http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:29:42 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/19/152942.php Rich PowersLike many reviewers across the Internet, I tried desperately to love this game. As a huge fan of the original, I thought the sequel would be epic, blending numerous genres to form a strategy game the likes of which has never been seen. What I got instead was an exercise in repetition, one that thoroughly bastardizes the previous game's original and highly unique concept.The storyline is simple: the ancient Greeks have just been bitch-slapped by the Aztecs. (I know; it makes no sense). Now you, as their god, must lead them back to glory, conquering eight island "levels" until you finally develop a civilization strong enough to challenge the mighty Aztecs. And that's it. In fact, the story is so inconsequential that it already sets the game off on the wrong foot.You conquer each island by assuming the role of a benevolent and good god or an evil, malicious, warmongering one. Each path has a different conquest strategy, but they share one thing in common: no matter what direction you go, you're likely to be bored as hell (or heaven perhaps).As a good god, you assimilate neighboring villages by creating a "city on a hill" that is a shining beacon of your glory. Reputation points are accumulated by plopping down buildings and little monuments. Gain enough rep points and other villages will migrate to your city until you've beat the map. The formula is simple: the bigger the building, the more reputation you gain.Supposedly, you can expedite this process by planning an aesthetically-pleasing city. Although I've come to discover that this, too, is inconsequential. Urban sprawl is the fastest way to success. And trust me, as boring as city building is, success couldn't come fast enough.While B&W2 boasts a more developed city building model than the original game, it's still too simplistic to be considered "fun". (This is coming from a veteran of nearly every city simulation ever made.) A recurring problem is how Lionhead Studios tries to cram so many genres into one package - ultimately with little success. City building and management is a perfect example. Villagers must be assigned various roles (farmer, refiner, breeder, etc.) if you want to speed production. But guess what? The only way to do this is by individually picking the people up and placing them on what resource or building you want them to work. As you can imagine, this becomes increasingly frustrating as your population grows to the 300 range. Here's the real kicker: your people will age and die and stop working, meaning you have to constantly check your "disciple" levels and reassign new citizens to replace the dying ones. What happened to a simple slider bar to manage this? A solid chunk of my play time was devoted to such menial tasks; I'm supposed to be a god, not a bureaucrat!Disliking the abovementioned aspect, and the game's shallow resource and production model, I tried being an evil god. So I built a few armories and started recruiting platoons. Previews promised me a Rome: Total War-like experience, so I was exited. While a military element is welcomed, it's ultimately so simplistic that it becomes a hassle. You can only build three types of units - soldiers, archers, and catapults - and there is very, very little strategy involved in combat. Battles are determined by sheer numbers and that's about it.Ok, I thought, I'll just raise a huge army and rush my enemies. Not bad, right? Well, thanks to the horrible city management model - and the slow population growth - I had to wait a half hour or more between battles just to raise a sizable army. Now, I never expected "free" soldiers, but this process was just painful.Regardless of what path you choose, you'll get a creature at the start of the game. This giant animal (in my case a cow) can be trained to be good or evil and will (supposedly) help you manage your lands.The creature was an integral part of the original game; without a powerful creature, you could not be an effective god. In B&W2, however, your creature takes a back seat. Because I was occupied with busywork, I found it difficult to accommodate time for Mr. Cow. And when I did, he acted like a dolt. I found it wasn't worth the effort trying to manage him. The cow was most useful as a quick-response soldier or offensive powerhouse. But even his military role was limited, as I couldn't use him in conjunction with my own soldiers; he crushed as many of my men as he did the enemy.Perhaps the most insulting element of B&W2 is the asinine "silver scroll" events. (I'd call them games, but that word implies they're fun.) Click on one of these floating scrolls and you'll be taken to a cut scene of a poor sap who needs your divine help. Cool, I thought, I get to use some awesome god powers to fulfill my believer's wishes! Oh how wrong I was. These events involve you, more often than not, hurling a barrel of beer across a lake at some target. Or guiding a spy through a maze by switching the direction signs around. Or any other stupid thing you're likely to find in a third grade Math Blasters game.I had to suffer through these events because I needed the tribute points they award. With these points, you can buy better buildings and miracles. I thought this element was restrictive; you might argue that gradually acquiring such prizes promotes "character advancement," but I'm supposed to be a god! Why should I have to progressively buy miracles as basic as water or fire? Part of the allure of a "god game" is being in total control.As a disclaimer, I did not beat the game. I quit and uninstalled after island six. Each level offers the same thing, but