Demon's Souls

You might hate it, but you'll love it too

Demon's Souls Japanese game cover (Image found using Google image search)

I suppose I'd call this a mini review, but it'd be more accurately described as a write-up of my first impressions of the game.

For those of you who haven't heard of this game, I'll just go ahead and throw this out there. This game is hard. You are guaranteed to die in this game and you are meant to die a lot. I can say for sure that even someone with the sharpest reflexes will die at least once. Why so sure? Because you are killed off at the end of the tutorial and sent to the beginning, the hub, of the game: The Nexus.


Even if you do beat the first boss in the tutorial, you'll run into this guy where you'll me certain death. (Image from Neoseeker)

To add to the fun, when you die, you are not sent back to a checkpoint. You are sent back to the beginning of the level you were playing. Not only that, every monster/demon you killed is respawned.

So what the heck is so fun about that? Sounds repetetive, right? You run through a level, you kill a lot of stuff, but if you die, you're sent back to the start and you have to do it all over again!

Well, for starters, this game forces you to learn from your mistakes. Since all enemies are respawned, it should be noted that they are respawned in the exact same places that they were before. So when you run through the level again, you know what to do and what to avoid. You know how to better fight so that you don't face as many injuries or death again.

This game essentially follows a more classic formula that newer games have all but forgotten. I found that it was best said in a review from Play Magazine:

"Unless you have been around since the 8-bit days, your experience of games has probably been pretty forgiving. 8-Bit games were more punishing in part because they were shorter; developers extended the life of their titles by padding the play-time with death. A difficult learning-curve meant more time spent with a title. But when games got memory cards and save points, replay was replaced with filler content. Then, when games targeted the mainstream market, they became easier still. Now, games feature unlimited continues as a given; the length of a title is not determined by how many times you play it, but simply how long it takes to physically get from the beginning of the title to the end.

Demon's Souls, on the other hand, is as long as you are stupid. Its length will be determined by how impetuous you are. Demon's Souls does not tolerate impatience. A castle filled with sword-weilding skeletons, where flying sting-rays throw thunderous shards of stone from the sky, would not turn a blind eye to a poorly-armored idiot charging its gates. So, take your time, select some good gear. Pay attention to your surroundings. And don't run in screaming your own name. Because Demon's Souls takes itself very seriously."

So basically, this game is awesome for reasons which were previously found mostly in games from decades ago. To make such a game by that old formula and give it some modern visuals and controls is simply the most refreshing thing I've experienced ever since I started playing games regularly over a decade ago, I really mean it!

Here's the big question though, being a guy who never played those old-school uber-difficult games, am I enjoying myself with Demon's Souls? Is my patience holding up against this game? Have I destroyed my PS3 controllers and put a hole in my TV screen?

The answers: Yes, yes, and no. I'm having a ton of fun with this game, my patience has been holding up just fine (if anything this game is teaching me patience to a different degree), and my PS3 controllers and TV are just fine.

As of writing this, I have only beaten the first level and its boss in Demon's Souls. I've also played through most of the second level 3-4 times. I say most of the second level because so far I've died on the way to the boss and was actually killed by the boss in my last run-through. I've yet to try it again.


This is the boss for the second level in the game. He's pretty tough, just a bit.

So, you wonder, if I've only beaten the first level and played through most of the second level a few times, just how much game time have I logged so far? The answer, my friends, is four. That's right, it's taken me four hours to complete, let's say, 1.9 levels. It may sound ludicrous to some of you, but trust me, it's been awesome so far and I look forward to playing this game all the time.

Here's the thing, the numerous times you die and the repetition and the lack of checkpoints serve a very good purpose. They make the player feel a sense of mortality and a need to actually pay attention and think when playing a game, as opposed to the newer "twitch" games such as Call of Duty 4 or Team Fortress 2 (both of which I love to play).

You need to approach your enemies carefully. You need to time your blocks and attacks properly. In the end, you are rewarded with victory knowing that you came out on top because you earned it. If you make just one or two too many mistakes, you will instantly regret them. The game will take your mistakes and knock you down and kick your ass. This seriously encourages a more serious and thoughtful gaming experience that can't really be found in many other places.

Let's not forget that when you die you're sent back to the beginning of the level, with all enemies respawned! This really emphasizes the need to be thoughtful, serious, and careful as you progress. This in particular also really adds to that sense of mortality that your character in the game has, because if you die, you have to do everything again.

I recall on one occasion specifically, where I found myself in a pincer attack (enemies on both sides) when I stepped out of a doorway and into a narrow corridor. I frantically ran to the right so that I could try and get past one of my foes, and I did. However, there were two more waiting for me. Bad idea. So basically at this point I had TWO enemies on each side. In the end, I stabbed two of them with a spear, ran by again, had all four of them in front of me, started slashing away with a sword while blocking when needed, and got away with just a sliver of health left. During the fight though, I kept on thinking about how much I did not want my character to die, and that I even felt desperate in my attempts to stay alive, but it felt great when I came out in one piece.

Situations like this are one of the main things that make the game shine. You get ambushed, what do you to? You try to take action so that things are fair or so that you'll have an advantage, but then the game slaps you in the face. What do you do then? You adjust your tactics and take the challenge. As you fight, you really fight with a sense of urgency and a desire to survive, because you know that if you lose this fight, you have to do everything again (although you will know better when you return). No checkpoints for you, that'd be too forgiving. No pausing, that gives you too much time to sit and think. Enemies will not pause and fight you one on one (like Assassin's Creed) and they will not pause for too long as they fight you, that'd be too easy. The enemies in this game are out to get you, and the game does not try to hide that fact.

I even forgot to mention, that when you die, you respawn in "soul form". In this form, you only have half of your health. Great, right? To get your body back you have to beat a boss or help another person beat a boss in their world.

There's a lot of interactivity between players both directly and indirectly. I won't go too far in detail here, but you can leave hints for other players. You can't leave anything inappropriate as you choose from a preset list of hints or messages. If you leave a bad message, it won't be rated well by other players and it will disappear faster than better-rated messages. If another player recommends your message, some of your health is replenished. Also, when you see other ghostly apparitions while you play, they are actually other players in their own worlds playing the game. There are ways to join these players in their world also. Lastly, as far as I can remember, you will also see several blood splatters on the ground as you progress. If you touch these, you will actually see a replay of another player's death who died there. This can be very helpful by allowing you see potential challenges up ahead.

There is so much more to say, but I'll go on and refer you to the GameSpot review, as it covers all I've said here but in more detail in some areas:


Just to reiterate, this game is hard. I sometimes even find it cruel. I've even wished for checkpoints. But when I come out of situations victorious, it all makes sense. The difficulty and gameplay design decisions are all very much deliberate and intended.

This game is the hardest and most rewarding game I've ever played. Even after just beating one level, I wonder why games like this aren't around much, but then I realize it's because most gamers now are used to being given a lot of slack.

Play this game and you'll find everything else, well, far too simple and easy. You may even consider other gamers pansies if they complain about this game and consider it to not be "well-made". Those people have either not played this game or they couldn't take the difficulty. On the contrary, this game is one of the most well-made I've ever played, and reviews listed at metacritic.com and gamerankings.com agree (for the most part, except for those few that complain about the difficulty and lack of checkpoints, figures). Honestly, not having checkpoints and having things be so hard does not detract from the experience. If anything, it adds to the experience and even immerses you even deeper into the game, just knowing that you really have to fight hard and intelligently if you want to make it.

This spiritual successor to the similarly unforgiving and difficult PS1 game King's Field (which I haven't played, but have heard a lot about), gets my stamp of approval. With a great story, excellent and refreshing gameplay, and great visuals, I give it a 9.5/10, given what I've played so far.

If you're looking to get a PS3 (in case Killzone 2 or Metal Gear Solid 4 weren't good enough reasons), this game would be a good excuse to. Let's not forget that Uncharted 2 also game out this week!

On an unrelated note, everyone's favorite trio of gearheads will be back with a new season of Top Gear on November 15th!

-Allen

EDIT:
IGN has posted their video review of Demon's Souls, in case any of you are curious, here it is:

More Demon's Souls Info

Unfortunate news...

The following news story is relevant to my previous blog post in a most unfortunate way...

IU student struck, killed on campus
Posted: Sep 09, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 09, 2009 6:59 PM EDT

Bloomington - An Indiana University student was struck and killed by a car on the IU campus Wednesday afternoon.

