I'm completely blown away by this story:http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/2011/10/21/raitt-air-canada-flight-attendants.html

It's incredible to me that such a thing is even being suggested by the federal government. This is the kind of statement we always think is behind the decision making process of the conservatives, but that none of them would be brazen, or stupid enough, to suggest it.

Well now it's finally here. The conservatives want to have the discussion of what is more important: our rights as citizens, or the economy. Our rights as free people, or a system that favors fascism (according to General Smedly Butler).

It's been my belief for a long time that our political system-- constitutional democracy--and our economic system--"capitalism" (more like oligopoly)--are diametrically opposed to each other ideologically. One is a system that says (or at least strives to) say that all citizens shall be treated equally, and the other... isn't.

The short end to the discussion is "no, the economy is not more important than our rights as Canadians." A decision that would say otherwise calls the charter of rights and freedoms into question, as well as endangers the sovereignty of Canada.

Our day to day lives are being impacted more and more heavily by artifacts of our economic system than our political system. Our economy has been increasingly forced open to policies being set by other nations, and also increasingly being opened up to scrutiny and litigation by foreign nations (softwood for example... or the recent admission that Canadians don't actually want new rules for Digital Rights Management).

It's our responsibility to fight for the rights we've been given. If we're not willing to stand and take responsibility for them, that's when our governments give them to someone else to handle. Let's not let them make our economy more important than us.

I'm an impatient person as it turns out. Last week I pre-ordered and pre-loaded Duke Nukem Forever on Steam. On Thursday I received a fairly large patch for the game, which is what reminded me that it was in fact released in other territories around the world on that day. I couldn't wait until Tuesday with the knowledge that the final product was out there... I really wanted to actually play the game. So... let's just say I found a way (a fact for which I do not feel at all guilty... I bought my copy, and I'm not returning it).

I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to anyone who has seen the trailers or played the demo that the game is pretty average. It functions as a competent shooter that is saddled with, what feels like, indie studio production values. I'm reminded of this every time that I see a character (or air ship) follow along rigid and angular animation pathways. It's also evident in the slapdash attempts at cinematic presentation, or when they attempt to pad out gameplay with turret sequences that feel straight out of the old Incoming games. Elements like this make the game average... but I don't think it makes it terrible.

The urge for many people I think is to hate this game for even existing. The all encompassing average nature of the game certainly doesn't go very far with people who demand every play experience in their lexicon to be of the most ultimate quality imaginable (a sentiment that I empathize with, and cannot fault a person for). For Duke Nukem Forever the line is very abrupt... it is either a 9/10, or it's shit.

My own time with the game so far (I haven't completed it yet) has been entertaining. It's not a great game, but I'm still having a good time with it. The only real exception for me is the existence of a strip club level that takes that one small section of The Red Light District level in Duke 3D, and blows it out of proportion to the extent where it feels uncomfortable. There is a gameplay reason for it to exist as it is an area full of ego boosts, but in my mind they would have been better served putting more of those into *actual* levels.

When the game actually gets into the action... I'm having a good time. It's punching all the old buttons of early action games that I still enjoy in the same manner as I still enjoy top down shooting games. They're attempting to throw a lot of different types of action into their level chunks, and in some cases it feels really neat to have levels that are designed around being both small and large. Some basic vehicle sequences and those turret sequences, and you have a decently proportioned game.

If there is one thing I have a problem with... is that the action doesn't feel as furious as it used to. I remember level kill counts showing me hundreds of kills. In this game, there are large sections of levels where you should be expecting action... and yet there is almost none. It felt very strange to me. I am not at the end of the game yet, but Duke Nukem 3D had you fighting the hordes from the first level. I'm not on the hardest difficulty level... and maybe that adds more enemies instead of just making them hit harder.

Unlike other games in the past like Blacksite: Area 51 or Army of Two, I'm actually having some fun with the game. Maybe you won't feel the same way... but all of the clues are literally in the trailer whether or not this game will be for you or not. Play it or don't play it... just be realistic about what it is you're playing (or not playing). Duke isn't going to set the world on fire this time around... but if he survives this invasion, I will be interested to see what happens next.