on a slightly larger scale; it says a lot when I wasn't even motivated to finish the story. The lack of a sandbox mode was also disappointing.The game's most redeeming aspect - and chief selling point I'd imagine - are the beautiful graphics. Everything from the buildings to the citizens are meticulously detailed and animated. The colors are vivid and the world is bursting with personality (even if the game itself isn't). But you're going to need one helluva PC to run this game on the high-level settings.The sound was nice and I particularly liked the banter from my animated good and evil consciences. But the game is so slow that even the sounds started to grind on me.B&W2 doesn't feels like a "god game," but rather a city-building simulation with a few novel additions (like the creature and miracles). Worst of all, it's not even a fun city building game. The feeling of being an omnipresence and powerful deity is completely absent from the game; I felt more like a divine babysitter, watching over every nuance of my peoples' lives. Lionhead Studios tries to accomplish so much in one game that they actually accomplish nothing at all - except for maybe wasting my time.Graphics: 9 Gameplay: 5 Sound: 7 Replay value: 2 Overall: 5Posted by request of Mr. Augustus Krumb, a contributor at Rich Powers' site. More of Krumb's gaming reviews and commentary can be viewed here. Ed/Pub:NB Gaming38122@blogcritics.org Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:29:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/07/152532.php Rich PowersI'll be the first to admit that I have a certain nerdy fondness for X-Men. Perhaps it's because as a child I was an obsessive fanboy over Fox's X-Men animated series (I still maintain that it's one of the best cartoons ever). I used to get distraught whenever the network changed the show's timeslot, fearing they had confirmed my worst nightmares and cancelled it. Given this, you probably think I was drooling at the chance to play the newest X-Men game. Not quite, for you see I've always been reluctant to accept any incarnation of the X-Men that differs from the TV show. If the team's roster, appearance, or voices are even the least bit different, I'm offended in some creepy way; how dare they bastardize my beloved cartoon show like that!But X-Men Legends II: Rise of the Apocalypse actually reminded me a lot of the animated series, both in terms of character and storyline. That aspect alone made it a joy to play. From the gameplay perspective, Legends II is never short on cheap fun. I almost view the game as modernized version of Konami's excellent X-Men side-scrolling arcade game.The gist of the story: the earth's most powerful mutant, Apocalypse, and the creepy Mr. Sinister (the penname of many goths who write angst poetry online I'm sure) have teamed up to conquer the world. What follows is your typical fare of comic book action and drama.Like its predecessor, Legends II lets you assemble a team of four mutants to do battle with the forces of evil. Only this time Magneto and his Brotherhood of Evil Mutants form an uneasy truce with the X-Men (I'm sure you're gasping in disbelief). Yes, Apocalypse is that damn powerful.This was obviously done to give you access to awesome characters like Juggernaut and Sabertooth (the former being my character of choice). The designers certainly emphasize how uncomfortable the two teams are at having to join forces, but some of the mission briefing scenes are ridiculously campy when it comes to making that point.The character selection is definitely a strong point. Fifteen mutants, from Iceman to Gambit to Rogue, are available from the get-go, with three unlockable characters (one being the loud-mouth assassin Deadpool). Because characters in your active party gain experience much faster than those on the roster, it makes having a dynamic team somewhat difficult (unless you constantly switch characters). For this reason, Legends II has substantial replay value, as you can try the game with new combinations of characters. Legends II isn't particularly challenging and the levels are downright repetitive. To the designers' credit, they utilize a vast number of familiar locations from the X-Men universe, such as Department H, the Savage Land, and Genosha. I was a bit surprised, however, that an entire chapter takes place in Canada (not that I have anything against our neighbors to the north).But the variety is little more than superficial. While you'll fight inside temples (three of them to be exact) and futuristic bases, most of the levels follow the same layout: a twist of narrow corroders broken up by the occasional huge room. Your typical objectives involve deactivating generators, reprogramming security computers, and killing lots and lots of bad guys.These bad guys, unfortunately, are the game's chief drawback. The great thing about sci-fi is the ability to stretch the truth and sometimes venture into the outlandish. Unfortunately, adversaries are your usual fare of robots, super clones, and giant insects. Much like the levels, these are merely superficial distinctions: groups of enemies always fight the same and are tactically incompetent. And for most of your adventure, you'll be facing small groups at a time. What a shame, considering the game's best moments are when you're facing upwards of 15 enemies in over-the-top battles.Pummeling baddies is also rather easy, thanks to the wide variety of superpowers your characters posses. I loved using Juggernaut's "demolition" charge to smash enemies around like bowling pins. These superpowers consume energy, which replenishes over time or can be restored through the use of potions. Combo moves are also possible, though usually it's hard to