It happened on Fee Lane at around 2:30 pm. Police say a 19-year-old male student was driving southbound when he struck another student, also a 19-year-old male, who was walking eastbound across Fee Lane. The street was closed while police investigated the scene. It has since reopened.

At this point it isn't known if the victim died at the scene or in the hospital. The driver is not believed to be injured.

I wrote about how both drivers and pedestrians should both be more careful just last week.

The fact that this happened so shortly after I wrote that blog entry honestly disturbs me and upsets me. Granted, I did not expect my message to get out to everyone, I think it's unfortunate that these things still happen.

It is also unfortunate that this occurrence will serve as a reminder and as a warning that everyone driving or walking around campus should be more careful. It's unfortunate because I believe this shouldn't have happened, and people shouldn't need for something like this to happen for them to think about being more careful. Perhaps not everyone needed to be warned or reminded, but there are always people who do.

I had a New York driver (saw their license plate) honk at me as I turned right off of 10th on to Fee Lane. I wasn't going particularly slow, but I wasn't speeding either. I don't know why they honked at me, but it became apparent that they were just being impatient after I turned off of Fee Lane. The driver, in a white Jeep, decided to hit the throttle and accelerate quite quickly only to need to brake again within 100 feet because there was another slower car in front of them. Really? You can all figure out the many ways that driver's lack of patience was undesirable. It is unnecessary for me to elaborate, but with drivers like that on this campus am I really surprised that something like this was bound to happen? Unfortunately, no.

Can everyone please just be a bit more careful getting around on campus? And everywhere else, really?

Again, drivers, please be more aware of your surroundings and slow down for goodness' sake, especially if there are a lot of pedestrians around. You won't impress anyone by driving fast on campus, so no need to show off.

Pedestrians, please be mindful of the crosswalks and crossing indicators at each intersection, ESPECIALLY around 10th and Jordan and 10th and Fee. And of course, be more observant of cars turning on to the street and when crossing the street when you're walking from behind a vehicle that may have otherwise hidden you from view before.

That aside, may the victim rest in peace and may the driver find some peace within themselves and try not to become overwhelmed with grief.

My thoughts are with the families of those involved.

Honestly though, it's just upsetting, really.

A note to young scholars walking out and about campus and drivers...

Look both ways, or you may get creamed like this guy. Darwin smiled upon this incident, but clearly all other parties in this photo are quite distressed. Here's hoping that everyone came out of this okay. And here's hoping that the person who got hit went about the American way and sued the driver's ass. (Found using Google Image search)

To whom it may concern:

School is back and many people are out and about walking to class.

If you are crossing 10th Street in front of the Herman B Wells Library on IU's campus, please take note and remember to do the following:
-Look both ways before crossing the street.

That's it. No more to add to that list.

Although there is more to say:
This morning I almost introduced 20 or so people (including one on a bike) to my car's front bumper (and potentially the hood and tires and underbody work). Why? I was going a moderate speed as I had just turned left from Jordan Ave. onto 10th St. Then, out of no where, a shload of students came out of the woodwork from behind cars that were stopped on 10th St. in line to get to the intersection of 10th and Jordan. You should note that it's hard for drivers to see that you'll be entering the street in front of them because you're literally coming out of nowhere from behind a car. Other drivers may not be going slow enough to stop their car in time before you find yourself tattooed in the face with a VW, Ford, Honda, you name it, logo.

Now, I can't blame you for the lack of visibility when trying to cross the street when you're standing behind a car, but is it too much effort to try and look AROUND the car you're standing next to so that you may determine if it is safe to cross or not?

I had to do two "almost" brake checks within 30 feet because of people who decided to cross the street and assume that I would stop my car for them. Thankfully, they assumed correctly. However, the more often this occurs, the more tempted I am to allow natural selection to take its course (not really, but it's occurred in my mind as a joke). Granted, if I hadn't stopped and just kept going I could have earned around 400 points (plus multipliers), but come on. Please. The fight between a pedestrian and a 3000-4000 pound rolling mass of metal is not going to be a pretty one.

It is for such reasons that jaywalking is illegal in some areas, but we all know that pedestrians on the IU campus jaywalk like they're getting paid for it, which is fine. Just be more cautious when doing so. As I said before, it is very difficult to see you coming when you are crossing the street from behind a car that otherwise made it impossible to see you before.

So ladies, gentlemen, young scholars, please do as you were told as a young child. Look both ways before crossing the street. I'll give you a bonus tip:
-If you look both ways and determine that your crossing of the street may cause a driver to need to slow down or stop, it may not be the best idea to cross the street at that time. Wait for a bigger gap between you and a car for a safer crossing.

This applies to all roads and intersections, not just 10th St. in front of the main library, that's just the intersection/street with the most offenders that I've noticed.

Yes, I am writing this as a complaint, but I hope that this isn't just brushed off because I'll be damned if I hear about a student getting hit by a car because they crossed the street when they could have been more careful.

Drivers and pedestrians alike: Please be more careful. Don't upset your parents or the driver who may hit you. Darwin may smile upon your misfortune, but most others will not be so happy.

So drivers: Be more observant and perhaps drive a bit slower where there is heavy foot traffic.

Pedestrians: Be more observant of other cars, especially when you are crossing the street from behind an object which hid you from view from other drivers.

Here's the note to try and make this more politically correct since modern society is so obsessed with doing so (heaven forbid I upset anyone): Yes, I inserted some rather sadistic and cynical humor, but that is because that is the kind of guy I am. The humor is not meant to be taken seriously, but the message is.

The end.

--Allen

Fan boys, who's right? I say nobody.

Note: Sorry for the extended absence. I've been very busy and very sick and am only now starting to feel a little better. Hopefully I'll be updating this more frequently now.

Moving on,,,

Fan boys (and/or girls). You'll find them everywhere defending just about anything. The question is, who's right?

The short answer to that question would be: Nobody.

Here's a longer answer:
As it would relate to this blog, there are fan boys to be found in the automotive world as well as the video game world.

Most commonly in the automotive world you find the Dometics (given my location, American cars) vs Imports (everyone else) arguments. But then you could narrow that down more to Japanese cars vs. European cars vs. American cars. Then with video games you largely have the PS3 vs. XBox 360 vs. PC fights. Generally the PC always wins (in terms of graphics anyway), so it's mostly between the PS3 and the XBox 360 nowadays because nobody's PS3 has an advantage over someone else's PS3. Same goes for the XBox 360.

Gearheads (or Petrolheads)
So what is the big deal with comparing cars based on where they come from? I'd say it's because cars from different places do tend to have certain characteristics that are most commonly associated with where they come from.

Japanese cars are known for reliability, efficiency, and advanced technology. American cars are known for simplicity and raw muscle. European cars are known for engineering and refinement.

So it's not too hard to see why these cars have so many different followers.

But really, what makes these cars better than one another? Here are three cars that are more or less competitors:

(Pictures from RSportsCars.com)
First we have the Ford GT40, then the Ferrari F430, and finally the Nissan GT-R. Here are some basic specs for the three cars:
Ford GT
Engine: Supercharged 5.4L V8
Horsepower/Torque: 500 hp @ 6000 rpm/500 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
0-60: 3.8s
Top Speed: 205mph

Ferrari F430
Engine: Naturally-Aspiriated 4.3L V8
Horsepower/Torque: 490 hp @ 8500 rpm/343 lb-ft @ 5250 rpm
0-60: 4.0s
Top Speed: ~196mpg

Nissan GT-R
Engine: Bi-Turbo 3.8L V6
Horsepower/Torque: 480 hp @ 6400 rpm/430 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
0-60: ~3.5s (reports vary from as low as 3.3s to as high as 3.8s)
Top Speed: ~192 mph (Nissan claimed, Motor Trend reached 195 in their own tests)

For all intents and purposes, these cars are direct competitors. Many of you may disagree, but in terms of general performance, I believe they are close enough. The way these cars are built also represent the areas they come from.

The American Ford GT40 is all muscle with a blown American V8, all power, all speed, no questions. The Ferrari F430 gets its power from a refined N/A V8 that delivers more than 100 horsepower/liter of displacement and delivers a driving experience that is about the passion of driving with speed and control. The Nissan GT-R represents the efficiency of small displacement engines that deliver big on power, augmented by the use of advanced control systems and computers.

These cars may be considered competitors and people looking to buy may cross-shop these cars as well (even though their prices do vary).

But the question is, which one is better?

