Starcraft 2.  Starcraft 2.  Starcraft 2.  I could fill a whole blog post with just the words Starcraft 2 and it'd be completely satisfying.  Blizzard's unveiling of Starcraft 2 is the megaton announcement of the year...at least for me.  Within the contents of this post, I will take a trip down memory lane and relive my experiences with the original Starcraft, then talk about my reactions to Starcraft 2.

You see, way back in the game-filled year that was 1998, at the tender age of 13, I finally managed to acquire a PC of my very own.  No more sharing one with my parents.  With this PC, I was allowed to pick out 3 games to go with it.  I chose Final Fantasy 7, Command & Conquer: Red Alert, and Starcraft.  I'd never really heard of Starcraft before, I just thought the box looked cool and the description on the back made it sound promising.  When I got the games home, I promptly started a file on FF7, then messed around with Red Alert before finally installing Starcraft; the landmark RTS that would become my favorite game of all time.

I was hooked immediately.  I spent the next couple of weeks alternating campaigns between my 3 games, but Starcraft took up the majority of that time.  I was so absorbed in the story and the perfectly balanced gameplay that I frequently shirked other responsibilities like homework and chores.  After a few months of playing the campaign and skirmishes, I decided to finish up Red Alert and FF7.  Then we "upgraded" our internet service to 56k, so I thought I'd give Starcraft a shot online.  Little did I know at the time that this was the moment when Starcraft became my favorite game of all time.  As I started playing matches against people, Starcraft took on a whole new level of awesome.  For the life of me, I could not stop playing.  I'd sit for hours and hours and hours just coming up with strategies and trying them out on people.

Then came Brood War.

When Brood War was released, it took Starcraft to a whole new level of awesome.  New units, new maps, new plot details, and most importantly, new strategies to use.  I spent the next 3 years completely addicted to Starcraft.  I would equate it to a modern World of Warcraft addiction, except I'm not into MMOs.  I would host and attend LAN parties on a regular basis and I faked sick countless times so that I could stay home from school to play. 

Eventually, Battle.net's Starcraft servers became clogged with Koreans.  More importantly, it became clogged with Koreans who could wipe the floor with my apparently sorry ass on a regular and consistent basis.  Eventually, this caused me to give up Starcraft, as I could no longer compete on the same level as the majority of the players.  When Blizzard announced Warcraft 3, I was very excited initially.  Once I picked the game up, I discovered that it was nothing like Starcraft at all; with a focus on heroes and smaller skirmishes.  I was disappointed, even though Warcraft 3 is an excellent game.

And so the waiting game began.  First came Diablo 2, then Warcraft 3, then World of Warcraft, all with barely a mention of Starcraft.  After 9 years of waiting, Blizzard finally lifted the veil on Starcraft 2.  I'm extremely excited for it to say the least.  The gameplay demonstration highlights the areas that Blizzard has always excelled at: polish and balance.  Even at this "early" state, Starcraft 2 looks amazing.  Everything from the physics to visual effect of the Protoss Mothership's Black Hole ability look great and retained Starcraft's visual style while still bringing the game into 3D.  More than anything, I'm excited to see where the story goes, since Brood War ended on a cliffhanger. 

Don't let me down Blizzard.  There's millions of people waiting eagerly for Starcraft 2.  Let's just hope the legacy of the original Starcraft doesn't prove insurmountable for Blizzard.

Hello everyone, greetings to all of my adoring fans...all 2 of you.  It's been a while since I made a blog entry, I was forced to delete a few...inflammatory posts of old, but no matter.  You'll be surprised, possibly ashamed, to know that I now work for those whom most gamers consider the anti-christ: EA.  I've gotta say though, they treat me quite well over here, much better than I'd expected when I started here back in September.  And no, I can't discuss the project I'm on...it's unannounced, you don't know about it, so don't ask, I won't spill even a single bean.  And before I get started in earnest here, let me just say that the following opinions are in no way endorsed or representative of the opinions of EA, this is MY opinion.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, let me say what I came to say.  Japan, you disappoint me.  Deeply and profoundly.  Everyone knows that the reason Xbox 360 doesn't sell in Japan is because of poor marketing.  But there's something deeper...something that affects the sales of both Xbox 360 AND PS3 in Japan.  That something is inexperience.  The majority of Japanese developers couldn't conjure up a game worthy of being called "next-gen" if their freakin' lives depended on it.  Sure, tons of people buy the Wii in Japan, but that's because they know not to expect amazing visuals.  The Wii is delivering exactly what Nintendo promised: innovation.  PS3 and 360 in Japan are different stories.  The promise has been high-def visuals and massive processing power, but who wants to buy into those claims when Japanese developers aren't backing them up?