coordinate them (they happen mostly by accident).Boss battles also lacked the epic feel of a true comic book battle. Maybe because, instead of being genuinely challenging, the bosses are instead given contrived "weaknesses," such as being dependent on some piece of machinery to provide them with energy.Only once in the game did my entire team die, and that was at the hands of SugarMan, a seriously messed up villain. Most the time, found it harder to defeat the super-grunts with "combo" shields; in order to damage them, you must perform a combo attack to deactivate some stupid force field. Sounds easy enough, right? Well it gets really friggn' old when they continuously interrupt your combo by knocking you around, forcing you to keep on trying for upwards of three minutes.I noticed, however, that playing as a mutant that relies on ranged attacks (Cyclops, Iceman, Magneto) was decidedly more difficult than opting for the brutes like Colossus or Juggernaut. And not difficult in a good way - it's like they simply weren't powerful enough. My last complaint deals with the game's interface, which is counterintuitive in every regard. The menus aren't logically organized and the team management screen is a mess (plus it's detached from the game, forcing you to wait for it to load). The game also sports a half-hearted RPG item system. After the first level, I just set the system on "auto manage" and saved myself the trouble. Equipping various items looted from fallen enemies proved too much of a detraction. The entire system felt tacked on, considering Legends II is clearly an action-driven game.Graphics-wise, Legends II is perfect. The characters are rendered in a fluid comic book style and the rag doll animations are especially fun to watch. Levels feature intricate details and props (most of which are destructible). When the royal rumble fights break out, all of this comes together to form one helluva scene: enemies and teammates alike flying across the screen, destroying everything in their path. Beautifully rendered 3D cut scenes accompany each of the game's chapters; the opening sequence is particularly well done. Other scenes, though, seem like wasted effort.The voice acting was much better than I expected. Great care was taken to give each character a fitting voice. Looking back, I don't even remember what the musical score sounded like. Maybe it's because the other annoying sound effects - such as enemies excessively grunting as I pummeled them - got in the way.Whenever I tried to play online, I found the game excessively laggy. Most of the time, however, there are very few public games available. Legends II is definitely a LAN party game, or one where you schedule a time with your friends to play.Legends II was a great 11-hour time waster. No excessive thought or challenges, just an endless stream of bad guys waiting to get their asses handed to them. Fortunately for me, I played my friend's copy of the game because, I regret to say, I wouldn't have shelled out the $40 for it. Fun, yes, but it's simply not worth the asking price (perhaps if the game was longer or more challenging). You're better off renting a console version for the weekend.Score 7/10By Augustus Krumb, contributor to Rich Powers' site (posted by request). More of Mr. Augustus Krumb's gaming commentary can be viewed here.Ed/Pub:LisaM Gaming37533@blogcritics.org Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:25:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/041437.php Rich PowersI consider myself a proud supporter of basic libertarian tenets: a small government, a balanced budget, an elimination of wasteful government programs, and a commitment to protecting civil liberties. Why, then, won't I ever vote for the Libertarian Party? Because their cabal of leaders and foot-soldiers are typically off-the-deep-end wackos who do a disservice to the libertarian ideology.Over the past several years I've seen the Republican Party eliminate core "conservative" values from its platform. Republican politicians started campaigning on useless fluff they termed "social conservatism," but ignored important issues like fiscal responsibility and border security. When I stumbled upon the U.S. national debt clock, I was horrified to see it hovering around $7 trillion (as you can see it has since grown). I learned of how we're indebting ourselves to foreign countries, of how the Republicans are borrowing against our future. I decided these weren't true conservatives after all.Times are indeed scary when you can't even trust the GOP with your money. The Democrats, of course, make no secret about wanting to piss away federal funds on endless social programs. Who am I to support?That's when I stumbled upon libertarianism and in turn the Libertarian Party. I consider myself to be a "moderate libertarian," insofar that I utterly disagree with the extremists and view libertarianism as a counterbalance to the established parties. Even I can see how dangerous it would be if libertarians controlled the government...The L.P. talks a good talk and presents itself quite nicely in its introductory literature. Finally, I thought, a party that won't ignore border security or our the national debt!My outlook changed when I again visited their website only to see them campaigning for U.S. census reform. According to the L.P., the only constitutional function of the census is to count the population; anything else is an unconstitutional expansion of government. Even if, from a literal standpoint, that assertion is true, who honestly cares? We have bigger problems to tackle here.And that's just it: libertarians are stereotyped as being "out there" because the party tries to fight an ideological battle on every