It's been about five months since my last entry that I claimed would be "placeholder for now." It's about as good a time as any to get back to that entry, and in some ways it's an even more poignant time to finish it off. 
 
I went on a major tear in the fall of last year after the relaunch of www.gog.com. There were a lot of games that they were releasing (or had already released), that I either did not have the opportunity to play in the past, or had my copies go missing/get destroyed. I was very pleased by the notion that the majority of these games work flawlessly after an install on Vista64, and a great deal of them have seen updates from the community that have improved the visuals, and expanded the scope of the campaigns.  
  

The Descent

Playing a Role 

Strategic Escape

This has been a big month for me on Good Old Games. This is placeholder for now... but I'll get back to it soon.

I was reading an article this morning on Joystiq that was discussing the multiplayer mode in Dead Space 2. In that article the author, David Hinkle, makes this statement in his very first sentence: "One thing that hurt the sales of the first Dead Space was its lack of multiplayer." That's a fairly bold position to take as he provides zero information to back this claim up. I'm certainly not in a position to know with 100% certainty either, but I've seen no data that would begin to suggest that the lack of multiplayer is what caused the slow sales of the first game. I think Dave might need to go watch what Doug Stanhope has to say on this topic (with particular attention at the 2:05 mark in the video). 
 
This isn't something that is unique to people who write about games, though there are a lot of bloggers that do this with startling frequency. I'm hesitant to continue this entry myself as I'm starting to fear that I will be proving my own point. I'll have to come back to this later when I have time to back up what I'm saying with the examples that I've seen.

I felt as if I might throw down a few more thoughts on my stated feelings regarding Dragon Age in a slightly more expressive and cogent form than a status update. I will state for the record, that these are opinions and feelings that I have based on my own experiences with this product. It is by no means absolute; any feelings or opinions that differ on the matter I view as being valid points of discussion, and not violent assertions of my stupidity. All that I ask is this viewpoint be something participants in any ensuing conversation will agree to before engaging in dialogue.
  
The first statement I want to clarify are my feelings regarding the combat system. My issues with the combat system are by no means singular to Dragon Age: Origins. In fact, the combat system that exists in that game has been used in many of the games from Bioware for years now. When they say that this is a return to form, they are not incorrect. They are absolutely returning to a form that they have been using since the beginning of the infinity engine. I learned to enjoy the system after a little while, but as a person that engaged in the original SSI goldbox turn based combat system, I was also annoyed by it. 
 
The core of my annoyance stems from the mish-mash of real-time and turn based mechanics, and the failure of the AI to engage in organized combat. You can pause the game and issue orders, but even if you supply a movement order, it is likely forgotten a few seconds later and all the characters on the map rush into a blob around a few characters. This conglomeration makes the management of battle problematic, especially when there is no clear end to a turn for characters, and once a command is complete they will return to a default state and likely move themselves back into harm's way before you can manage their turn. What we get is a system that is poorly tuned for good tactical management, and too slow for exciting real-time engagement.  It is true that you can configure the AI to perform a set of tasks based on a situation, but I don't want to code a set of generic responses. I want good, manual control, over all the players on the field. 
 
There have been games to implement a combat system like this before. Troika released The Temple of Elemental Evil, which is fairly broken, but the combat system worked pretty well. The original Fallout games also had a very good turn based system that allowed for much better strategic use of party skills, and movement. I suppose it's really the movement part of the equation that bothers me the most about Dragon Age. The amount of times I need to pause the game and re-issue orders to ensure they're being carried out is aggravating. Added into that, the nature of the combat also provides poor information feedback based on my actions. The circle beneath enemies, in reality, is actually probably the best method they could have come up with... but I still don't like it. Give me a grid based battle field, and turn-based mechanics please... or just develop your real-time combat system (which it looks like they're doing with Dragon Age 2. Perplexing... they pitch the original as this return to form. It sells well which gives them an indication this is what people want, so then they change it again to make it more like Mass Effect. Bizarre). 
 
