This is not to say that computers today have stagnated in terms of innovation, some tech. followers might say they’re trying too many things at once. I think a lot of it comes down to how thoroughly integrated PCs have become in our lives to the point where we have set expectations of the experience and anything that shakes that up is just a nuisance (and as a result you see a lot of arguments over what changes are warranted versus what is not, like with the overhaul that resulted in Office 2007). I find that it’s important to follow through with the gradual changes in technology but wow does it feel like a frustrating grind sometimes (I’d love to see how all those Facebook 2.0 haters would react if they suddenly had to revert to the old layout again)?

I want to touch you.

I’d love to experience that childish excitement that I’d had as a kid where everything felt fresh and in need of exploration, but these days it’s certainly more comfortable to play it conservatively rather than play around with all the stuff that pops up. It almost makes me wonder why I even want a new PC when much of that functionality I want listed above are things that can still be worked around. Am I just trying to be a good consumer, or perhaps a spoiled and needy gamer? If I’m going to do things mostly the same (maybe I’d throw Vista on there, that’d be the biggest difference), what’s really the point? It’s sad to say, but so much of is due to convenience. I would certainly like to do away with the stuttery scrollbars I experience when using Steam or the Zune software. And then why did they invent USB 2.0 when 1.1 would eventually get the job done? Well I guess watching a transfer with a USB 1.1 device is about as  fun as watching your dog dry after he’s been out in the rain. Plenty of people have no idea what’s so damn special about a dual-core machine aside from perhaps knowing it’s more powerful. Hell I barely know much about how they work aside from being stronger multi-taskers, I guess all I need to know is what everyone else knows, it’ll get shit done faster. How much is all that extra power worth when most people don’t even realize it’s there?

Is it wrong that even with this realization (not to mention that I’d probably do things by the books with a new PC), I’d still love to have a new machine in front of me? Well no, not wrong but certainly inefficient. Newer PCs will be more efficient when handled properly, although how much more inefficient can you be than throwing aside your old junker and letting it gather dust in the attic? There unfortunately is no higher ground here in my mind. Either way, I’m being wasteful and paying the price in some way (by sticking with the junker, I’m unable to keep up with technology and it doesn’t get things done the way I’d like it to. And then by buying a new PC, I’m spending more for “virtual” gains while letting a “just fine” machine go to waste). I’m going to take a chance and say that no computer engineers did a side-focus on Ethics when they were getting their degrees.

Oh screw that, I want a new PC already.

For this game to overwhelmingly succeed would be a great sign of life for the fighter genre, a genre that’s been struggling for many years. Even moreso, the game is a 2D fighter, the likes of which been in even worse shape over the past few years as the stronger pedigrees these days tend to be 3D franchises (Soulcalibur, Tekken, Virtua Fighter).  Is it traditional 2D i.e. hand-drawn sprites? Not quite, but the remnants of that style remain in the game’s play-control. I haven’t played the game yet myself, although I’m eagerly anticipating the first chance I get. I unfortunately won’t be buying it any time soon (out of respect to my bank account), but I imagine the online scene will manage to sustain itself for some time.

I’ve been a supporter of the majority of the decisions Capcom made with this new Street Fighter, and I feel that they may be the developer who can give the fighting games a second wind if the game succeeds enough. The most important step they made was the 3D-over-2D engine. It does alter the general feel a little, but with a fantastic trade-off. The 3D engine allows the game a more modular structure that’ll allow it to be much more easily upgraded over the next few years. King of Fighters XII, still rooted in sprite-work however, will likely struggle with the same issues of cost and time that it has struggled with for years in iterating the franchise. People joke about the Morrigan sprite from 1995, but there’s a reason for that, and Capcom made an effective and smart business choice by going with this 3D engine instead. In addition I feel they were smart to bring the game back a little from the greater complexity of Street Fighter III. I like that series from the limited time I shared with it, but it was never as approachable as the flagship Street Fighter II series. I don’t know if I’d have as much interest in playing something like Street Fighter II HD Remix now as it feels a bit bare in terms of fighting systems, but Street Fighter IV may play the perfect medium between the two. I do feel for SFIII fans who were annoyed at the complete lack of III characters in IV, it’s unfortunately just another business choice they made considering how many people were turned off by the almost completely new cast of III. I don’t think the original World Warriors are as iconic as Capcom wants you to think, but they’ve all etched themselves into the memories of everyone who grew up playing this franchise. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of direction Capcom takes with the inevitable introduction of other characters (aside from the 12 original characters and 4 new ones, the rest have been a mix of Alpha and New Challengers for the most part).

From what I’ve seen, the only blatantly disappointing aspects of the game lie with Capcom’s lack of dedication towards single-player modes. There is no dedicated single-player mode ala Weapon Master (from SCII) or the World Tour mode from Capcom’s own SF Alpha 3. Just straight up arcade, which is also the only way to unlock characters from what I’ve heard (this rings too familiar of playing through MvsC2′s Arcade mode again and again and again as it was the only realistic way of unlocking characters). In fact I just finished unlocking the last 3 characters in my save file the other day, after 7 years. Unlocking won’t be anywhere near that bad in SF IV, but Capcom should make it more flexible. Finally there’s no create-a-character mode despite that mode’s growing popularity in fighters. Can’t say I was expecting it, but it would’ve been a nice addition. For Capcom to add in more single-player functionality as DLC would be a little useless, considering most of these modes are there mostly to gain familiarity, but if they do make other versions (Champ, Hyper, etc.) for retail in the future, they should really keep these kinds of additions in mind.