Case in point: Microsoft just announced that Vampire's Rain and Project Sylpheed are coming to the U.S. this summer.  The problem?  Both games look like they were made for PS2, not Xbox 360, even though they were built from the ground up for it.  Bullet Witch and Earth Defense Force 2017 are the same way.  All of these games have 2 things in common: they were all developed in Japan, and they all look like someone crapped in their hand and wiped it on the screen to create the textures.  Another, possibly even better example would be Namco's cancelled Frame City Killer.  It boggles my mind to think that someone could make an engine as powerful as Unreal Engine 3 look as bad as Namco did.  It seems like the only Japanese developers who are putting forth the effort to make their games look good are Capcom and Mistwalker.  As blasphemous as it may sound, I don't even think Metal Gear 4 looks all that good.  Everything is brown or grey and it all blends together to create a very muddled look overall.

In conclusion, my belief is that PS3 and 360 don't sell well in Japan because they aren't living up to their potential or the promises made about them, and the developers are to blame for this.  Why should anyone buy a console that isn't delivering on its promises?  I sure wouldn't.  The consumers have spoken and until Japanese developers start making good use of this new, more powerful hardware that's available to them, the sales are going to continue to be slow in Japan.  Now don't get me wrong, I realise that graphics aren't everything, but when new hardware is expected to deliver a visual experience above and beyond anything seen previously, they need to do so or people aren't going to buy into it.  Period.

I spend a lot of time in the System Wars forum. Don't ask me why, or what I'm thinking, because I simply don't have an answer. Maybe it's because it's amusing, I don't know. What I DO know though, is that there is a general lack of opinion on System Wars, even though the whole point of it is for people to voice differing opinions. This is not how it works in practice, however. In actuality, System Wars is mostly a collection of bumbling fools who must rely on the opinions of the humble Gamespot editors in order to shape their own. The sentiment is rarely "I think this game is better than that one because...". Instead, it usually sounds more along the lines of "Greg Kasavin says it's better so it has to be true!!"...only with worse grammar and spelling.

One major quote of contention comes from good old Greg K. (my favorite GS editor), in reference to the ongoing Halo 2 vs. Half Life 2 debate (which is a stupid thing to argue about in the first place since they're both awesome). The first part of the quote goes like this: "The content of the games is different. Half-Life 2 is apparently a significantly better, longer single-player game than Halo 2." This quote is often used by hermits, the PC fanboys to prove "their" point. However, what they fail to do is use the rest of the quote, which goes like this: "However, Half-Life 2's multiplayer component is the already-established, love-it-or-hate-it Counter-Strike: Source; there was a missed opportunity to include an original multiplayer component, but it's obvious that the focus on the single-player campaign paid off. Meanwhile, Halo 2's best feature is its online multiplayer component, which, in the context of consoles, is pretty revolutionary in its implementation. So, in addition to being two different games on two different platforms, these games' respective feature sets are actually not very similar, nor are their greatest accomplishments." The hermits never use the rest of the quote because it disproves what they believe. Greg K. is right though. They are both great games with completely different focuses, and shouldn't really be compared in terms of which one is better.

But you know what? It isn't necessary to use these quotes at all. If you're having an argument about one game being better than the other, there can be no winner...no one is right, because opinions are not fact, which is why we call them OPINIONS. One isn't suddenly going to make the other see the "error" of their ways, and quoting Gamespot editors who agree with them isn't going to make a difference either. It all comes down to opinion, and the people in System Wars need to start coming up with opinions of their own.

