Zenophobe

WTF?

      On tuesday I picked up Zenoclash from the Steam store after being assured by the marketing department that it was the Portal of 2009. Predictably however this statement was a little off. For those who don't know Zenoclash is an interesting amalgam of Heironymus Bosch and Soul Calibur. You control Gaht, as he kicks the asses of the denizens of Zenozoic.

    The developer Ace promised a wonderous mix of brutal melee combat and ranged combat with guns made of scrap metal. They achieved this to some degree but overall it falls a little short of expectations. Granted, I only played for about 2 or 3 hours, but the game seemed intent on pissing me off. For one thing, all of the enemies in this "Brutal hand to hand combat action game" seemed to have impeccable aim with all weapons that did massive amounts of damage to me with every shot. Needless to say, this effect wore off as soon as I picked up the same weapon.

     Moving on, the aiming system is extremely frustrating to use. In order to aim with a gun you are holding, you have to hold down the right mouse button in order to bring up the crosshairs and actually shoot at something. The problem with this is that in order to aim you need to stand reletivly still while the other enemies charge you from all angles. 

      For that matter the game seems to focus far too much on ranged combat rather thatn the proudly touted melee combat. Apart from that though the environments are quite possibly the epitome of source engine graphics. The characters are very imaginative and have a lot of personality.  That alone is honestly enough to keep this game from being a total disappointment.

     All things considered, Zenoclash is fairly good game with excelent graphics(not Crysis good, but still), and an engaging story. Overall, i'd give this game an 8.5 because nothing that I really have a problem with is unfixable with a patch. 

         And no, the saving thins didn't give me any real problems...

3's a crowd

Earlier today I was told that the 'starter' (read: cheap/shit) version of Windows 7 would limit the user to only 3 active applications at any time. My first reaction was "yeah, bullshit. I know Microsoft is that stupid, but they can't be that stupid". Microsoft, unfortunately, IS that stupid.
Right now I guarantee that you have at least 3 applications open. Personally, I have Safari (browser), iTunes (music), Preview (pictures). On my PC I usually have Steam, Windows Picture Viewer, Firefox open, and if I want to play a game for instance, I would be out of
luck.

This, kids is why we proofread our statements, especially when we're SELLING THEM.

Combine all of that with the estimated price of Windows 7 'Starter edition' of $85 and you get pissed off businesspeople. Microsoft has said that this is intended for netbooks and PC built on the cheap. On its face that seems like a fairly reasonable excuse until you think about the types of 'cosmopolitans' that own netbooks. Generally when observing the computer of somone sipping a soy latte one can find a word processor (for writing 'novels'), a web browser (for plagiarizing F. Scott Fitzgerald), a Picture Viewer (for copying the cover from 'The Great Gatsby' ) and of course Limewire (for pirating music) open on one's computer. Those who can count will realize that this is 4 applications and that one will have to go. Some would say "some people don't use limewire/iTunes and instead use iPods or (God forbid) Zunes; and in doing this they will not be using 4 applications...". My point still stands however when you consider the number of people who use Outlook. This being the case, I would steer most people away from this ripoff.

Moar leik Left 4 Bait amirite?

The recent release of Left 4 Dead's 'Survival Pack' motivated me to re-evaluate Left 4 Dead. Before I passed it off as a fairly bland zombie kill-fest (all be it a Valve Soft game and therefor a head and shoulders above what most companies make). After I started playing is about 2 or three days ago, I can't stop. As of late I've found myself looking at the clock around 4:30 AM and thinking, "shit, I really should get to bed.......but my teammates need me more than that....". Anyway, I found that the game is most fun around 2:00 AM with the lights off, that's when the game becomes actually immersive. I think it may be on sale now, so if you enjoy senseless zombie genocide with four complete strangers (or four friends, depending on how popular you are) then pick it up off steam. My steam name is Garroh of all things.

How secure is "Life without walls" anyway?

According to Microsoft, this is totally secure...
I wish I was kidding...

So Microsoft has unveiled it's latest PR move to move units of Windows 7. Apparently Windows 7 is more secure than both Mac OS X and Linux. My first response to this was O RLY NUB? I will agree that arguing Mac VS. PC does eventually come down to immature squabbles over who's computer looks better. I do however feel totally and completely right in saying that this statement is absolute bullshit.

With the current number of Mac viruses hovering somewhere in the nebulous regions of "none at all" and "If you're the most unlucky person in the world you'll get this", this was possibly one of the worst PR decisions that Microsoft has made in quite some time. One of the possable reasons for this is that your Mac will let you know occasionally when there is a much needed security update, Windows XP however, seems to have no problem letting the man in the black coat climb through the window (no pun intended). I do have several month's experience with Windows 7, and as far as security updates go, I have failed to download even one. The loading bar just sits there while (presumably) contacting the download server.

So all in all, is Windows 7 more secure that Mac OS X or Linux? I don't know, you tell me.