The Ford GT40 is no doubt a great car that is definitely fast and can handle corners competently, but it is likely to be the worst of the bunch in terms of handling and control. The Ferrari is no exception either, but it is slower than the GT40, but it arguably handles better in the corners. The GT-R as well will launch so hard the driver will be fused into the seat, but will run out of steam towards the top end. However, the GT-R will without a doubt handle really well and is arguably the easiest-to-drive car of the bunch because of its advanced AWD system and electronic driving aids. With the GT-R, one just has to drive, point the car in the direction they want to go, and let the car sort the rest of it out.

With that said, you could say the GT40 would appeal more to those who are all about American power and speed. The Ferrari would appeal more to those who are about a very connected driving experience between the driver and the car. The GT-R would appeal more to those who appreciate blisteringly quick acceleration, but also technologically-advanced cars and physics-defying handling.

So wait, doesn't that mean these cars appeal to three mostly different kinds of people? Wouldn't that mean we're trying to compare apples to oranges to... umm... plums here? Doesn't that mean no car is necessarily better than the other?

So if none of these cars are necessarily better than the other, wouldn't that mean that none of the fanboys for these cars are right when they say theirs is the best?

That's right. No fan boy is right. They may defend the car they like as if it's the best thing since sliced bread, but if you ask me, none of them are right. I may have a preference between these three cars as to which one I'd have if I had to pick one, but I like all three of them for different reasons because they are three very different cars.

The bottom line here is that with fan boys, nobody is right. What it comes down to every single time is this: personal preference. Too bad not everybody realizes this, so I'm still sure to see the arguments between domestic car fans and import car fans, or European cars vs. Japanese cars vs. American cars. Oh well.

Gamers
As mentioned before, the big argument between video gamers is mostly between XBox 360 and Playstation 3. The PC is being left out of this because people from all camps agree that the PC generally delivers the best graphics and gameplay experience.

So here we go:

(Pictures found via Google Image Search)

To be honest, I am more of a PC gamer than a PS3 or XBox 360 gamer, so this part of this entry may not be too thorough.

First, game selection:
The PS3 definitely has fewer games than the XBox 360. Part of this is because the 360 has been out longer but also because the PS3 is reportedly harder to develop for. However, the game selection isn't that big of a deal as long as the games being offered are good.

If I had to pick, I'd have to give the edge to the XBox 360 right now, but the PS3 has quickly caught up with releases like Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4, and pretty soon Killzone 2. The 360 though has games like Halo, Gears of War, and Project Gotham Racing.

As far as games to come, the 360 is getting Star Ocean 4 and Final Fantasy XIII (surprise!). For the PS3, Killzone 2, Final Fantasy XIII, and Final Fantasy XIII: Versus (or something to that effect). These are games that I am interested in, so this certainly isn't a comprehensive listing. If I had to choose, I'd say it's a dead heat. I love the Star Ocean series and I'm really excited to see the next FF games on PS3.

So for me, the two consoles in terms of game selections and futures, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Now, console hardware:
The PS3 is reported to have a more advanced processor, built-in hard drive, and blu-ray drive as well. This meant that the PS3 initially came as a more complete package.

The XBox 360 didn't originally include the hard drive and reportedly doesn't have as good of a processor as the PS3, but due to it being easier to develop for the 360, the games for the 360 have been able to match up well to the PS3 and vice versa.

The PS3 gets a slight advantage here though because it has more potential with its more sophisticated processor and blu-ray drive. While the full graphics-processing capability of the PS3 have yet to be unleashed (but will be soon, I imagine), the games still look really good on both consoles. With the blu-ray drive, games can be bigger and have higher quality textures and visuals stored on the disk. Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, had so many voice overs, high quality audio, high quality textures and visuals, that it's been said it would be impossible to port the game to XBox 360 and still deliver the same experience that PS3 MGS4 players get.

For the most part though, games released on both systems when compared more often than not give the XBox 360 the advantage in terms of graphical quality. More often though, I'm seeing that things are pretty even between the PS3 and XBox 360.

360 fans will frequently argue that the PS3's graphics aren't as good. For the most part, I'd have to say that it's unfortunately true. But I believe that is because developers don't take the time to refine the game for the PS3's different hardware and therefore release what is more or less a half-assed port from the XBox 360. I wouldn't say this is entirely the developers' faults as they may be working under a strict timeline. However, I do not believe that the PS3 has 'worse graphics' is a valid argument.

Lots of games out now and certainly upcoming show that when a developer takes the time and effort to make a good-looking game, it can look very good on the PS3, run well, and more than likely be better than it would be on XBox 360.

Here's a few examples (watch these in HD, or else they won't look good no matter what you try):
-Metal Gear Solid 4 GC Trailer
-Metal Gear Solid 4 Gamers Night Trailer
-Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Trailer (I've been told that this is all in-game real-time rendering)
-Killzone 2: Visit Helghan Trailer (I've played the Killzone 2 demo and I can say that I believe it looks better than Gears of War 2 and easily better than Halo 3. And yes, I've played and beaten Gears 2 and Halo 3 as well).

So you see, when developers actually develop games for the PS3 and take the time to utilize the hardware, then it's clear that good-looking games can be made as well as games that are good in general as well. So it clearly isn't impossible for good-looking, 'good-running', and overall good PS3 games to be made. I understand that sometimes restrictions from the game engines being used cause issues with development, but I believe that a developer should be able to create games of equal quality for both consoles if they put in the time and effort. So basically, I believe that it's not the fault of the consoles if a game is worse on one console compared to the other, but I believe it is the developers' faults or rather the fault of the schedules they are forced to work on.

So in this case, I have to give the heads up to the PS3 in terms of hardware and
graphics, that is, when developers properly harness the power the PS3 has to offer. Let's not forget also that the blu-ray drive in the PS3 also plays blu-ray movies, which has certainly come in handy for me.

Console exclusives:
Among the exclusive titles that I love on the XBox 360 are:
-Halo 3
-Gears of War (2)
-Project Gotham Racing 4
-(soon to come) Star Ocean 4
If it weren't for those games, I would not have any reason to own an XBox 360.

Then for the PS3:
-Killzone 2
-Metal Gear Solid 4
-Little Big Planet
-(coming later) Final Fantasy XIII (and Versus)
-(coming later) God of War III
If it weren't for these games, I'd have no reason to own a PS3. Yes, I know FFXIII is coming to 360, but there is another FFXIII game that is coming out for only the PS3. I honestly don't blame Square Enix for releasing FFXIII on 360 as well in order to reach a broader audience, but I'm glad to see they are still releasing some kind of PS3 exclusive.

But alas, there are games on both consoles. All of these games are similar in some ways but also very different. So again, we find ourselves asking, which is better? My answer? You guessed it: Neither.

Both consoles offer very different experiences through the games they have to offer. So once again, it comes down to personal preference, and of course as long as people have their own preferences, they will more than likely try to sway people one way or the other so like it is with automotive arguments, the video game console war is unlikely to ever end as well.

I personally have a PS3 and an XBox 360 and I enjoy playing both of them a lot.

But in general, getting back to the point of this blog entry, no fan boy is right when they say what they like is better than something else. It's just a matter of what YOU like. YOU should put your hard-earned money down on what YOU want, not what someone else wants.

So sorry fan boys, none of you are right about anything. The things you support are not the best things since sliced bread. You just like what you like, and that's the one thing you're right about. Honestly though, I find it annoying when these 'fan boys' are so blindly following what they believe that they can't even attempt to see the other side of things. Oh well! I believe that if you're stuck on something, you won't get anywhere because you're just that, stuck. More power to them. I'll leave them alone, no problem, because they like what they like. I have no reason to try and change what they think.

Obviously I have my own preferences and clearly in this blog I am telling you what I think about cars and video games, but I don't expect to impress my views upon you and agree with me on anything. I only write this in order to get my opinions and thoughts out there and nothing else. If you agree with me, great. If you don't, then I'd be interested in knowing why as long as the conversation can be mature.

-G&G Allen

To-do list:
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)
-The many cars I've driven, some thoughts.
-Diesel? Hybrid? Natural Gas? Hydrogen? What I think is better.

Has Honda gone the way of Toyota?

The NSX concept car. This design drew a lot of criticism because, well, it didn't look that good. For an NSX, this new concept seemed so conservative and tame. I would have to agree. It doesn't look that great. (image from LeftLane News)

Here's an article that has brought much sadness to many car enthusiasts: The cancellation of the NSX program.

Edit: The NSX program may not be as dead as I thought.


