Huh?

Wow, I haven't written in a long time. Needless to say I have died of course and will not be writing anymore. No just kidding, just been busy and not filling the Internets with non-relevant garbage. Do not worry, I will soon be writing stupid articles that you should not care about whatsoever. Five people in the world cares about this at all. I am one of them.

Oh and I would like to plug the web comic Dr. Mcninja. He is the single greatest hero/ninja ever. You may find him and his hilarious antics at drmcninja.com. So please support the artists and writers responsible and read it please. Plus how could you say no to a ninja whose also a doctor? Oh and he has a receptionist named Judy whose a gorilla. BASE!

The Real Step Towards Human Emotion

It seems pretentious to say a game made five years ago can surpass a game made one year ago. Visually and aesthetically, the argument is unfounded. Fable 2 looks and sounds vastly superior then its predecessor. With a new age in HD graphics, the beautiful world is brought to life right before your eyes. With full support for Dolby Digital Surround Sound, the sound is marvelous. Delivering you the breath of life to the fantastical world of Albion. There is almost no deterrent to your overall experience on a technical level whatsoever. This is perhaps the only revolutionary step for the genre to be found in your ten hour experience in Fable 2.
To further add to the overall experience, the way your quest starts out and the general structure of the game are very similar. First and foremost, the two games are very similar to one another. You can find many of the same wonderfully orchestrated scores entwined in the same places. Whether you are shopping, visiting a temple or fighting bandits, the music is virtually identical in both games. Who cares? So I've just stated that a sequel is similar to the original game. Wheres the validity in stating that?

Well, despite having so many features in common, the "newer" Fable lacks emotional depth. Yes, Peter Moloneux has stated often before this game's release that he wanted real human emotion in his game. Like many developers before him, his intention was to include an outlet to further validate your choices as a good and evil character. By giving the player more attachments, the developer can weigh your morality choices in a more profound manner. As a result, you are given a dog and a family that morphs into your morality alignment. Be it good or evil, the "world" changes based on your actions and decisions. Its been done multiple times before and often times its done with shallow panache. This time it seemed that Peter Moloneux would succeed, thus driving forth a revolutionary new concept in the RPG genre.

It however did not accomplish or fill any of these lofty expectations. Instead, the player is forced to care for an annoying furry animal. Yes, it saves you in the very beginning of the game and it adds nostalgic value, but that is the extent of its usefulness. It exists as nothing more then a glorified item finder, and as such is a very detached character from the overall game play. Even your family exists as nothing more then a virtual high five. They applaud your good deeds and condemn your evil actions. How am I supposed to pour care and devotion to something that feels so cold and robotic?
The first game does away with these superfluous concepts. It offers an often times cliched childhood story of revenge but it does so with emotional weight. (to be continued)

Would You Kindly?

As the spiritual successor to the System Shock series, Bioshock has an enumerate amount of expectations to fill. However if you haven't even heard of the System Shock series, it doesn't really matter either. Bioshock exists as a glimmer of hope for the future of the industry as a whole. Although you will garnish mixed feelings concerning the overall conclusion; you will discover why morality games exist at all.
Your journey begins as your plane crash lands in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. As damnation and doom envelop your lungs, you discover a building off in the distance. Desperate, you swim to it and find shelter. Within minutes you discover the city of Rapture and the man who created it. The city where only your potential can stop you. Lo and behold this motto has turned the city into objectivist hell. (to be continued)

Capcom DLC

While I do realize that many publications have made numerous arguments on the problems with DLC lately, I feel that the topic needs to be addressed again. Lately one of the easiest targets for the arrival of "cheap" DLC has been Capcom. Capcom has been taking flak lately for poor support of Street Fighter Four. Instead of thanking loyal paying fans for their devotion to a long standing series, they decide to slap in extra costumes for around fifteen dollars in total.
Now they have achieved another faux pas in their DLC approach.
That being the newly released VS modes for Resident Evil 5. If Capcom charged five dollars for a very solid multi player experience then there would be no point to gripe. However the former is simply not true. Capcom sees fit to charge five dollars for two modes that are seemingly broken. The overall control scheme of Resident Evil should never support competitive multi player. Four players compete and try to shoot each other or other zombies to beat each other through scores. On top of which Resident Evil 5 has a very awkward control scheme to begin with. So in the end you just have four players standing in a circle trying to shoot each other. After several years of the same corridor shooter, you find it fair to introduce competitive multi player? There is no overall rewards for the game play and after multi player experiences like Left4dead and the zombie mode in Call of Duty: World At War, this is inexcusable.

