I had an editorial planned about how Sony dropping the Emotion Engine from the European and Australian (and Icelandic and New Zealand) PlayStation 3, making the console less backward-compatible with PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games, and the likelihood that the Emotion Engine-free PlayStation 3 will soon replace the Emotion Engine-included PlayStation 3 in the rest of the world "forced" me to buy a PlayStation 3 before I wanted one, and that backward-compatibility has effectively locked me into forever choosing PlayStations over Xboxes, but something came up.

I bought a PlayStation 3 today.

I didn't want to buy one, not now anyway--Oblivion is the only game available for the console I want to play--but waiting until more PlayStation 3 games I want to play are available (read: autumn) means not being able to play some of my PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games, so I "needed" to buy a PlayStation 3 as soon as possible.

I updated the console's firmware; registered with the PlayStation Network (I'm Pentagen there, by the way), folded some proteins with Folding@home; browsed the Web, downloaded and played game demos and game and movie trailers and transferred my PlayStation 2 memory card files to my PlayStation 3's hard disk drive.

After transferring my second PlayStation 2 memory card's files to my PlayStation 3, the console hanged.

Holding down the front power "button" did not turn the system off.

Switching the back power switch off, waiting a minute--power surges are bad--and turning my PlayStation 3 on again resulted in the standard PlayStation 3 start-up sequence and then the following message:

Cannot start.

The correct hard disk was not found.

And again when I tried a second time.

I unplugged my PlayStation 3 from my television set, Ethernet switch and electricity. The console felt hot, especially by the hard disk drive.

It seemed that my PlayStation 3's hard disk drive overheated. I waited several hours for everything to cool and tried again.

Same thing. My PlayStation 3's hard disk drive is apparently fried or corrupted.

And I never had a chance to play Oblivion.

Oh, and the PlayStation 3 is heavy, especially after walking with it in your hands for four miles--be sure to hold it by the bottom, even if the GameStop employee double-bags it. When I return to this GameStop to exchange my non-working PlayStation 3 for one with a hard disk drive that will last for more than a few hours, I will be sure to travel there in a car.

Playing Geometry Wars on my computer, the frame rate suddenly drops, the game disappears and my desktop appears.

A crash?

No. My anti-virus software has found an update and wants to know if I want to download it.

Geometry Wars is smart enough to pause itself when this happens, but attempting to re-immerse oneself in the middle of such a hectic experience is futile.

Ship destroyed immediately after returning to the game.

The versatile nature of a computer is supposed to be one of its advantages over a game console. Not only can I play games on my computer, but I can also get work done, or play music or video, or get the news, or communicate with others. A console can be used for playing games and... playing other games. (Well, current consoles have media and communication features, but they are not close to replacing computers for such functions.)

It's when these many uses get in the way of one another that this is a problem. If I'm playing a game I do not want to be interrupted. Consoles don't--well, rarely--do this. Computers do it all the time.

For some time, my plan was, when purchasing a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360, to get a copy of Oblivion with it.

A few weeks ago, I realized that with my new computer I could play Oblivion now. Better, the game would look superior, because my television set is standard definition, and my computer monitor is higher-than-high definition--taller than high definition anyway.

This is not a high-end computer, but it is more powerful than all but the most ridiculous (and expensive) configurations from a year ago, so it should be able to run a year-old game like Oblivion well, right?

No.

Searching the Internet for Oblivion benchmarks shows that systems like mine set to reasonable resolutions (like 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024) and with a reasonable amount of (not all) graphical features enabled regularly run at under 20 frames per second. The game would be unplayable at my monitor's native resolution.

Perhaps Oblivion is poorly coded, but there is a bigger problem when a mid-range computer cannot run a game from a year ago well and current consoles have no trouble.

What does this mean for upcoming games like Assassin's Creed and BioShock? Surely those games will require more power than Oblivion, even if they are well coded. Will I need to spend hundreds of dollars to replace my video card, and possibly my power supply, so soon after getting a new computer? The console versions are likely to run well in high definition as is.

The increased prices of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 over their predecessors along with the "need" to get a high definition television set to see their superior visual capabilities is said to even the price advantage console gaming had over PC gaming, but if you need the latest (and most expensive) hardware to make those games look just as good on your computer as they do on a console, it is a lie.

That's without taking into account that unannounced, future computer games will, as always, continue to require more and more powerful video cards and additional RAM, more or less requiring yearly upgrades. A console you buy once every four to seven years.

Not that any of this will matter for a while. I bought my spring wardrobe yesterday, and the price of that prevents me from buying anything but necessities for some time.