The NSX replacement made it to prototype testing, but it won't go any further. It sounded really good too (watch the video from the article linked) Maybe further down the road? Hopefully, but unlikely. (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

But then, more recently, even more bad news from Honda: The end of the S2000... with only rumors that it will be replaced, but it seems unlikely.


The last offering for RWD sports car nuts from Honda for the foreseeable future, the Honda S2000 CR. Very sad, indeed. (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

What may be worse yet, is that Honda has even stepped out of Formula 1. Yikes! This is all understandable though, as the global crisis with economies and such has led to a shift in demands and such. So Honda must be focusing more on alternative-fuel vehicles and whatnot (more on what I think about that in a later blog entry).

So what does that leave in the Honda lineup of vehicles for those who like sports cars? Nothing.

There's always the Honda Civic Si, but it just won't drive like the rear wheel drive sports cars of Honda's past, which now unfortunately features a discontinued S2000 and a canceled front-engined V10 NSX replacement.

Before you Honda Civic Si fans get on my case, I do admit that it is a great car. I even seriously considered one before deciding on a VW GTI. However, I don't like the idea of revving the nuts out of the engine to get any torque. Plus, the Si doesn't have the same kind of weight balance that the RWD S2000 does.

Getting to the point of this article though, with the cancellation and discontinuing of these great sports cars, does that mean Honda has essentially become another Toyota?


The Toyota MR2 Spyder. Not much of a looker, if you ask me. It wasn't even that fast. It did benefit from a mid-mounted engine though. (image from Consumer Guide)

Toyota's last sports car that was on the market was the MR2 Spyder for the 2005 model year. After that, it was gone. If you ask me, the MR2 Spyder wasn't really anything that special. The MR2 before it was better and better yet, the Supra was truly desirable.


The Toyota Supra. Gosh, this car was awesome. A well-tuned Supra today is just epic. However, I should note that I am a Nissan Skyline (the Supra's competitor) guy. If you're wondering, I like the R34 Skyline more than Nissan's latest GT-R. Too bad it's so hard to get Nissan Skylines in the United States. (image from Consumer Guide)

Honda unfortunately looks like it's going the same direction. The S2000 being a great car and its NSX being something that many dreamed of, too bad they're not coming back.

That leaves Honda, like Toyota, offering just a selection of compact cars, family sedans, and SUVs out on the market.

Some of you may point to Acura and Lexus, but let's be honest, those cars are built for and marketed more as luxury cars. I'm talking about rear wheel drive sports cars. Not luxury vehicles with 'sport tuning'.

Don't even get me started on the Lexus IS-F. That thing sounds good and goes fast, but it's still a Lexus. The front end looks awkward and the stacked exhaust on the back is FAKE. The BMW M3 does a much better job at being a sports car.


Of all the companies that would take a shortcut, I would have never expected it to be Lexus. Especially on a car that's meant to be their ambassador into the world of high-powered expensive sports cars! This car was built to match, if not exceed, the capabilities of the BMW M3. If you want to do that, you should also match BMW's attention to detail. This fake exhaust tip setup on the rear end really doesn't help at all. It's plain awful. If you're going to go for a 'unique look', you should follow through all the way. (image from AutoSpies.com)

Anyway, with that said, it would seem that indeed, Honda has essentially gone the way of Toyota. Thankfully though, Honda hasn't gone on and made their cars super cushy and soft like Toyota has.

Don't get me wrong, Toyota makes great cars for getting people around to where they want to be and in comfort. However, Toyotas in general are generally not that great for drivers who may occasionally like to push the car around a bit. Toyotas are just too soft and don't offer much feedback for the driver. It is for that reason that I'm not much of a fan of Toyota. Their cars are too tame.

Honda, on the other hand, still offers a generally good driving experience. However, it would seem that Honda has landed more on the side of comfort than sporting potential with its cars as of late. The only cars they offer now that even hint at sportiness is the Honda Civic Si and the Honda Accord Coupe. The latter of the two, by the way, looks absolutely stunning if you ask me. That pretty much leaves Mazda and Nissan making 'sporty' family vehicles. Mazda, by the way, with their new Mazda 6 sedan has done an amazing job with that car. It looks great and from what I've heard, drives really well.

On a side note though, I do find it unfortunate that Honda seems to have lost some of its touch in terms of styling. Just take a look at the following examples:

What the heck is up with the grille on this thing? It looks awkward to me. I liked the look of the previous Pilot more. (image from Consumer Guide)


Honda's first truck offering worked out pretty nicely. However, the truck itself looks a bit strange to me. I don't like how the hood kind of dips down toward the grille. From the side, it looks like an Escalade truck, which to me, is NOT a good thing as I am not a fan of Cadillac Escalades.(image from Consumer Guide)


The face of this car, as on the Pilot, just looks really awkward to me. I think it's the stacked look of the silver with the Honda logo and the black bit under it. I don't like it. The previous CR-V looked better overall if you ask me. Thankfully Honda's sedans and coupes still look good. (image from Consumer Guide)


Ohhh wait, they don't! I don't know what Honda/Acura were thinking with this front grille shield-looking thing that dips down and holds the Acura logo. Way too shiny, way too big. There is a car dealership though that has tried painting this shield thing to match the color of the car, and I must say, it looks better that way (unfrotunately, I can't find pictures of that right now). (image from Consumer Guide)

With that said, it seems that with Honda and Toyota out of the picture for making sports cars, that leaves Mazda and Nissan to duke it out with RWD sports cars and Mitsubishi and Subaru for AWD sports cars. That's fine with me, but as a consumer, I think it's always good to have options. It's just too bad Honda has stepped out of the picture. I hope they come back.

-G&G Allen

P.S.
I had the chance to try out the GTI in the snow recently (I'd estimate between 3-5 inches of powdery snow). I was thinking that low profile tires with a wide track (225/40/18) would perform horribly, but the OEM Dunlop SP Sport AS 01 tires did just fine! In fact, I'd say they did REALLY well. The ESP kicked in, but the car was great. No real surprises. I am simply amazed at just how well ESP really works. I was skeptical before, but since I have a car that actually has it as a feature, I'm completely sold. Granted the ESP won't save a bad driver from crashing, it will help a competent driver through bad road conditions. In the area where I live I'd say all wheel drive isn't needed. It would help, but it really isn't necessary if people are looking to buy a car and don't want to spend the extra money or have the extra weight of an AWD system. Of course, if you live further up north, AWD would be a must. But I'd take RWD with snow tires any day if I had the choice (and money, haha).

To-Do List:
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)
-The many cars I've driven, some thoughts.
-Diesel? Hybrid? Natural Gas? Hydrogen? What I think is better.

Intel's new quad-core i7 processors. How things have changed!

Intel's new quad-core i7 processors were developed and released as the successors to their highly successful line of Core 2 Duo processors.

My younger brother recently upgraded his computer with a new motherboard, processor and RAM. The hard drive, optical drives, and video card were taken from his old computer. The power supply came from MY computer. This is because his power supply lacked a 2x4 power connector for the motherboard whereas mine did, so we swapped.

An observation I made though that I found to be interesting was that the pins for the processor were not actually on the bottom of the processor, but they were actually (as it appeared) on the motherboard itself. This was actually a relief seeing as once in the past I had a processor pin get bent which would usually mean it's scrap. For those of you who don't know, bending just one pin on a processor messes it up for good. I was VERY lucky and was able to bend it back and it worked. Needless to say though, without a ton of pins on the underside of the core i7, I didn't feel as nervous handling it. But what's nuts is that the thing fits into what is designated is an LGA 1366 slot. Know why? Because the thing contacts 1366 pins on the motherboards. Wow. That's already a lot more than the pins found on LGA 775 slots used for Intel's Core 2 Duo processors.

So we got things working and the computer was up and running. The first thing we tried was Left 4 Dead because it crashed constantly on his old system. How did it perform? Well, with 6 GB of ram (32-bit Vista using only about 3.3 GB of it, waiting to get Vista 64-bit sometime soon), an ATI Radeon HD 4850, and of course that new 2.66 GHz quad-core processor, the performance was nothing short of amazing. NOTHING could be done to slow the computer down. No amount of zombies, gunfire, and/or explosions seemed to do anything to the framerate. Granted, the Source engine is getting pretty old, it is still looking pretty good considering its age and delivers some good visuals.

My computer with its relatively wimpy Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and its NVidia GTX 260 (216 core) runs L4D really well too, but nowhere close to the degree of smoothness found from my brother's new computer.