It’s going to be interesting to watch how IV fares up in the long run compared to III. With this game, it feels like Capcom is once-again placing Street Fighter as a brand and they’ve given it a pretty decent marketing campaign. The Collector’s Edition comes with a new anime movie, UDON is doing a 4-issue length comic sub-series based on the new characters, and Capcom is doing the most work it’s done in a while to give the game it’s own visual feel (with the ink splotches that are added in battle for aesthetic affect, accompanying cutscenes for the arcade mode, the previously mentioned 3D engine, fancy super and ultra combos, etc.) In contrast, Street Fighter III wasn’t marketed well and not easily available to the average gamer. All three versions were ported to the Dreamcast, but the only other way to play the games were on the Street Fighter Anniversary Collection for PS2 and Xbox. Even there, III wasn’t the main feature (Third Strike was put in to complement the SFII Hyper Fighting portion). It was also in arcades, but by the late 90s, arcades were already long in the tooth. In contrast most every other Street Fighter affiliated franchise was all over the place:  SFII was ported to just about everything, Alpha saw games on Saturn, PS1, DC, and even GBA, and the Marvel vs. Capcom series was similarly treated. To be fair, III has long-earned itself a special place in the underground fighting game scene, but Capcom never quite gave it a chance to be a mainstream success. It’s pretty clear they’ve learned from their mistakes with their positioning of IV, most telling is the port to the HD-consoles just a few months after the arcade release (and with a few additions to boot).  Hopefully it works out well for them.

I’ll bookend this with an excerpt from James Mielke’s review over at 1up. As you can see, he’s more than faithful in what this new entry could do for the franchise:

In my opinion Capcom and DIMPS have done an amazing job with Street Fighter 4. It’s obvious from front to back that the people working on this game knew the legacy they were contending with, and found the guts to finish this project with conviction. This is no mere copycat; this is a proud new addition. It’s a bold, confident fighter that celebrates its heritage while bringing fresh, new ideas to the table, arriving in a remarkably complete package that — if this were the last Street Fighter to ever be created — earns its rightful place in the series’ canon. It’ll be great to see the tournament-quality matches that arise from this fourth iteration (as well as the crazy exploits that only the best players can discover), and the future innovations it will awaken in Capcom. In all, it’s a fine return to form from the masters of the genre.

Elgan’s article comes off depressingly humorous in certain ways, as it makes me think of how unrealistically many American consumers cling to ideas that good products will persevere, an idea as hope-filled as the American Dream.  Despite how promising and interesting a product that satellite radio provided, it couldn’t dig itself out onto terra-firma (there’s a hidden joke there for radio listeners). Here’s the quote from the article that was particularly…heart-breaking:

Readers who subscribe to Sirius XM (I subscribe too, by the way) claim that satellite radio is just too wonderful to die, that somehow its sheer awesomeness will pull it through the hard times.

But the world doesn’t work that way, unfortunately. The company was in dire trouble before the recession, and now the economic downturn will kill Sirius XM off and bury satellite radio forever.

It’s unfortunate, but it’s the truth. For the quick and dirty story leading up to the looming bankruptcy filing, the company has a lot of debt which needs to come in soon, and considering satellite gets most of its supporters through new car purchases (and car dealers aren’t doing too pretty right now either), there’s no real way for them to make up this debt. If satellite had any chance of survival, the recession killed those chances.

I never subscribed to satellite and it probably wouldn’t have made much sense for me, considering I don’t have a car nor am I home enough to make it worthwhile. But yet I’ll be upset to see this service go, it’s a blow to the already disheveled music industry, along with talk radio across the board. There’s still something special about freshly arranged playlists, which satellite was always lauded for, but terrestrial is utterly terrible at doing. In addition, plenty of talk radio shows I used to listen to are now on satellite, who knows what’ll happen to these guys now? It’s a loss all-around with satellite gone, and I regret never really having the chance to explore it. Meanwhile podcasting is still too immature a medium to be viable commercially, few people are able to make big profits on it as of yet. And internet radio was never very interesting to begin with. Terrestrial? Give me a call when it’s relevant again.

Pretty much everyone is feeling the affects of the struggling economy, and events like this make it all the more poignant. The other day I ran across this article on twitter, 15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009, and while it’s silly to feel sad over mega-corporations collapsing, there is a service here and there that all of us are going to miss. Blockbuster has been on a few these lists (including Elgan’s own watch list: “10 things that won’t survive the recession“), and while they’ve made their share of mistakes, could you imagine not having a Blockbuster in your neighborhood anymore when you’re bored on a Sunday night? Sources of leisure activity often thrive in times like these, but already results have been disastrous and will only continue to get worse.

Not all of these companies will collapse, and there’s going to be new companies rising up to take the place of some of the ones that do. For the time being though, it’s hard to be excited about the end of the recession, when all too many companies won’t even see that end.