It's nothing personal, but Derek Jeter, you play baseball for a team that is not the Chicago Cubs, so I hate you.

Despite what my GameSpot profile claims, I am not your number one fan. That emblem was added without my input, and I have no way of removing it.

I think emblems are dumb. Actively going after them is just as dumb. Sure, it's nice to have the rare, wanted by emblem hunters, unknown how to achieve E3 Monster and Biological Warfare emblems, but only because I can rub it in the faces of those who care about such things that I have them and they don't. And the +1 Orator of Distinction emblem is also nice, because clicking on it confirms my opinion is better than yours.

Other than those three I usually do not care about GameSpot emblems. They don't enhance my life. All they do is show others that I spend too much time on this Web site.

Derek Jeter, your emblem is the first I hate. It makes me a liar. Again, I am not your number one fan; I am not your fan at all.

Unless you start playing for the Cubs.

Earlier Windows Vista frustrations are being replaced by new Windows Vista frustrations.

Via either an operating system update or luck I was able to install Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon on my new computer--previous attempts were met with perpetual "Working in Background" mouse pointers. It was initially so slow it was questionable if anything was happening, but eventually the installer started installing files at a normal speed.

The game is successfully installed, but attempting to start it brings up the following message from its copy-protection software:

An Error Encountered

This program requires Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4.0, 2000, XP or Server 2003.

This after updating the copy-protection software to the Windows Vista-compatible version.

A support e-mail from North American publisher DreamCatcher says, "Windows Vista is not listed as a compatible Operating System for this game." The message later somewhat contradicts itself with, "DreamCatcher is currently in the works of testing the new Vista OS with our games and we plan to provide a list shortly to what games will and will not work with Vista," and, "at this time, none of our games have been tested in Vista."

If Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon does run on my new computer in the future, I am not expecting DreamCatcher to have anything to do with it.

This is frustrating. Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon is one of two games I own to support my monitor's native resolution. My previous computer could play the game but was not powerful enough to play it at my monitor's native resolution. My current computer is powerful enough to play the game at my monitor's native resolution but the game will not play.

And games that do not support my monitor's native resolution still look terrible, despite that they should no longer.

The new NVIDIA video card drivers for Windows Vista claim to add the ability to adjust how non-native resolutions display (the feature was missing from the initial release), but they do nothing on my Windows Vista box.

The NVIDIA Control Panel offers four options on how to deal with non-native resolutions:

Use NVIDIA scaling
Stretches the picture to full-screen, distorting it if the non-native resolution's aspect ratio is not the same as your monitor's aspect ratio.

Use NVIDIA scaling with fixed-aspect ratio
Stretches the picture as much as possible but with black bars at the top and bottom or left and right of your monitor when the non-native resolution's aspect ratio is not the same as your monitor's aspect ratio so as not to distort the picture.

Use my display's built-in scaling
Lets the monitor decide how to deal with non-native resolutions. (My monitor always stretches non-native resolutions to full-screen, ignoring aspect ratio differences when connected via DVI; this monitor offers multiple options when using analog inputs, but who wants to use analog when you have superior, digital DVI.)

Do not scale
Displays the non-native resolution in the exact number of pixels described and in the correct aspect ratio. With a giant black border around the picture.

It does not matter to which option you have the NVIDIA Control Panel set. It always stretches and distorts non-native resolutions to full screen, so games intended to run at 640 by 480 pixels like The Longest Journey and Syberia look terrible.

Opening the NVIDIA Control Panel again after changing its scaling option and exiting it shows the setting has reverted to Use my display's built-in scaling.

The next release will fix this, right?

Sent: Sat 2/17/2007 10:01 PM
From: orders@gamestop.com
Subject: Release Date Change - Lumines Plus

Dear Customer,

Please be advised that our supplier has changed the release date on the pre-ordered merchandise listed below.

Lumines Plus

Old Release Date - 2/27/2007
New Release Date - 2/20/2007

Thank you for visiting The GameStop Store at BN.com!

NOTE: The product release date is the best estimate as to when the product will become available. These dates are subject to change at any time. GameStop.com is in constant communication with product vendors to provide you with the most accurate release dates possible.

Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 10:02 PM
From: orders@gamestop.com
Subject: Release Date Change - Lumines Plus

Dear Customer,

Please be advised that our supplier has changed the release date on the pre-ordered merchandise listed below.

Lumines Plus

Old Release Date - 2/20/2007
New Release Date - 2/27/2007

Thank you for visiting The GameStop Store at BN.com!