Next up, my brother tried out Crysis, THE game that people strive to run well on their systems. Running at a rather 'high' resolution for the game (1440x900) and with all detail settings at high, the game ran very well. Better than it does on my computer at 1024x768 and the graphics set to medium. I could only imagine what Crysis Warhead would look like with its better-optimized version of the graphics engine used in Crysis.

For about $300 bucks to buy in to the the Nehalem microarchitecture Core i7, I'd say it's worth every penny. Prices are only going to go down from this point too, so I look forward to having some money saved up to possibly get one myself. The downside though is that motherboards that will support this processor are on the expensive side, with the cheapest one I found being about $200. Add in the fact that you may need to purchase a good power supply that has a 2x4 12v power connector for the motherboard and you may be spending an additional $100. That makes a total of about $600 right now just for a power supply, motherboard, and processor. I built a pretty good computer on Newegg.com for that price not too long ago (case, power supply, CPU, RAM, hard drive, motherboard, video card, optical drives, everything).

Since I don't exactly know where I'll need to be spending money though in the foreseeable future though, I'll be holding off on this upgrade for perhaps a VERY long time. My current machine runs just fine anyway.

I'm thoroughly impressed with Intel's offerings right now. I've unfortunately not had the chance to try out a Core 2 Duo processor (except on my laptop) for gaming, but I can only imagine how much better it would be than the AMD sitting inside my computer right now.

And to see how my old Radeon HD4850 ran in my brother's computer, I honestly in some ways regret not researching the snazzy Radeon HD4870 1024MB more. Some benchmarks put the card very close to my current card, an NVidia GTX 260 (core 216). To be honest, I found my ATI cards in the past to be less prone to crashing though. Since I've picked up the GTX 260, I've had some random crashes to the desktop and even some blue screens randomly. It crashed when I turned on anisotropic filtering in Left 4 Dead. Needless to say, that option got turned off. The error I got was traced back to the video card's drivers. It's a bit disappointing. The performance is great, but the crashing isn't. It really doesn't happen much at all though. It's only happened probably less than the number of times I can count on one hand, but it's still not as good as the Radeon HD4850's crash count where I didn't even need to start counting.

Anyway, I'd say that Intel is without a doubt the brand to go with for processors, whether you're gaming or running development applications, etc. AMD's quad-core Phenom processors can't even compare, they wouldn't even do too well compared to some of Intel's dual-core processors either. I would honestly like to see AMD do better though, as I like having more options and their processors have never really caused any problems for me either.

It seems to me that since AMD and ATI's merger, it's been the graphics end that's been doing better. But the video cards between ATI and NVidia are still more or less of a toss up for me. They both have really good offerings. It just comes down to what a person wants to buy. It's not like the 'days of old' where the Radeon 9700 Pro or Radeon 9800 Pro were the clear leaders.

And wow, that makes me think that things have changed a lot since then. My brother was talking about how the Nehalem architecture in the core i7 processor was 'revolutionary'. I remember when having a processor with one core that did 64-bit processing was 'revolutionary'. Hell, I can remember when my older brother and I were excited about an old Dell with a Pentium II that had a 450 MHz processor (the thing looked like a miniature VHS tape), 256 MB of RAM (I think), and a 13 GB hard drive (which, by the way, did a good job running Counter-Strike). Of course, Intel came out with the Pentium III 500 MHz processor the month after we got it. Now they give you four cores that can all do 64-bit processing in something the same size. Geeze. I sound like a computer nerd equivalent of an elderly person.

Just goes to show, technology keeps moving. Just as you upgrade something better will always come out to spite you. I've had this happen to me before, but thankfully it hasn't happened to me yet since I upgraded my video card. Fortunately I decided against getting a new motherboard and processor in the last quarter of last year. Then again, if you buy computer hardware at any time, it's bound to become ancient history in about six months to a year.

I should point out though, processor speeds haven't actually getting faster in the consumer market. The architecture of the processors is what's changing as well as the number of cores. Companies are starting to do more with processor architecture rather than going for raw speed.

-G&G Allen

To-Do List:
-Is Honda going the way of Toyota?
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)

Nissan 370Z vs. BMW 135i (vs. Porsche Cayman S)

Back around the middle of December, Edmunds.com InsideLine posted a comparison test between the Nissan 370Z and BMW 135i. You can find the actual write-up here.

When I first saw that they had done such a test I was immediately interested because I am such a huge fan of the Nissan Z. However, I had already suspected that the BMW 135i would beat the Nissan 370Z on the grounds that as an overall package it would be 'more refined'.


Nissan 370Z (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

Then to my surprise, when I clicked the link it showed that the Nissan 370Z came out on top in 1st place!

Now this isn't because I don't have any confidence in the 370Z or Z cars in general, but let's be honest, BMW knows how to make good sports cars. The 135i is no exception. Aside from its looks that some absolutely do not like, the 135i undoubtedly has that suspension tuning and weight balance that BMW is famous for. Not only that, the 135i has the utterly beastly 3.0L twin-turbo straight six that churns out 300hp and 300 lb-ft of torque (which comes in fully at just 1400 rpm and stays throughout the rev range).


BMW 135i (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

With that said, and knowing the 135i's performance numbers, I knew that this would be a good fight, and I only suspected that BMW's trademark refinement and interior quality would have probably put it in first place in the end. But again, I was very wrong, and was happy to be.

To sum it up, the figures for the two cars are as follows (I've thrown in the numbers for the Porsche Cayman S as Nissan was using the Cayman as their performance benchmark):


Porsche Cayman S (image from Edmunds.com InsideLine)

Note: Nissan used the 2009 Porsche Cayman (non-S) as their benchmark, but I found numbers for the 2006 Porsche Cayman S as I'd expect the 2009 Porsche Cayman to come close, but still probably a bit short compared to the '06 Cayman S.

Prices as tested:
370Z: est. $34,635 (including options)
135i: $37,765 (including options)
Cayman S: $70,505 (including options. Side note: a base Cayman costs $49,400)
The Cayman S is, unsurprisingly, the most expensive of the group with the Bavarian coming in second place and the Z coming in $3,000 less than the BMW. When it comes to 'bang for the buck', it's clear the 370Z delivers very well, especially after you see the performance figures below.

Engine:
370Z: 3.7L N/A V6 (60 degree)
135i: 3.0L bi-turbo inline-6
Cayman S: 3.4L horizontally-opposed 6-cylinder
Not much to say here. Three very different engines doing their jobs in three different cars.

Horsepower/Torque:
370Z: 332 hp @ 7000 rpm / 270 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
135i: 300 hp @ 5800 rpm / 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
Cayman S: 295 @ 6250 rpm / 251 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
The 370Z comes on top with the most horsepower but the BMW's torque comes in the soonest and sticks around all throughout the rev range. The Cayman S is tuned as any Porsche is expected to: for sporty driving.

Weight:
370Z: 3,359 lbs.
135i: 3,372 lbs.
Cayman S: 2,954 lbs.
The only thing separating the 370Z's and the 135i's weight is some 13 pounds, almost negligible to some, but when looking at power to weight ratios, the 370Z comes out on top with less weight and more horsepower than the BMW. The Cayman S is the lightest of the group as it's smaller and was consciously built to conserve weight.

0-60mph acceleration, sec:
370Z: 5.1s
135i: 5.1s
Cayman S: 5.0s
Nearly a dead heat between the three cars. The 370Z and the 135i throw down the same times regardless of the Nissan's better power to weight ratio. This is likely because of the BMW's wider torque band. The Cayman does slightly better likely due to its overall lower weight. Gearing may play a role here as well, but I didn't look at the ratios (and honestly, I don't know much about interpreting them).

60-0mph braking, feet:
370Z: 101 ft.
135i: 108 ft.
Cayman S: 106 ft.
The 370Z stops the shortest here, even besting the Porsche 911 Turbo with an $8,800 ceramic brake package. The 370Z was consistent in braking and was very fade-resistant. The BMW fared worst here and I'm thinking it might be down to its slightly heavier weight and possibly worse brakes, but not by much, mind you. "Worse brakes" in this comparison would qualify as great brakes on any road car.

1/4 mile (time/trap speed):
370Z: 13.4s / 104.6 mph
135i: 13.4s / 103.5 mph
Cayman S: 13.2s / 105 mph
Essentially a dead heat between the 370Z and 135i. The trap times show that either the 370Z wasn't running out of steam at that speed and the BMW was, or that simply improving shift techniques could have produced better speeds. However, since these tests are professionally done, I'd say it's unlikely that shifting is too much of a concern here. The Cayman S comes out slightly faster and I'd say it's probably because a bit more of its weight is distributed to the back, giving its rear wheels more grip off the line.