front, making causes out of trivial issues middleclass America couldn't give a hoot in hell about.I also had the pleasure of hearing a Libertarian Party speaker earlier this year. Before he even arrived, the room was abuzz about this chap. You see, he is known the county over for speaking to high school seniors and using bestiality - yes bestiality - to illustrate libertarianism. "You can have sex with a horse and, so long as you don't infringe on anyone's rights, you can go ahead and do it." Never mind that animals can't give consent, but the fact is that's the worst possible way to spread your ideology...period. Instantly, you lose prospective voters who might otherwise agree with you.And it's quite sad that a party with so much potential is squandering it through political ineptitude. As great as their ideology sounds to some of us, the L.P. is jumping the gun; you don't advocate the outright legalization of all drugs if you plan on actually winning an election.We are taught to not compromise our values, but politics involves pandering...and lots of it. The L.P. needs to ditch its more extreme views - complete laissez-faire economics, drug legalization - and reconstruct itself with the times in mind. They need to viciously attack the Republicans and Democrats for their reckless fiscal policies, ones that will hurt future generations of Americans. Hell, they'd win a huge support base if they promised to do something about border security and illegal immigration. Even staunch Bush supporters I know have expressed dismay over his relative inaction on that issue.The list goes on, but if we are to ever find an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, it must be in the form of a well-oiled, efficient, and even conniving political party - one that's not afraid to play hardball. Ideological parties get so caught up in their principles that they lose sight of the important thing: winning.Rich Powers is a senior member of ZeroHQ Politics36929@blogcritics.org Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:14:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/26/163551.php Rich PowersA straw poll of Silicon Valley professionals will reveal the hatred that Microsoft generates in elite technology circles. To this crowd, the Redmond, Washington-based company is the definition of "bastard corporate monstrosity." But all too often these yuppie entrepreneurs focus their anger towards Bill Gates' business empire and not his company's most dastardly creation: MS PowerPoint.In fact, all of this misguided hatred has only allowed PowerPoint to spread like a cancer into every facet of modern society, unopposed by the vast majority. Its victims at this stage are uncountable - everyone from power execs to college professors.By its very nature, PowerPoint is the perfect Trojan horse. It's often bundled innocuously with useful programs like Word and Excel. We're lured by its ability to easily create slides with quirky effects, the extent of which is only limited by our imagination or ability to dig up hackneyed clipart.Unfortunately, society never stepped back and asked what would happen if it opened this Pandora's box. Instead, we recklessly plunged in feet-first and have descended far beyond the point of return.The proliferation of PowerPoint might make presentations more palatable to a generation lacking attention spans, but we pay a mighty cost for this "entertainment": we're obstructing the flow of knowledge, dumbing-down complex concepts, and substituting good presentation skills with PowerPoint know-how.These presentations are undermining an entire generation's ability to both interpret and present data. Perhaps not at the global business conference or UN General Assembly level, but its corrupting influence in millions of classrooms and boardrooms is ultimately far more destructive.At my university, PowerPoint is standard fare for many professors. Instead of just talking from a lectern - as great men have done for millennia - these professors insist on creating slides of their lessons and projecting them on massive screens. While at first this organization seems desirable, it is nothing more than a forbidden fruit.Students become so entranced with the "free" data on the screen that they lose sight of the professor's lecture. Or of the "bigger picture," as they're mentally bogged down by the sub-organization of the slides.One PowerPoint slideshow here and there wont turn you into a dribbling idiot. Exposure to them over the course of ten years of schooling, however, will surely dull one's ability to process information.But using the program can be far worse.In addition to serving as a virtual crutch for the presenter, it makes spontaneous speech and subtleties all but vanish. Then there's the problem of effectively displaying the information.Most people don't appreciate the complex design techniques that go into everything from newspapers to websites. While ZeroHQ isn't a monumental design achievement, I at least had sense not to create a yellow background with red fonts. Likewise, I break up my text so it's easier to read.So many PowerPoint users - even professors - think it's acceptable to load each slide with massive blocks of text. Or, on the other extreme, they'll shorten complex ideas into bulleted summaries (which skew or downright butcher said ideas).Universities, corporations, government agencies - institutions that are the backbone of our society continue to use this program. In skilled hands, PowerPoint is indeed a valuable tool. But even the best of us become so involved with the craft of slide making that the whole concept becomes self-destructive. Sci/Tech36853@blogcritics.org Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:35:51 EDT