This is getting a little ridiculous here. I know game piracy is a pretty common, even rampant occurence for games, but usually it's been PC games. The Half Life 2 Source code is a shining example of this. But two, extremely high profile CONSOLE games being jacked within a week of each other? This is insanity, people. Halo 2 was stolen and leaked onto the internet...in French, no less, and GTA: San Andreas has recently been stolen and leaked as well.

The problem with this, other than the obvious potential monetary setbacks to the developers, is that people are getting the wrong impressions of these games. Neither Halo 2 nor GTA are optimized to run on a PC, so running them on a PC would make them seem incomplete. This gives the games a bad rap, as those punks who have already played the pirated versions like to either spoil plot details or give the games below average reviews based on their stolen copies.

The solution is simple though. Better surveillance at the factories, because that's obviously where these thefts are taking place. It was not until these games had gone gold and shipped to the factory that they wer open to theft at all. They are well guarded secrets while in development, so it is now up to the publishers to assure that the manufacturing process is secure as well. If the theft of console games like these becomes commonplace, it could spell disaster for the gaming industry.

Halo 2. The single-most hyped, anticipated game of this generation -- perhaps any -- has drawn a lot of fire from nay-sayers, particularly from the "cows", PS2 fanboys. I figure that they're simply jealous because the closest thing that PS2 has, or will ever have to Halo 2, is the unremarkable looking Killzone. I can understand why the "hermits", PC fanboys, would be underwhelmed with Halo 2, and that's because PC shooters have made a lot of ground in recent years and in all actuality, Halo 2 is nothing they haven't already seen a thousand times. Cows however are just jealous. But I'm not here to talk about fanboys, I'm here to talk about why Halo 2 WILL be a great game.

Let's start with the most obvious: Multiplayer. Halo 2's multiplayer will be leagues above that found in the original Halo. Halo's multiplayer, while extremely fun in it's own right, felt like it was just sort of tacked on at the end. Halo 2's multiplayer is going to be an integral part of the game. Two particularly noteworthy features are Optimatch and the "party" system. With Optimatch, there's no more scrolling through lists of available game types to find one that suits you. The game will automatically pit you against players of similar skill and similar favorite game types. If you and one other player are running neck and neck for first place, the optimatch may pit you against that player in a 1 on 1 fight to the death in the next round. The party system allows you to travel from game to game with a group of friends and eliminates the hassle of arranging yourselves for another game, which is a great and welcome mechanic, especially for those in clans.

The only thing we don't know too much about is the single player portion. While some say that it's because it's too crappy to show, if history is any indication, then that is certainly not the case with Bungie behind the wheel. Halo was an excellent game that even now is surrounded by hype. Bungie was given the monumental task of making it better, and I have a feeling that's what they're doing. They want to keep the story under wraps. Fine, I understand that...I wouldn't want the story ruined for me. I do wish they'd divulge SOME details, but if they'd rather keep single player a secret, then by all means, they should do so. It will make that much more impact when it is unleased upon the world.

As a predominate Xbox user, I do not consider myself a "lemming", as Xbox fans are called in the System Wars forums. While I prefer my Xbox over other current generation systems, I do not fail to see the merits of the competition. I do not blindly rule out every system that is not my own. With that said, I also believe that technologically speaking, Xbox is by far superior to PS2 or Gamecube. That is a fact, regardless of what "cows" and "sheep" like to believe. Maybe not to a PC, though I would probably consider it to be better than MY PC. But for the sake of this entry, I'm going to leave the PC out of the picture, because my point is to discuss the home consoles, and specifically, their power in relation to one another.

As it stands, most multiplatform games are developed initially for the PS2, the lowest common denominator, i.e., the least powerful of the 3 consoles. The subsequent Xbox and occasionally Gamecube versions (considering that there IS a Gamecube version) are usually nothing more than slightly enhanced PS2 versions. This seems a bit contrived to me. If a company is developing a game to play to PS2's strengths, it's not exactly making the best use of Gamecube or Xbox hardware, is it? Sure it makes for a good looking game by PS2 standards, but Xbox standards are different. Xbox users expect higher quality and have higher standards for Xbox games than the average PS2 owner. My proposal then is this: why not develop multiplatform games using the Xbox hardware and then suit the other versions to the strengths of their respective consoles? Would that not, in the long run, make for better looking games across the board? Even though PS2 and Gamecube versions would not look as good as the Xbox version, they would still be top tier games graphically on their respective systems. This would benefit every console. Rather than have a good looking PS2 game, a good looking Gamecube game and only an OK looking Xbox game, would it not make more sense to have them all looking great?