600 ft. Slalom:
370Z: 69.8 mph
135i: 69.7 mph
Cayman S: 72.2 mph
The 370Z and 135i go through the slalom at speeds so close that it almost doesn't even matter. If it does, well, as you can see the Z goes through at a slightly faster 0.1 mph. The Cayman S though, does better. I'd say this is because of the positioning of the Cayman's engine - it's right behind the driver's/passenger's seats, thus making the Cayman S a mid-engine sports car (the Bimmer and the Nissan have their engines in the front). This makes the Cayman much better balanced and work better when it comes to weight transfer and transitions between turns and such. In fact, I firmly believe that if the Cayman got the '911 Turbo' treatment in terms of suspension, engine tuning, etc., it would be a better car than the 911 Turbo. That will be elaborated more though in a later blog entry.

Skidpad grip:
370Z: 0.97g
135i: 0.90g
Cayman S: 0.94g
When it comes to overall grip in what is essentially a big circle, weight transfer isn't as much of a big deal as how well the car can stay on track. The 370Z here throws up supercar-like numbers with 0.97g. This figure surprised me the most out of the rest because to get the kind of performance mentioned before plus such amazing grip is utterly amazing for a car with a price tag that starts around $30,000.

Conclusion:
Needless to say, I'd pick the Nissan 370Z out of the bunch if I had a choice. The Porsche is very tempting, however, if it were money out of my pocket, I can't justify a $25,000 premium for a car that performs slightly better in some ways, but slightly worse in others. If that's the case, what's the premium for? The brand? I'll be damned if I would pay that much more for a name. If you want to pull the "years of tradition card" on me, then I'll tell you this: The Z has been around longer than the Cayman. I can go more into my problems with the Cayman, but I'll save that for a later blog entry. And anyway, the base Cayman is still way more expensive and most certainly doesn't perform as well as the 370Z either, so going for the base Cayman isn't even an option if it came to trying to get the Porsche brand name.

As for the BMW 135i, it's a great car, for sure. It puts up impressive numbers and is likely the better daily-driver. However, again, it still costs more than the 370Z and from the sounds of it, isn't all that much better than the 370Z for daily driving. Given the BMW's and the Nissan's close performance numbers (aside from the skidpad), I'd still pick the 370Z for its cheaper price and because of personal preference (and arguably cheaper maintenance).

If I were to make my judgment based on looks alone, I'd say the BMW looks the worst of the bunch. It doesn't look bad, its competition just looks better. Between the 370Z and the Cayman, it's a tough call. I was skeptical about the 370Z at first, but I was pleasantly surprised when production photos of the car were revealed. In the end though, and this is purely subjective so some of you may think otherwise, I think the 370Z looks the best with the Cayman S coming in at a very close second place.

Overall, I'd go for the Nissan 370Z. It's a vehicle which delivers a whole lot of performance for relatively little money. And given the fact that it hangs with its competitors very well, it's tough to argue why you wouldn't get one, unless brand names are what you look at more, then admittedly the BMW and Porsche brands carry more weight. In the end though, I'd say you'd have to be silly to ignore the 370Z just because it came from a brand that isn't acknowledged as being as prestigious as its competition.

I should also make it clear that I have not driven any of the cars being discussed in this entry as I unfortunately do not have the right opportunities to (or connections). My opinions and speculation are based on professional reviews and to some extent, my own personal bias (of course).

Random note on the Gamer side of things: I finally have Final Fantasy VII working on PC again! Making a game that was built to run on Windows 95 and with WAY slower hardware is difficult! I'm glad to have it running though, especially since it's one of my all-time favorite games. I have the game on Playstation, but I like the PC experience because that's how I first played it.

-G&G Allen

To-Do List:
-Is Honda going the way of Toyota?
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car (even though I say it is... what?)

Why Gearhead and Gamer? Part 2: Gearhead

Well as discussed in my last entry, I've been a gamer for a very long time and continue to be today.

However, cars began to become a big part of my life around high school when I got my license.


1992 Honda Accord 4-door sedan, mine was burgundy red (picture from Consumer Guide)

The first car I drove that was given to me by my parents. It was a burgundy red 1992 Honda Accord with a single overhead cam (SOHC), 16 valve, 4 cylinder, 2.2L engine that made 125 horsepower. I'll be damned if it made that much horsepower though by the time I got it though.

The car was as good of a performer as anyone who was just getting their license would need it to be. Not too fast, but peppy enough around town. It rode really low too, so it actually handled really well. Today's cars just seem taller.

Getting back to the point though, I got into cars in the first place because I wanted to learn more about what I was driving. Not only that, my friend had an Acura with which he fitted a cold air intake on to, so that got me into seeing how cars could be modified and what those modifications did.

So when I first did some investigating into the engine in the old '92 Honda, I found that it had 16 valves. I'll admit embarrassingly that I mixed up the valves with the cylinders, so I literally thought that the car had 16 cylinders. I got the two terms mixed up. Any gearhead would laugh at such confusion, but I've since learned the difference between the cylinders and valves and know what they do.

Moving on, it was also around this time I found my first 'dream car'. I did not know much about sports cars, but I saw that Nissan was reviving the Z car. The 300Z had been out of production for a while, but Nissan was coming out with the new Z33 350Z. I had seen concept photos and when the production model rolled out, it was, to put it in cliche terms, love at first sight.


Nissan 350Z, my first 'favorite' car and it remains that way today, and probably always will (image from RSportsCars.com)

I didn't know what kind of engine it had, how fast it would be, how well it would handle, I just knew I loved the way it looked. I would later research the car so feverishly and watch so many videos about it that I would be able to identify the car by sound alone.

I was very fortunate to have the chance to drive this car as well. Fortunately, it had the manual transmission. Unfortunately, I sucked at driving manual (and still do, as I have sadly not had the opportunity to really practice). To keep it brief, the car was everything I expected and only made me want it even more.


The new Nissan 370Z. Better than the 350Z in every way. (image from RSportsCars.com)

Since then, Nissan has made the new 370Z, which is essentially better in every way possible when compared to the old 350Z. The 350Z was benchmarked against the Porsche Boxter, and mathced it. The new 370Z however, aimed higher, at the Porsche Cayman. To say the least, the 370Z has certainly matched that as well. 0-60 in 5.1s, quarter mile in mid-high 13s, and almost 1g on the skidpad! The 370Z also stops from 60mph in a shorter distance than a 911 Turbo! Now that's insane. Add in the fact that you can have all that for around 30 grand, and you're looking at one of the performance bargains of the century.

Which one would I have though? Well, if I can afford the 370Z, great, I'll take it. But you know what? Part of me will always want that 350Z, even if its successor is better in terms of interior, speed, and handling. Why? Because that's what dreams are made of. Nissan made the 370Z to give everyone what they wanted. But the 350Z was everything I wanted. And to be honest, part of me wouldn't have it any other way.

Anyway, it was because of the Nissan's Z car that I found myself interested in cars in a whole new way. I began learning about engines, suspension, modifications, brakes, transmissions, etc. Naturally, I learned mostly about the 350Zs mechanical specs, but I picked up plenty of knowledge about other cars along the way as well as general knowledge as well.

So basically I've turned into the kind of guy who loves cars a lot, reads automotive news every day, and is extremely happy when a new season of Top Gear starts.

Speaking of Top Gear, for those of you who don't know, it's a TV show from the UK that's about cars. They're not quite so serious in that they do more than just do car reviews the entire time, but sometimes they, as they would say, 'cock about' and have some fun with cars and that's why I love Top Gear. They do reviews of outrageous cars (sometimes sensible ones) and they have entertaining segments where they do outrageous things with 'average' cars.

Here's a couple of car reviews that I found very entertaining:
The Koenigsegg CCX


The Ascari A10 (a more humorous review)


The Koenigsegg and the Ascari are the two cars I would get if I were obscenely rich. I would certainly have to be, because if I were to get both it'd cost me around $1 million.

And if you want to see how Top Gear goes on 'cocking about', here's a clip from the tail end of a review they did of the European Ford Fiesta where it takes part in a beach assault training mission with the British Royal Marines:

Before the beach assault, Top Gear did make sure to address the usual stuff though like pricing, interior quality, performance, and such... and being chased through a mall by a Corvette.