NOTE: The product release date is the best estimate as to when the product will become available. These dates are subject to change at any time. GameStop.com is in constant communication with product vendors to provide you with the most accurate release dates possible.

Sent: Wed 2/21/2007 4:18 AM
From: orders@gamestop.com
Subject: Shipment Confirmation

Dear Customer,

Your order shipped on 2/20/2007.

Thank you for shopping at The GameStop Store at BN.com!

Bolding not in original e-mails. Boring stuff edited for space.

No thanks to publisher Aspyr, I can now play Dreamfall on my Windows Vista box.

Aspyr responded to my Support Ticket with what appears to be a form letter. The letter uses a lot of words to say, we're not supporting Windows Vista yet, so we're not helping you.

That was seven days ago.

Today, visiting developer Funcom's offical Dreamfall Web site, I discovered a link to Funcom's official Dreamfall forum. Searching the forum for "vista," I found the solution to get the game running on Windows Vista.

DirectX 10, included with Windows Vista, doesn't need an update; Dreamfall needs DirectX 9. Dreamfall installs DirectX 9 as part of the game installation, but on a Windows Vista system it doesn't install the files necessary to run the game; the DirectX 9 installer on Microsoft's Web site does install those files.

The file to which the Dreamfall forum post links is an update to DirectX 9, and not the most recent update. I downloaded and installed both that update and the latest complete version of DirectX 9 to be safe.

Dreamfall runs, and nothing bad has happened to my computer. So far.

Hopefully installing outdated, low-level tools not intended to be used with my operating system will not cause problems.

I made my decision regarding which expensive, pointless item to buy.

Between the PlayStation 3, which will have no games I want to play for several months; trendy eyeglasses, which I don't need because I got a new (and still trendy) pair in October and a Banana Republic sale, I choose the trendy eyeglasses.

Actually, I also choose the Banana Republic sale, but I didn't buy much: two t-shirts and two sweaters, and that didn't cost much. I think this is the first time I have spent less than $100 at Banana Republic.

They're not the glasses I mentioned in the earlier entry. Those are sunglasses, and while you can get regular lenses placed in sunglasses, it turns out my face is too small for sunglasses.

At LensCrafters, debating between two pairs, D&G model 5011 in gunmetal gray and D&G model 5012 in blue chrome, I said I would regret not buying the other regardless of which I chose.

The salesperson suggested I buy both.

I would regret that too. One pair of glasses and lenses is expensive. Two is exorbitant. Especially when there's nothing wrong with my current pair.

He countered that a second pair, frame and lenses, is half price. That's still too much.

Against my better judgment, I bought both pairs of glasses.

With insurance and the discount on the second pair, I paid about as much as I would for a PlayStation 3. The 60-gig model.

Any game console purchase will have to wait, and that's a good thing. I can make use of my new glasses as soon as I get them. A PlayStation 3 would be a PlayStation 2 with a Web browser for several months. An Xbox 360 would be an Oblivion box. And there isn't much available now for the Wii I want either (and I'm waiting for a black model).

It took a week longer than it should have (1, 2), but my new computer has arrived.

I delayed this purchase for more than a year because I wanted a computer with Windows Vista pre-installed. I didn't want to effectively pay for Windows twice. (And having a new operating system pre-installed on a new computer helps the new computer "feel" new.) And while major computer makers have been offering free Windows Vista upgrades for newly-purchased Windows XP computers since late last year, I didn't want to spend time installing a new operating system--especially so soon after getting a new computer.

Last year, about a week after Dreamfall was released, I bought a copy of the Windows version. I knew it wouldn't run on my old (then current) computer, but it was on sale, and I didn't expect to see it selling for a price so low again for some time. This purchase was an investment in the future.

Now I have a computer powerful enough to run Dreamfall, but that powerful-enough computer refuses to run Dreamfall. Double-clicking on the Dreamfall icon leads to the following error message:

dreamfall.exe - Unable to Locate Component

This application has failed to start because d3dx9-27.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix the problem.

After this, Windows Vista informs me that "Dreamfall game has stopped working" and asks if I want to "Check online for a solution and close the program" or just "Close the program."

Windows Vista finds no solution online, and removing and re-installing Dreamfall changes nothing.

I sent a "Support Ticket" to North American publisher Aspyr regarding this issue. Hopefully a solution is forthcoming.

