When Steam was first announced in 2002, I decided I would have no part of it. While I do have an account with Steam, I didn't buy any Steam or Steam-DRMed game until now. At the time, it was the most restrictive, most ridiculous piece of DRM. This was back when most DRM was disc-based – and more importantly, back in Malaysia, we were still predominantly dialup or slow ADSL.

To make things even worse, Steam at this time did have an rather unreliable offline mode (on my computer, anyway), together with encrypted data on the discs. There was no question – this was the new enemy, and so I stopped buying Valve games.

As time passed, Steam started allowing third party games on the service, got even more creative with the DRM, and now even has a Mac version. Meanwhile, the rest of the game publishing world has decided to whip their own customers with even more horrendous anti-copying measures, like persistent online authentication (in some cases, you need to be always online to play a single player game) and limited activation schemes. We have even had cases of games being tampered with on purpose, so that the game is unplayable off a fresh install off a disc.

The one piece of DRM I can most certainly agree with is the one where the game chooses to do hilarious things to the player when they use an illegal copy – invincible enemies, impossible enemy spawns, permanently drunken driving. Although, this can sometimes result in the game being given a bad review by our dear pirates because they didn't know any better.

Now Steam is our go to place for games. Why? Sales on good games, (funnily enough) less restrictive DRM than other places, and hell, even weekends when we can try and play a game for free!

So here we are, nearly 10 years later, and I've finally bought my first game on Steam. The honour happens to go to Bastion – which was on sale for USD 6 for a copy I could play on both Windows and OS X. So, Valve – you win. (Also, I look forward to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and DOTA 2 being released.)

Microsoft just blew everyone away with Project Natal. I have my doubts about how well it'll run in my crowded living room, compared to say, a certain handheld IR camera, or a really stupid looking wand, which you know, would probably work in a crowded living room, but I'm sure Microsoft has already thought of a solution. Otherwise, nobody living in a high density city can use Natal.

I can't say I'm fond of Microsoft and Sony's offerings this year besides their motion sensing tech. There Gran Turismo PSP – which must have been promised to us for what feels like ages now – I think it will be ages before we get it. More Halo! I seen so much Halo I think I'll immediately switch off my brain the moment I see more Halo. Best news for me was Forza 3′s release date, which I of course already knew.

Haiyaya.

Here's the most economically or financially interesting bit – second hand value of a game.

To me, this is among the most important source of value in a video game. Why? It makes buying a game non-permanent.Why is this important? It means that when you buy a game, you are essentially actually having in on really long term rent. Most stores have a return policy – if you can finish the game in 7 days, or don't like it – guess what? You can return it.

I can never finish games in 7 days, unless it was a short FPS. I'm still playing Disgaea 3 up to now. RPGs and realistic racing sims can last you forever – well, unless you get bored.

Game companies don't see it this way. They think that by locking you in once you've bought it, they can make more money. If your game is good, this is never a problem. Why? Ever see many copies of Final Fantasy XII second hand in a store? (Well, I don't know about other countries, but in Australia, good luck finding a 2nd hand copy of a good game.) Even if you see them – consider how many got sold – and then think about how many are being sold now.

If your games are awesome, most people will keep them. Companies who make good games should never worry about this. Of course, they'll whine about the (maybe) millions of dollars they'd supposedly make.

Bad games however pile up VERY VERY quickly on preowned shelves. Notice how there's somehow like tons of copies of a certain game on the preowned shelf? These are the people who would be losing money over resales. Why? Their games are getting recycled through the market at a super high rate.

This is good for us. This gives game companies a massive incentive to make good games – and a punishment for churning out bad ones.

I, for one, make it a rule to only buy games I intend to keep. But I have friends who buy games to try. They're more adventurous (and probably more loaded) than me. Would companies really earn more from locking them into their purchases?

They'd be punishing faithful buyers for their bad purchases. I can imagine people beginning to question their purchases a lot more for less reputable games. I think this is going to hurt the game industry in general – unless they give us something in return. And what is that something? Cheaper games.

Games with less resale value (or maybe even none) sells for less. A look on eBay easily confirms this. The market knows resale value counts towards the value of a video game – and it will be enforced. A lot of people saying they don't like recycling of games should take this into account – not many people will pay the same price they're paying now for a game that has no resale value – and you run the risk of your game doing even worse than it would otherwise (since people have to be more careful buying games they can't resell).

Would you make more money selling less copies that cycle through the market – or more copies at cheaper prices that don't? It's something to ponder and a topic to research – not something I can answer. But I love my physical copies.

Here's Part 3. Now, I don't particularly care much for multiplayer components of games, especially console ones. Having online multiplayer is new to me – and it'll take a while before it sinks in. For one, I'm not accustomed to having Internet connection on my consoles. This generation, everything seems to come with wireless. Except the XBOX 360. No surprise I still don't have an XBOX Live account. It's not like I didn't try – I did indeed try out playing Warhawk and Unreal Tournament III on the PlayStation 3 – it's just not my style to go off and play multiplayer games.