To sum things up, I became interested in cars when I first started driving. Cars became a full-fledged interest/hobby when Nissan brought back the Z car with the 350Z and when the 350Z became my dream car. Since then, I've learned a good deal about cars and could tell you a lot about engines, transmissions, drivelines, suspension, etc. I can't really quantify just how much I know, but I'm sure more of that will be revealed the more I write things about cars in this blog.

If any of you are curious and haven't read any of the previous blog entries, I currently drive a 2008 Volkswagen GTI. I opted for the DSG transmission after driving it and being very impressed by it. I also enjoyed the 2.0L 4 cylinder turbocharged engine which offered peak torque of 207 lb-ft from just 1800 or 1900 RPM or so. The car is incredibly fun to drive and is perfectly civilized if all I want to do is cruise around. I'm only disappointed right now though because it's too cold outside to drive with the windows down so I can't hear the turbo spool up as well.

The only 'modification' the GTI has is an upgraded high-flow drop-in air filter. For those of you with any experence with the 2.0L FSI (BPY) engine, you'll agree with me when I say that even just changing the air filter can involve a lot of cursing and hassle. Thankfully VW has changed the intake design for the newer TSI (CCTA) engine and gone back to a standard air box rather than putting the air filter in the engine cover.

Quick facts about my driving history:
Cars I've driven as 'my car' (in order):
-1992 Honda Accord
-1999 Nissan Altima
-2005 Nissan Altima
-2008 Volkswagen GTI (current)
Note: None of these cars were ever involved in accidents *knocks on wood*. My parents were just generous enough to keep 'upgrading' cars for whatever reasons.

Overall Dream car: Nissan 350Z

Dream car(s) if I were rich: BMW M3 (E46, I'll take the straight 6 over the V8. A used one is relatively cheap now, but maintenance sure isn't), Porsche Cayman S, Nissan Skyline R34 GT-R (that old RB26 was a beast, the iron block was amazing for durability when it came to performance tuning)

Dream cars if I were a bit more than just 'rich': BMW M6, Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4, Ferrari F430, Porsche GT2, Maserati GranTurismo S, Alfa Romeo 8C Competezione

Dream car(s) if I were obscenely rich: Koenigsegg CCX, Ascari A10

Best cars driven (test drive, or friend letting me try): Audi TT 1.8L Turbo Quattro, Nissan 350Z (this will be elaborated on in another blog entry further down the road)

Worst cars driven (test drive, or friend letting me try): Saturn Ion(the automatic wasn't good, but the manual is better), Dodge Charger V6, Hyundai Elantra (this will also be elaborated in another blog entry later)

That's about it for now.

-G&G Allen

Quick Tidbits
-Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president, is being inaugurated Tuesday. This will be the first inauguration I'll be watching. I have high hopes for him!
-CNNs poll analysis offers a bit of insight on what some people thought of Bush's presidency.
-Hyundai's Genesis Coupe is beginning to show more of itself and some of the motoring press have gotten their hands on the car for some quick test drives. Initial impressions are good and I am really anxious to learn more about the car and see what it can do. Too bad people are so quick to put the Genesis Coupe down just because it's Korean. I personally believe Hyundai is a very good company, or at least has turned into one in the last few years.
-Edmunds.com InsideLine found the Ford Fusion Hybrid to be good overall. I say good for Ford! Of all the domestic brands I'm cheering for most, it's definitely Ford.
-The cold weather here is finally getting a bit 'warmer'. I was literally excited to have 25-degree weather back after a couple days of single-digit highs.
-I was lucky enough to find a new copy of Okami at EB Games in the mall here for PS2 at a price of $19.99! On Amazon.com, a new copy is $36.98! My parents have the game on Nintendo Wii, but I went ahead and purchased it for PS2 anyway considering its rarity and the fact that it's just a great game.

To-Do List:
-Comments on Edmunds.com InsideLine's comparison test between the BMW 135i and Nissan 370Z.
-Is Honda going the way of Toyota?
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?
-Why I think GM did it all wrong.
-Game copy protection, what I think is the best way
-The Porsche Cayman, why it's not that great of a car

Why Gearhead and Gamer? Part 1: Gamer

This probably should have been part of the first entry of this blog, but I figured that this entry would be better late than never.

With that said, why is this blog about cars and video games? Well, cars and video games happen to be the two things I am most interested in right now, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

So to get things started, I'll start off with what I became interested in first: video games.

When I was a little kid, my parents had a Nintendo Entertainment System. I remember watching my dad play it a lot. I was very entertained, to say the least. However, I did not play it that much. It wasn't until later in 1994 when my parents decided to get a Super Nintendo for my older brother and I. From that point, my video gaming hobby kicked off.


Super Mario World on Super Nintendo (image from IGN)

My older brother and I played Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, Mario Kart, and others for hours on end. I remember one morning specifically when we played Donkey Kong Country for 3-4 hours straight which got us grounded for playing so much in one sitting.

Fast forward a bit and the Nintendo 64 came out in 1996. My brother and I had been subscribers to Nintendo Power for quite a while at this point and we were both really excited about the N64, because games weren't just 2-D like they were on SNES. They decided to add another dimension and make the games 3-D! The first game we had on that system was Mario Kart 64 and that game today, is still one of the best games there ever was, as is Goldeneye on N64 (if you disagree, then you must be from the 'newer generation' of gamers, which is too bad ;) ).


Final Fantasy VII combat screenshot (found using Google image search)

One year goes by and it's now 1997 and my brother and I had since picked up some computer games here and there. My brother and I tried out Red Alert on the PC and enjoyed it thoroughly. In fact, we both thought it comical when infantry would be electrocuted by the tesla coils simply because the little electrified skeleton animation seemed humorous at the time (we're not sadistic people, I assure you). But then Final Fantasy VII came out for the PC. Aside from playing a bit Earthbound and Mario RPG, I had not had much exposure to the role-playing game (RPG) genre. Final Fantasy VII though, made me a true fan of the genre. It was also around this time that my brother and I picked up Final Fantasy III (FF VI in Japan) on SNES. From this point, I was a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series, and it has not disappointed me thus far with the exception of Final Fantasy XI as it unfortunately went the way of pay-to-play massively multiplayer online games.

Then in 1998 something big happened. Up until this point, my experience as a gamer had only been steadily growing. However, it was in this year I downloaded a demo for Starcraft at my aunt's apartment (she had access to Indiana University's broadband connection, back when broadband internet wasn't something everyone had. Crazy, right?). The demo had a few levels and I was instantly hooked. Soon after trying the demo I begged my parents to buy me the full copy of the game. I played through the campaign rather quickly and with that out of the way, I began to play Starcraft online.


Starcraft box art (found using Google image search)

Starcraft was the first game I ever played online with other people. The experience was so different and it was a lot of fun. Playing games online is what really got things going for me as a gamer. It was what made me learn about computer hardware and how computers worked, because all I wanted to do was figure out ways to make my computer run games better, to give me the competitive edge online against other players.

With that said, the next big game after Starcraft came along in 2000 when my older brother introduced me to Counter-Strike, the Half-Life modification. I started playing when CS was still in beta 6, back when the M4 still had a zoom and had an non-removable silencer on it. For all the new-generation gamers, you probably all still think I'm speaking gibberish. Anyway, Counter-Strike, aside from Starcraft, became my biggest distraction in online gameplay and was yet another game I spent playing online for hours on end. It was primarily with Counter-Strike that I found myself trying to tweak and upgrade my computer, as Starcraft didn't require too much computing power to run really well.

Since then, I played Team Fortress Classic online a lot in addition to CS, but then things were essentially steady from there, with a lot of games here and there. It was mostly TFC, CS, and Starcraft. And now all of those games (with the exception of Starcraft) have come out with sequels or updated versions with updated graphics. I've become much more knowledgeable about computer hardware and software since then and am even pursuing a college degree which focuses on information technology, all because of games like Starcraft and Counter-Strike.


Tribes 2 (found using Google image search)

I should mention though, that I did play Starsiege: Tribes a LOT. When Tribes 2 came out, my computer would barely run it. I played the Tribes games a lot and I wish they were still being played more today. These games were simply awesome. You played as a soldier with plenty of weapons and explosives and you had a jetpack! Does it get much better than that? The Tribes games are the ones I probably miss the most, simply because no one really seems to play them anymore (at least not nearly as much as they used to).

Right now, I primarily play Day of Defeat: Source and Left 4 Dead. On the side though, I play Final Fantasy (VII, IX, X, and XII), Red Alert 3, Gears of War 2, and of course Starcraft (and its expansion, Brood War).