Its almost funny in a sense to consider how greedy companies like Capcom are. While I agree that paying ten dollars for three maps is a travesty, charging obscene amounts for your fan base is ridiculous. The limited editions for both Resident Evil 5 and Street Fighter IV both cost thirty dollars over the retail version and were filled with useless junk. No, not memorabilia that is nostalgic, just useless crap. If this is the future of community support, then I believe it is a future I do not want a part of. Unfortunetly as I write this, there are probably dozens of people downloading the new costumes and playing the Versus mode. So Capcom and other developers can continue charging ridiculous amounts of money for DLC.

Really?

Not that anyone should care, but the PS3 is going up in price. According to an article at cheapassgamer the PS3 will have a 499.99 model and a 599.99 model come May 5th. It will feature backwards compatibility and have a 250 GB and a 500 GB Hardrive respectively. According to the marketing VP Jack Devaney states " Increasing storage capacity helps us better communicate the value inherent in the PS3. Combined with built in Blu-ray, Wi-Fi, and full backwards compatibility, no other system can match our value proposition. One of the great things about the PS3 is that if you buy it today you can be confident it's going to be the centerpiece of your entertainment for the next 10 years. Economically, that's a great value. "
Really? I assume PS3s are already flying off the shelves nowadays. I hardly believe people are willing to buy a 499.99 system or even a 599.99 system if they weren't buying a 399.99 and 499.99 model. On top of which their exclusive games line-up does not warrant such an exuberant price. They also can no longer hide behind the fact that they are the cheapest Blue-ray player anymore. So what do they have that they can use as selling points?
What are you going to save on 250GBs or even 500GBs? I assume your going to use that space for the massive game library that Sony has wonderfully provided ever since the system's launch. Plus, Sony has been touting its ten year plan for far too long now. Hardly anyone in this current gaming generation thinks about their consoles as "investments". We don't buy our consoles because we know it will last for ten years, we buy it to be entertained now. I bet in ten years they will still be desperately trying to break even with their investment. Good job Sony, you learn a new way to kick yourself in the face just as your about to catch up.

The Way Morality In Games Should Be

Ever since the dawn of gaming there have been morality games. In general, they have existed primarily in the small pocket of RPGs. As this concept became more and more popular; it has begun to be carelessly induced in every small niche of gaming. I will be honest, the first true mortality game that I played was Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It was a very well made game for its time period and I believe it offered some very keen insights on the future of western RPGs. It is now five years later and the formula has remained the same; for better or for worse. The formula has remained intact to say the least; there is always a definable line between good and evil. Albeit, your choices are very linear in this regard. Your selfish actions means you are evil while being benevolent and kind is the negation to that. Fundamentally however, it seems that we have forgotten why this system is crucial to the RPG experience.
It wasn't until I played the second SW: KOTR game that I realized that I craved for something different. In that game, there where a few key moments where it is brought to your attention just how "good" you were. By helping and being charitable, you were dooming people to a life of dependency. It created the good shade of Grey that morality truly is. In that form we can then express our motivations as gamers. As gamers we make choices based on our perceived social norms. We play the "good" character because there is no challenge in playing as an "evil" character. In that way developers cannot truly simulate desperation in this console's generation. Without desperation, the concept of morality falls completely apart.
On that note many games of this generation within the morality genre contain "difficult" choices. Irrevocably these are choices that are often the splinter group of the two common moral choices. These choices are laid out very routinely; they revolve either around an evil concept that is too repulsive to put into practice even in a digital world, or a very morally grey issue that is the lesser of two evils. These bring about a generally genre defining experience. However, I beg to ask the question; what if all your choices were difficult? Not having three or four difficult choices in the scope of the ten hour experience, but a genuine thought provoking experience? No, what if every choice was not a black and white cutout. What if the gaming world that you crafted was as morally questionable as everything else in the world? To not be the savior or the harbinger of doom but your own person. Just an average Joe or Jane trying to make it through the day. Making these choices as that person, not as the stereotypical action game character who is capable of godlike feats. There exists only you, and the people that you interact with. The world and its values are defined through your actions and how you perceive it. Essentially taking out the proverbial hand-slap that developers give us when we commit an act of indecency. Gamers don't need developers telling them how to play their games. If you want to ransack a village and burn the place to the ground, that is your prerogative. We don't need good and bad smiley faces telling us that we are "bad" people.
Though games are nowadays a point of contention on many issues relating to art and culture; they are above all a form of entertainment. That is why as gamers we have come to overlook the difficult choices that are associated with games. We have come to a point where we cannot push the boundaries of the norms now accepted for the video game industry. If we are to show brutal acts of violence, why can't we include sex that expresses love? However, that is an issue for another time. Beyond the realms of Peggle and 99 cents I-phone games there exists the triple A titles. This is the world that morality resides in. As the industry begins to grow we have to understand why these games exist. They exist for the sole purpose of reminding you just how human you are.