I'm also going to go on record about their characters. I feel this is fairly consistent with most of their protagonists in Mass Effect as well, but I am absolutely confused about the praise for their implemented voice actors. The delivery is all over the map. Some of the characters *are* actually pretty good in these games, but the main characters are usually bland and lack oomph. Beyond the delivery, the written dialogue is often incredibly corny, and the branched systems that play out are rarely believable. 
 
"I'm going to kill you!" 
"You don't want to kill me, that makes you  a bad person." 
"... You're right. I should go home and be a good person. Thank you!" 
 
In a way this is an over-simplification of their dialogue, but strangely enough, I've had *many* encounters in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series that play out basically like that. Not only is the implementation not believable, to me it detracts from what it was they were trying to get across in their games. They want to give the player this idea of choice, and to an extent this is true. The end result of a situation is usually the same, but the means of getting there are different.  
 
Good: "You know, you should just give me that thing I want because you want to be a good person. Like me!" 
"You're right! Here you go. Thank you stranger! I'm going to remember this!" 
 
Bad:"You're going to give me that thing I want because if you don't I'm going to murder you" 
"Whoa ok!  Please don't hurt me, here you go! I'm going to remember this stranger." 
 
After awhile, all these interactions begin to feel like a distinct formula. Like there was a form a designer had to fill out with discrete fields that would provide the information each department needed to insert into a field in the code that allowed the conversations to play out in a standardized format. I can appreciate the complexity of the job, and recognize that if you're going to implement a system as large as it is in these games, that it almost becomes necessary. What I would argue than, is that this is similar to Bethesda's approach with The Elder Scrolls. 
 
Each game in The Elder Scrolls series has become smaller in terms of the size of the world. The big jump from Daggerfall to Morrowind was the reduction in landmass, and the removal of randomized dungeons for better hand crafted spaces. I would assert that every time they have made their game smaller, they have made it better. I can appreciate why Bioware wants to make a game with a lot of dialogue and interactive sequences. I would make the suggestion to scale back their system, much like Bethesda did. Reduce the number of interactions and choices, but make them much better. It is *extremely* difficult to achieve this goal, but I would argue the outcome is better for the player in the long run. It might make it so that a lot of content will be locked off for an entire play through of the game, but what makes choice so good is that it has a real effect on your experience that you *must* live with. This was the big difference, for example, between System Shock 2 and BioShock.  The latter let you make changes to your character almost on the fly, while the former forced you to make tough decisions and then live with the consequences for the duration of the game.  
 
If you wanted me to be honest about it, I think Dragon Age: Origins is better than Mass Effect has been in terms of how your choices can affect the outcome of the story, but it still feels as if we are at this point in divergent storytelling that hasn't moved much beyond Baldur's Gate 2 (Heck... I might even argue Ultima VII). There are examples which show pockets of movement, but there is very little that I could hold up to someone and say that *this* is the one which pushes the idea of choice and character interaction beyond anything we have seen before. Maybe I'm waxing over something that has been really important, but I'm open to the argument if one wishes to make it. 
 
The other issues I listed in my recent status update in regard to plain looking models and strange graphic choices I think are the low hanging fruit of the argument. Anyone can load up the game and see the low resolution textures, bland blood spatter texture overlay that is far too grandiose for a lot of the early battles with rats, and strange sense of scale (some of those door knobs are MASSIVE) deter from the graphic style. Beyond that, there is a rigidity in the design of the character models that has the effect of making most characters in the game look almost the same, with the same general lanky body shape. In all honesty, it wasn't too much of a detractor for me, but it was something that compounded along with all the other issues I had with playing this game.  
 
That sums up a lot of my feelings on this topic. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I feel as if people who like this game are somehow wrong, or that this game is terrible. I do not think the game is terrible, but it *isn't* what I wanted out of a PC RPG that was claiming to be going back to a more hardcore set of rules. 