So there you have it, some history of how I became a gamer and why I'm even in to gaming at all. The next big thing I'm looking most forward to is, surprise, Starcraft II. The first Starcraft really set the stage for me when it came to playing games online and learning about computers (and it's just an awesome game, that I still play sometimes), so naturally I'm excited to play the second game too.

Aside from Starcraft II, I'm very excited for Diablo III and Final Fantasy XIII and the PS3 exclusive Final Fantasy Versus XIII.

Overall, my all-time favorite games (not in order of preference):
-Starcraft
-Final Fantasy VI
-Final Fantasy VII
-Final Fantasy IX
-Final Fantasy X
-Goldeneye on N64
-Mario Kart 64

Next time for part 2, I'll discuss how I became so interested in cars. Classes start tomorrow, so I'm not sure when that will come along. Once I figure out what's going on in my classes I'll be able to figure out an actual schedule for updating this blog.

-G&G Allen

And Still coming (who knows when):
-Comments on Edmunds.com InsideLine's comparison test between the BMW 135i and Nissan 370Z.
-Is Honda going the way of Toyota?
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?

Cooperative gameplay: Why it's so good

Before I get started on this topic, I’d like to say that while it may seem like I’m updating this fairly frequently, that could very well change as my next semester of college starts next week. I’ll try to add updates to this blog as often as I can though.

Getting back to the point: With cooperative gaming being so fun, how come it isn’t found in more games? Sure it’s always fun to frag your friends (especially if you get to hear/watch their reactions), but it’s also a lot of fun to kill hordes of zombies or roam other-worldly landscapes with your friends.


Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (image from IGN.com)

I believe I once heard a story of a press conference or presentation where the speaker asked the audience, “Who here liked [Elder Scrolls] Oblivion?” And a lot of people in the audience raised their hands. The speaker then asked, “Who here would like Oblivion if it had a cooperative mode?” And then everybody raised their hands.

That alone goes to show that there is clearly a demand for cooperative gameplay from the gamers. So why don’t developers implement this more? Understandably, there are many reasons for this.

Before I continue, I’d like to make it clear that as I discuss cooperative game modes, I mean game modes where players fight together against computer AI, not modes where players fight cooperatively against other players who are fighting cooperatively as well. The latter idea has been seen in many games already. Few have done it well, others not so much.


Gears of War 2 (image from IGN.com)

It’s relatively easy to build a single-player experience from the ground up, but then to add cooperative support later is very difficult as it was originally built for one person and not two or more. One of the main difficulties in this is making sure that enemy AI will react properly to having multiple players. Another obstacle is making sure that in-game scripted events aren’t affected by having multiple players present either. Then with consoles a big hurdle is making sure that one console will allow two or more players to play at the same time without the game slowing down too much. This could be solved though by forcing people to play cooperatively online or via system link and have only one person per console. While this may not be ideal, I personally believe this is better than having no cooperative gameplay at all. Net code could also prove to be an obstacle as there is a lot of data that has to be processed and sent to all of the players involved. However, it would seem that the level of sophistication that technology has reached today, I honestly would not believe it to be as big of an obstacle as it once was. Overall, it seems that creating a cooperative gameplay experience can be rather difficult and may add more time to an already long development process for games.

But then it begs the question: Why not just make the game with cooperative gameplay in mind from the beginning? Rather than implement cooperative modes as an afterthought, just build the game around the idea of including a cooperative mode. Easier said than done, I’m sure. The Rainbow Six: Vegas games are an excellent example of games which have excellent support for cooperative play and are also brilliant games to play alone and with others. They include the usual multiplayer modes such as deathmatch and team deathmatch, but the cooperative modes offer a different experience from the more “traditional” multiplayer modes that gamers are used to. There are plenty of other games that get cooperative gameplay right such as Gears of War (1 and 2), the Halo series, and Left 4 Dead to name a few.


Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (image from IGN.com)

Speaking of Left 4 Dead, that is a game that was clearly designed with cooperative play in mind from the beginning, and look at the results! It’s an excellent game. I’ve personally played this game for several hours. It includes only four campaigns and I’ve played each one several times and it still hasn’t gotten old. L4D has a “director AI” that changes the gameplay a bit in that it decides where items/ammo spawn and when players may get attacked by special infected as well as hordes of zombies, but after playing so much, it can still be somewhat predictable. Regardless of being able to predict or expect when things may happen, the cooperative gameplay in Left 4 Dead just hasn’t gotten old, the fun hasn’t worn out yet.

This brings me to my next point of cooperative gaming. It takes much longer to get old than competitive gameplay. I used to play Counter-Strike for hours on end when I first started playing it back in 2000 when it was still at Beta 6. Competitive play was fun then, and the only thing that kept it going for me was the updates of new content and the fact that I actually got very good at the game helped too. However, Counter-Strike began to settle into something with no new weapons and not many new maps and finally settled at version 1.6. I just wasn’t that interested anymore and had been steadily losing interest for a while before that (CS 1.3 was the best for me). I was looking for something new to play. I wanted a different experience. Playing in any CS server felt the same because no matter who I played with, the gameplay felt exactly the same.

With cooperative gameplay however, I feel that the experience always proves to be at least somewhat different no matter how much you play. For the time I’ve played Left 4 Dead and the numerous times I’ve played each of the four campaigns, I still run into players who play the game differently. The same argument could be made for competitive gameplay too, however I feel cooperative games are different because it encourages people to work together. No matter how much competitive games try to say that objectives are to be completed with teamwork, I personally believe that it rarely, if ever happens in public servers. With cooperative gameplay though, the players do work together, and it leads to a greater sense of accomplishment, and there isn’t usually a superhuman character around that does everything by themselves. This means that in cooperative games, it lets everybody playing feel like they were a part of something. In competitive games, it was all too easy to be overshadowed by the better players on your team. I know this, because there were times in Counter-Strike where I’d be doing absolutely terribly, but a couple of the top people on my team would clean out the other team and leave me with nothing to do. Those were some of the most boring times I had with Counter-Strike. In a cooperative game, if it is designed properly, everybody playing will have something to do.

While the Halo series and the Gears of War series may allow for 'superhuman' players to essentially do everything on their own, they still offer a lot of targets to shoot at. This makes it so that everybody playing can feel like they are helping each other out to complete their objective.


A beta screenshot of Left 4 Dead (image from Shacknews)

Left 4 Dead has been especially good at keeping everyone involved though because it is just about impossible to complete any level of that game while running solo. Being hit by any zombie slows you down, so you need other players to save you or else you’ll be attacked and killed. Special infected in particular will require one to be saved or protected by other players as well. Then teamwork is also required to fend off the hordes of zombies that will attack the players throughout each campaign. Left 4 Dead does a good job of forcing players to stick together and I believe that other games in the future looking to implement cooperative gameplay could learn a thing or two from it because it does such a good job of keeping all of the players involved, everybody is important.

So this leads me to my main point about cooperative gaming: it’s so fun because it tends to not allow really good players overshadow the less-experienced players. It gets everybody playing involved; it makes them feel like they’re all a part of something, fighting against a common enemy, and that they must rely on each other in order to accomplish their goals. It’s fun because you can be really good at the game or perhaps even bad at the game, but no matter what your skill level is, you can count on being part of the team without being forgotten after the all-stars have shot up every moving thing in the area.

Playing games with other people doesn’t always have to be about destroying your opponent (although Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. do a great job of making this fun). Working with other players can be just as fun, if not more fun. As long as it’s done properly and not tacked on to a game as some afterthought, cooperative gameplay should be a valuable addition to almost any game that will not only make it appeal to more people, but also increase its replay value. Gamers like myself love cooperative gameplay and sometimes it can be the deciding factor when figuring out whether I want to buy a game or not. I know that I can’t be the only person out there who values cooperative gameplay so much. It seems to me that investing in implementing cooperative gameplay would yield enough in returns such that it’d be well worth the investment in the end. So come on developers! How come we aren’t seeing cooperative gameplay more in games?

-G&G Allen

P.S.
I'm not saying that cooperative gaming is the ultimate in multiplayer gaming experiences, because I certainly love competitive multiplayer games from time to time, but I just wish developers implemented cooperative gaming modes more often.

Still coming:
-Comments on Edmunds.com InsideLine's comparison test between the BMW 135i and Nissan 370Z.
-Is Honda going the way of Toyota?
-Fanboys and their belief that they all have the best thing since sliced bread. Who's right?