Welcome to Pittsburgh!

Immeasurably Fallout 3 has always existed as a world of grey and even more morally grey choices. Entrenched throughout the lore of Fallout are stories of survival and deep moral choices. The Pitt, Bethesda's latest DLC for Fallout, continues this trend. As the name elegantly suggests, the DLC sends you to Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh carries the honor of being one of the few cities in Fallout lore not to be directly ravaged by nuclear warfare. However, over the years the city has become a breeding ground for slavery and mass disease. Similar to the "Operation Anchorage" DLC, players must wait for a broadcast signal to access the content in the Pitt. From there you are thrust into the city with naught save your wits and must make do to survive in the city. However, if you are level 20 to which I assume most people are, there is little to no challenge in the combat.
Presentation is top notch as it was with the previous DLC pack. The city looks absolutely infested with Trogs, disease, Slavers and the cancerous fumes from the industry. Bethesda has done a wonderful job of nailing the overall presentation. The city looks truly dilapidated as it seems that each instrinsic detail of destruction was painted throughout your environment. You'll explore smoking ruins, brave diseased tunnels and recoil in horror witnessing the slaves being treated like vermin. Achieving a greater sense of immersion with the overall dreary and depressing atmosphere.
The game play is still very much intact from the main game. If you enjoyed the combat in the main game, then this is a very natural and easy transition for you. However, you have two new weapons at your disposal; the Auto Axe and the Infiltrator. The Auto Axe is a wondrously crude chainsaw like blade that eviscerates enemies horrifically. The latter is a small submachine gun with an afixed scope to make combat outside of the system of VATs slightly easier. You'll be using plenty of these weapons throughout the course of Pitt's four to five hour experience. While it doesn't change the game-play in any significant fashion, it provides an innumerous amount of fun.
The story of the Pitt is a wonderfully crafted, albeit predictable tale of freedom and salvation. It provides the series staple of showing gamers the grey side of morality. Good and evil are definable concepts to you. There is no angel or devil to judge your actions, no large consequence for your overall actions. Fallout is a world where the rules of your actions governs who lives and dies in the end. Not to spoil anything, but the big reveal at the end of the Pitt is incredibly intelligent in the support of both the "good" and "bad" karma routes. This leads to one of the "better" quests of Fallout showing you there is almost no "proper" way to finish the quest. Each outcome will make you feel a little remorseful in the end. I believe this to be a brilliant approach to the overall style of Fallout and captures the very essence of the series.
This results in a fair amount of replay value seeing the Pitt from the savior of the slaves and the self-glorified bastard. Is it worth 800 Microsoft points? That depends; If your a fan of Fallout 3 this pack is for you. While it may be on the short side, it provides you with a great experience that will hold you over until "Broken Steel" is released. Eight out of Ten