I would attach this blog post to a forum... but I'm too chickenshit to read even *one* stupid fucking response. My exposure to the Halo community suggests there are far more than just one blithering idiot among the ranks. 
 
I just read a story on Joystiq from Comic Con where the guys from 343 Industries went on the record as saying they're continuing the Master Chief story. I'm sure there are some young male wastrels out there who had to immediately go and find some tissue paper (or change their shorts) upon reading the news. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the quality of the games... I'm sure you can already draw your own conclusions based on what you've read in the preceding sentences so far. My concern is more basic than the expanse of the actual games in this case. 
 
My query is this: what is the big draw of the Master Chief character that draws so much adoration? There is very little in the games that-to me-justify raising this character to the iconic status that it now possesses. Through all of these games he doesn't say very much; his general look is bland (to say th least); there is no evidence of facial or vocal expression in the character; what backstory exists for the character has to be gleaned from places *other* than the game (which is significant insofar as there isn't anything about this character that is interesting enough to make me want to read a 200 page book about his adventures). As far as I'm concerned... the Master Chief could just be a floating gun and I likely wouldn't notice.  
 
I'm completely lost on this topic. It's baffling to me that something so vacant of character has somehow become one of the primary character icons that personifies this industry for the general communal mindscape in modern society. It makes no sense to me... I wish someone could explain it to me. 
 
(Addendum: I don't know why I would be so surprised... looking at the general design that was present in Oni, it should come as no surprise. I would like to say that Myth or Marathon were examples of transcendent design... but in reality they really werent;. Myth was likely the game that had the most character... but most of the character designs were based in the tried and true fantasy lexicon. There wasn't much about it that would set it apart from a generic cartoon... like the dungeons and dragons cartoon)

I thought I would do something stupid and try and stay awake until the release of Limbo this evening. I've been doing some forum surfing during the waiting period (between rounds of Alien Swarm) and it seems as if the 1-2am release time has been missed quite frequently as of late. Please don't misunderstand me... I'm not upset; feeling anger over not being able to play a game at 2am is ridiculous. I'm just disappointed.  
 
I went on a bit of a bender and bought a full three music albums the other day. I picked up Orchestrion, from Pat Metheny; Compass, from Joshua Redman; and VOCAbuLaries, from Bobby McFerrin. As is often the case, the two albums I was expecting to buy are the ones I've spent the least amount of time listening to. So far, I've spent a lot of time digesting the material in the Bobby McFerrin album. To date... Bobby has never let me down. =) 
  
Bobby's latest album is a bit of a return in a sense, and a departure in another. Many of his albums are stuffed to the brim with adventurous improvisation and solo vocal virtuosity. In the case of this latest work, the music on this disc is-in my opinion-some of the easiest for listeners at large to grasp. There are just some really good tunes on this disc... and the songs are made up of actual WORDS (if you've listened to a lot of his music... you'll know that this is a rarity). The experimentation in this case is the vocal arrangement's that are wrapped around the tunes. There are some really complicated and intricate harmonies that go along with the these tunes, and with as many as 50 voices on some of the songs, they sound incredible.  
 
Compass from Joshua Redman is a really interesting saxophone album. In the EPK that you can find on youtube, he talks about the interesting arrangement of recording with a double trio, and that he feels that this kind of thing hasn't been done before. Right off the bat... I can tell him it has. The Bloomdaddies are an excellent example of a group that played with 2 sax players, 2 bass players (on occasion), and 2 drummers. Add into that some crazy effects work to create their soundscapes, and you have a band that is arguably just as adventurous as this one. Where this group stands out however is their dedication to really pushing the boundaries of improvisation and form. These guys are on the top of their game... make no mistake. 
  
