GameRx: HyperBlade

"I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out."

       - Rodney Dangerfield

Tronicus also seems to be an apt name.

Sitting at my desk writing this review, it's hard to figure out where to start describing this game. Made by Whizbang! Software Productions in 1996, HyperBlade fills a space in the under-appreciated niche genre of sci-fi sports games. It really defies explanation, but if I had to describe it in terms of today's games, I'd call it some sort of bizarre combination of Gears of War, ice hockey, and Tony Hawk Pro Skater.


The best part? It's so old that it's available here for free in a non-torrent format. You don't have an excuse this time, readers!


If you've enjoyed games like Monday Night Combat  and Blood Bowl, you should definitely hit the download above and give this game a look. It's small, fun, easy to learn, and is packed with plenty of high-speed action, and runs on almost any PC or Windows emulator. I got this little gem to play on my Win95 Toughbook, a behemoth of a laptop with absolutely minimal specs, where it still worked like a charm. Trust me on this one; if it works on that thing, you should be able to handle it. The only foreseeable complication is that the game might just be too old to run on your fancy-pants computer. If this is the case, just do a simple follow-up on Google to figure out what you need to do.

Read more with The RedShirt Crew»

GameRx: Colonization

GameRx: Colonization

With the new Gods & Kings expansion being released for Civilization V, it seems like as good of a time as ever to look back at the history of Sid Meier’s most popular franchise. Looking back at the older iterations of the game can give us a new-found appreciation for just how much this series has changed over time and the massive impact it’s had on the desktop gaming community. Today, we’ll be looking atColonization, a Civ-like game where you discover the New World, establish colonies, and revolt against your mother country.

This game comes in three basic flavors: ‘94, ‘03, and ‘08. More of you may be familiar with this title in its most recent form, released as a part of Civ IV in their new 3D game engine. The original came out in 1994, way back during the beginning of NAFTA and the end of Commodore International, and an open source clone of the game was initiated in 2003, piquing enough general interest to justify the Civ IV version of the game in 2008. The original 1994 version is really only viable if your current rig has DOSbox installed or if you happen to have an old beast of a computer gathering dust in the attic, like an Amiga or Commodore. If you have a copy of Civ IV, you should have your hands on the most recent version pretty easily. If you have neither DOS nor Civ IV, go ahead and download FreeCol before you spend money on it and see if you like what you find. Your mileage may vary on any of the three.

Read more at The RedShirt Crew»

GameRx: Sid Meier's Gettysburg!

One thing that has always really bothered me about modern RTS is that games are no longer based on tactical skill, but rather knowledge of the game engine and mechanics. In such games, knowledge of the game always comes before knowledge of tactics, where even a wonderfully planned assault can completely backfire if you haven’t bought the right upgrades or powerups for your troops. To me, this is pretty apparent in games like Starcraft -- any game where you measure prowess with “clicks per minute” seems like an exercise in tedium to me rather than a demonstration of strategic genius.

Where modern RTS’s largely fail to meet standard big-picture criteria, Sid Meier’s Gettysburg more than delivers. Based on the engine used in the game Sid Meier’s Waterloo, gameplay is reminiscent of games from the likes of Creative Assembly. One controls regiments rather than individual soldiers and moves them in formation across the battlefield, making an understanding of fronts, flanking, and the other essential parts of pre-twentieth-century strategy key elements in formulating your plans. Time passes more slowly, giving both players time to observe the field and react to each other’s movements, much like many battles of that era. Granted, this style of gameplay isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but this is definitely a refreshing take on RTS for anyone with background in wargaming.

Read more at the RedShirt Crew blog»

Prognosis: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

I remember going to see this movie in theatres, cautiously optimistic. I figured, hey, this could be great. The original, made in 1951, was a great little movie that I thought had the potential to make a solid reboot, giving a modern reinterpretation of the actions that take place in the film. While the posters and trailers of the older movie advertised the robot-attack as the feature of the movie, most of the film was a commentary that discussed peculiarities of human society from the perspective of an alien, such as family dynamics, societal norms, and war. In the end, it left us with a hopeful message of global reform to encourage a unified planet. A reboot would be an excellent opportunity to reinforce this message while reiterating more relevant modern societal issues.

Oh, how wrong I was.

Read more at The RedShirt Crew »

Concerning Star Wars Kinect

Honest, does this little shrimp look like you?

Now that exactly fifteen people have asked me if I've heard about the "disgrace" called  Star Wars Kinect since it came out, I'm going to put my full reaction here for the record.

I'll go ahead and say it; the fanbase response is patently ridiculous. Why should the fans even care? Is anyone forcing you to play this game? Is this game targeted at your demographic? Was this game somehow meant to expand canon? No, nope, and never respectively. Older, jaded Star Wars fans are just using this as another flimsy excuse to indulge in their favorite pastime - shitting on George Lucas. In all honestly, I find this reaction and the practice it stems from mortally embarrassing as a fan of the franchise.

Seriously. If you're over the age of 16, LucasArts gives exactly zero fucks about what you think of Star Wars Kinect. This is not your toy.

Off Topic: Oh no, not Miracle Whip again...

This post is a bit outside of the gaming purview of the blog, but it's something that's been bothering me. I thought I'd seen the end of this dumb marketing campaign ages ago. If you're in the states, I'm almost certain you know which ones I mean from the title -- a seductive female voice tells you about how cool and trendy Miracle Whip is for all you hip kids out there while attractive, smiling youths in fashionable clothes pose suggestively with jars of mayonnaise, all filmed with a shaky camera while abstract shapes float through the background. Classy stuff.

Needless to say, I was a bit disappointed when I opened The Onion today to find an edgy Miracle Whip graffiti splash sprawling over the top stories.

Avengers Tangentials: Whedon, Firefly, etc.

With the Avengers' movie coming out, I'm finding that I'm particularly more reserved regarding Joss Whedon compared to the rest of the geek community at large. Please don't misunderstand me here -- I like his stuff. He's got talent, his work is solid, and he's definitely been a hit with the geek crowd. I'm in no position to say he is bad in any capacity. However, it's his notably high popularity in the geek crowd that makes me wonder about his inclusion in The Avengers. I assume the movie will be fine, and that Whedon's style will fit well with the team-based story at work. I just can't shake the feeling that he was included so they could brandish his name around to attract more viewers. Again, this is likely not the case, but it's just that nagging though in the back of my brain.

I can understand that someone could say the same of George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, and I'd a agree to an extent -- especially in the former. Whedon and Lucas are both creators of highly popular franchises, so they both carry the associated baggage with their name from other projects. Maybe it's just because of the people I hang out with and the sites I visit, but Whedon's name always snags people's attention, almost instantly getting people to instantly wax nostalgic over Firefly and Buffy. The same applies for Lucas and Star Wars., although there is often a hint of animosity with the Star Wars "purists" (another post? I think so). Spielberg's name, while it gets your attention, isn't associated with any popular franchises* and instead gets you by individual titles, like E.T. and Schindler's List. Franchises just seem to be what sticks to the mainstream, which isn't a bad thing at all -- Firefly, Star Wars, Pokemon,  Twilight, Game of Thrones, The Avengers, and Batman are but a few modern examples.