Dreamfall isn't the only game that has trouble running on my new computer. Grim Fandango loses all audio after visiting its main menu. Sanitarium crashes to the desktop with an error message immediately after it launches--at least, unlike Dreamfall, it launches. And Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon causes my computer to display a perpetual "Working in Background" mouse pointer after double-clicking on its installer--the installer doesn't start, and I have to unplug my computer to get out of this.

Oh, and the ability to adjust how non-native resolutions and aspect ratios are displayed seems to be missing from the NVIDIA drivers for Windows Vista, so games intended to run at 640 by 480 pixels (4:3 aspect ratio) are scaled and stretched to full screen (read: look terrible) on my 1920 by 1200 (16:10) monitor.

I didn't need more reasons to remind myself why I tend to stick to console games.

One of the games to which I go back from time to time is Street Fighter Alpha 3.

I liked this game enough to buy two copies: the PlayStation version and later the Dreamcast version, for its additional characters and features, not missing frames of animation and lack of loading times.

Years later my Dreamcast is in a drawer. If I want to play the superior version of Street Fighter Alpha 3 I must first take my Dreamcast out of that drawer; find its power cable, S-Video cable, fighting pads, Visual Memory Unit with Street Fighter Alpha 3 save file and Dreamcast copy of Street Fighter Alpha 3 and (temporarily) connect all of this to my television set and electricity. It's that or play the inferior PlayStation version on my PlayStation 2.

Last week I broke down and bought a copy of Street Fighter Alpha Anthology for the PlayStation 2. This way I can play the superior version of Street Fighter Alpha 3 without going through the trouble of finding and hooking up a years-ago discontinued game console. I would have done this sooner, but I don't like the idea of paying for the same game three times. Sure, this version of Street Fighter Alpha 3 doesn't include the World Tour (character customization) mode found in all previous home releases, but if you still care about World Tour mode, it's time to move on.

Principle aside, problem solved.

As the word anthology in Street Fighter Alpha Anthology implies, there's more to this package than Street Fighter Alpha 3. This is the entire Street Fighter Alpha series and bonus game Super Gem Fighter Mini Mix--also known as Pocket Fighter: the simplified, humorous, super-deformed take on fighting games. It's nice to have an entire series of games on one disc, but these games, save (the awful) Super Gem Fighter Mini Mix, do little to differentiate themselves from one another, so I play only the game I feel does the formula best: the Dreamcast-first version of Street Fighter Alpha 3.

After frustrations. The Dreamcast version of Street Fighter Alpha 3, one of the highlights of Street Fighter Alpha Anthology, is initially locked and hidden. Only after you play and finish the inferior, original arcade Street Fighter Alpha 3, which has the frames of animation missing from the PlayStation version but is missing some of its characters, does the superior Dreamcast version become available.

And if you want to play Hyper Street Fighter Alpha; the new, multiplayer-only game that allows pitting characters from every Street Fighter Alpha game against one another; you must first play and finish every other game in the collection--including the initially locked Dreamcast version of Street Fighter Alpha 3.

Then come the user interface issues. The unlocked games don't appear on Street Fighter Alpha Anthology's game selection screen. You have to press the Select button while choosing another game--Street Fighter Alpha 3 for Dreamcast Street Fighter Alpha 3 and Street Fighter Alpha for Hyper Street Fighter Alpha--to access the unlocked games. Messages appear on screen informing you how to access the unlocked games immediately after they are unlocked, but if you accidentally dismiss these messages before you can read them, or you forget how to access them, the hidden games are effectively forever hidden.

And unlike the real Dreamcast version of Street Fighter Alpha 3, the one in Street Fighter Alpha Anthology has the same title screen as the original--no "Saikyo Dojo" subtitle here. Only after you get to the character selection screen and see the additional characters can you be sure you haven't accidentally selected the wrong game.

It's Sonic Mega Collection all over again.

Hiding and locking games in compilations is fine. It gives the hardcore fans a reason to continue playing. But those hidden games should be the bonuses, not the highlights. It's frustrating and should not be necessary to be forced to play through inferior games to gain access to the best ones.

This needs to be pointed out more often in game compilation reviews and reflected in their scores.

For Street Fighter Alpha Anthology, the choice of game that should have been hidden rather than the Dreamcast version of Street Fighter Alpha 3 is obvious: Super Gem Fighter Mini Mix. It isn't a Street Fighter Alpha game. It doesn't play like the other games in the compilation. And certainly few would consider it one of Street Fighter Alpha Anthology's highlights. In short, Super Gem Fighter Mini Mix would have been a nice bonus for hardcore Street Fighter Alpha Anthology players, and not having it available immediately wouldn't have bothered anyone.