Orchestion is an album I was dubious about from the get-go. Please make no mistake... I'm an enormous fan of Pat Metheny (though in recent years, I find myself listening to his music less and less). The primary conceit of this album is that he has rigged a plethora of instruments with solenoid's, and then is then triggering them to play by some means (I don't know how) so that he is, in effect, at the helm of a giant one man band. The concept and execution is impressive... this is undeniable. The problem I am having is that I am not feeling a great deal of attachment to the actual music. As many people will likely say... there is a bit of a formulaic or robotic quality to some of his music. His creating a giant touring acoustic drum/harmonic machine that bends to his will does nothing to alleviate this notion. Pat is an impressive player... and I am desperately looking for another reason to feel some emotion about his music again (I'll take another Beyond the Missouri Sky any day of the week). 
 
That's about it. The time is almost 3am... if Limbo isn't up I'm doing the smart thing and going to bed. (actually... the smart thing would have been to go to bed hours ago. Cut me a little slack on this occasion though please. It's really hot in here)

I've finally had the chance to sit down with the new weapons released today for Shattered Horizon, and I'm pleased to say that I think they do a great job at mixing up, and improving a game that I already really enjoyed playing. Futuremark has done a fairly thoughtful job of inserting relatively traditional weapons, and implementing them in a manner that encourages players to alter how they will approach a particular play session. 
  
The reason for this is that certain weapons in the new content pack have suit integration; this means that they are better suited to be used while in flight. Weapons that do not have this feature are best suited for when you attach yourself to a surface in the game. Before the update (just in case there are people reading who haven't played this game yet) this idea was loosely implemented in the two firing modes your gun had (you could use it like a traditional assault rifle, or a sniper rifle). Sniping in the air was difficult as your crosshair wagged around all over the place, and once you fired it would cause you to spin out of control from the recoil. In this new update, they've taken that approach, and required you to make the choice in your loadout before spawning. The lack of versatility requires players to pick weapon sets that are complimentary, and to take advantage of some of the terrain features in the level that they might normally not have used before. 
  
The new content pack isn't ground breaking in terms of the style of weapons that you can use now, but the new options open up a lot of new and interesting tactical choices in a game that is already thick with them. If you haven't tried this game yet, and you have the system to run it, than I really recommend that you give it a shot.  

 I didn't have a whole lot of time to delve too deeply into the new content that Valve offered up yesterday for Left for Dead 2, but I did get a chance to play through the campaign on my own one time. I'll admit that I've taken a little bit of a break from the game over the last few months, but I was reminded just how awesome this game is with last night's new additions! (I won't be discussion specifics about the campaign, so don't worry about spoilers here) 
 
Despite the fact that there are only two maps in this campaign, I spent a solid 45 minutes on the standard difficulty level to get through it. Valve has done an excellent job at creating a *really* good episode with these levels. The maps themselves are really expansive, and I can already see that they may have crafted some significant path modifiers for the AI Director to play with (I can't confirm this until I play through it a few more times to see if the route changes, but there are many places where it looks like you could take alternate pathways). The last map in particular is a favorite of mine now due to it's free roaming nature. In addition to the excellent layout, they're also letting the director off the leash and letting it play with weather conditions on this map as well. I had forgotten how great those rainstorms are. 
 
It might be because I'm rusty... but it also feels like the AI Director is a lot sneakier than it was before as well. On the normal difficulty setting, I took a pretty hefty beating on each map. The game seems like it is utilizing the placement and coordination of the special zombies a *lot* better than it was before. What I mean by coordination is that the AI is using combinations of special infected in order to more effectively destroy the player. Placing Jockey's really close to Witches; smokers and spitters; smokers and hunters; smokers, 2 tanks, a spitter, and a charger; I think you get the idea by now. I was double teamed more times in that one game than I remember before... but like I said. It might have been because I was rusty.  
 
I've been thinking about this game all morning thanks to this new content. I'm really excited to get home and jump back in there for some actual multiplayer, and try out the new mutations they'll be rolling out every week. It may have taken them awhile, but I'm really happy with the quality of this new addition to the game. Anyone else have any feelings they want to share about this new content?