There are some games that use my proposed model. The Splinter Cell series makes a perfect example. Developed for Xbox and PC at first, they are great looking games on Xbox and PC. The versions that follow essentially use the same basic engine, but are scaled down to fit the parameters of the PS2 and Gamecube. What results is a game that generally looks much better than most of the other games on those systems. Another perfect example is Starcraft: Ghost, which is being developed with the Xbox in mind and is a great looking game because of it. The PS2 and Gamecube versions both look great as well because they sport a graphics engine that was essentially made for Xbox. This way of thinking makes perfect sense to me. Better looking games on every system. Does anybody agree with me on this?

Since the beginning of the current generation of consoles, there have been many prevalent trends or developments that are both frustrating and incomprehensible. The one that sticks out the most for me would have to be Nintendo's obvious lack of foresight and how increasingly out of touch they have grown from their fanbase and the rest of the gaming world in general.

Nintendo used to be the pinnacle of gaming, the king of innovation, and apparently, they still like to label themselves as such. The simple fact of the matter is that Nintendo no longer knows or perhaps no longer cares about what gamers want these days. Their stubborn refusal to accept online console gaming as the next frontier have buried them in a hole I fear they will not be able to climb out of. They insist that gamers do not want to play online, but if that is indeed the case, how does one go about explaining the millions of users that have signed up for Xbox Live of PS2 Online? That to me sounds like quite a powerful testament to the draw of online gaming. Instead, Nintendo opted to put their money into gimmicks and gadgets such as GBA-Gamecube connectivity. This feature, has been, in every sense of the term...a waste. The only games to make full use of this feature REQUIRE that you have a GBA in order to play them. That sounds like an obvious marketing ploy to me.

Nintendo has also begun to slump in the area of innovation, the one thing they value above all else. Take Pokemon for example. When was the last time a significant change was made to the series? The biggest upgrade it's received over the years is an expanded roster of creatures, and frankly, the new creatures become more and more uninspired every time. Why not turn the series into a fully realized, next-gen RPG or even an MMORPG? The nature of the series lends itself to the MMO category: Trainers from across the globe vying to become the true Pokemon master. It lends itself completely to PvP in an MMO format. Also, take Mario Kart and Mario Party. Every itteration of these series haves been, in essence, the same games as the ones that game before. They say they're giving fans what they want, but fans don't want more of the same. We want new, original ideas. Nintendo used to be the chief advocate of originality, but no longer.

Nintendo's demise is in the cards. Anyone with an open mind can see it coming. 3rd party pubishers are fleeing Nintendo's camp like rats from a sinking ship. Sequels to games that have been on PS2, Xbox and Gamecube are now skipping Gamecube entirely, such as Burnout and most multiplatform titles in general. Many games these days are going online and with Nintendo's inability to back the online format, many developers are simply opting out. Take Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow for instance. Without the multiplayer, it 's almost the same game as the first one. The Gamecube version lacked the multiplayer and thus paled in comparison to other versions of the game. Mortal Kombat: Deception will also be released on Gamecube without online play, but with a few added "extras" to try to make up for it, but the bottom line is that without online play, it will be lacking a huge feature that will undoubtedly vault the PS2 and Xbox versions to greatness.

If Nintendo continues on its current path, it's next console may very likely be its last. The DS seems like a monumental waste as well, especially since it will be in direct competition with the PSP. Who needs duel screens, or a stylus to play their games? Who even WANTS that? What ever happened to practicality? The end is near for Nintendo and when it comes, rather than going the way of Sega as a 3rd party publisher, Nintendo will most likely opt out of the market altogether due to their unrelenting stubborn nature. They can't depend on Mario and Zelda forever.