I'm not particularly competitive – so I won't go and practice an hour a day just to get good at killing random people online. I'd rather be reading a good book or solving a math problem.  I didn't train up my FPS skills – whatever little I have is whatever little I'm going to have for a while. Sure, I used to be able to headshot regularly in Counter-Strike – doesn't mean I'm gonna go try and do the same in Left 4 Dead.

Speaking of Left 4 Dead, there are many games like it where the multiplayer counts a lot. Games like Left 4 Dead and Rock Band really shine when you've got friends to play co-op with. These games were built to be played with multiple players working together and they are a whole load of fun with friends and family. There are many other games like this – local multiplayer changes the game entirely – Nintendo makes plenty of these – Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii are prime examples of what Nintendo is capable of.

Arguably, that's kid stuff. MMO and most FPS games shine online in multiplayer. What's so funny? FPS games used to be one of the few things PCs did great – they still do great, just that console multiplayer is doing so well – not to mention, sales are way better too. This, of course, translates to more players – and more fun online than people with PCs have now. MMOs are still mostly domain of the PC gamers – and rightfully so: with so many free betas, free-to-play games – and the huge disk space requirements (ahem, WoW, for example) have put them off the console and their expensive certification requirements – for now.

The ability to patch games has made multiplayer a lot more possible for consoles now and in the future. Of course, this has led to us getting bugged versions of console games – but often, even buggier versions on PC. We could blame the fact on being able to patch – but I think the problem is less on being complacent due to ability to patch – and more that the games are getting more difficult to debug every day as they get more complex and difficult to make. (Although Fallout 3 was absolutely abhorrent to anyone except maybe the developers for crashing like a newborn baby trying to drive a jet plane.)

Well, there have been numerous efforts to bring another multiplayer favourite, the real time strategy genre of games to the consoles. Halo Wars, Endwar – and even console versions of C&C3 and Red Alert 3! Without a question, RTS games are most certainly multiplayer domain – although most of them come with a great and rewarding single player campaign to play through all by themselves. Let's face it – the point is to pummel your opponent with your massive (or occasionally, reasonably sized) army. And the best opponents? Other humans.

There's no doubt multiplayer holds loads of value for a gamer in a video game – not to all of us – but most certainly for most of us. And yes, in case there was any doubt – there will be a part 4.

If you know me, you'll also know that I'm a fan of the EA LA age of Command and Conquer games – but let's face it, after the abominations that were C&C2 and RA2, any improvement I would've seen as a godsend.

Red Alert 3 turns up the craziness a few notches – loads of units are amphibious – and naval warfare is BAAAAACK. If there's anything that I notice – it's that the scissors-paper-stone philosophy that's been creeping around RTSes is a lot more pronounced in RA3. I haven't felt the need to keep such a varied unit base in a C&C game before, of course that could be my skills improving a little bit – but there's no denying there's a greater focus on micro, with nearly every unit having some skill that get be triggered by the ‘F' key – which using correctly will get you out of a lot of sticky situations.

The campaign is rather short – 9 missions each side, no intertwining storyline, no canonical ending (apparently) since all the sides seem to just kill everyone else at the end of the game, which is reminescent of the Generals story, where nothing seems related. That being said, they did hide a few pleasant surprises in the story – and if you look around and pick pieces up here and there, you can build a timeline of the missions – since some things don't conflict with each other – but it doesn't help that there is no canonical ending, since they all end similarly: death to all the enemies. (If history is any indication, the Allies ending is usually the one considered canonical. Heh.) I would've liked a intertwining campaign, but hey, the missions are fun, and you get to play with the 3 commando units of the 3 factions at some point. (Not to mention a certain Empire of the Rising Sun campaign-only epic unit.)

They've also introduced the concept of disables/suppression where certain units can immobilize or disable other units (and sometimes make them more vulnerable to damage) – which stops you from relying too much on small numbers of powerful units, or at the very least, make you pay attention to the battlefield.

Me being me, you know which side I favour. Empire of the Rising Sun FTW!

The Empire is the only side that doesn't have an airfield. And this is why:

And at the press of the ‘F' key later:

(The screenshots have been downscaled from 1680 by 1050 to 1280 by 800 to save space – no reason to put super large screens to make a stupid point, and yes, I did lower the shadow quality – although it was unnecessary, I was too lazy to change it back.)

I don't think any C&C fan should pass up on this instalment, the skirmish mode is fun (with the 3 varying AI per side to keep you interested for slightly longer than usual with their varied strategies – you still kick their asses though). The fact that there are three locations units can be in (air, land and sea) although makes you plan a little more with what units to bring around and which units to keep – which makes both attacking and defending and interesting endeavour.

1. Single Player

A lot of good games are single player oriented or have a solid single player element. Without them, a lot of games would get nowhere. It would take too much time to go through everything – so I'm just gonna talk about what I like in single player.

First, there's the story. Some single player games, such as puzzle games like Bejeweled, Lumines and Peggle, are completely lacking in single player storyline. Most of them, however, do – Grand Theft Auto IV, Bioshock, Portal, Tales of Vesperia, and the list goes on. A lot of first person shooters and RPGs are filled with a good story to keep you playing. For some gamers, this is about the only reason to play a video game – a good story.

After the storyline, we have the gameplay – the central element of the game. You can have an excellent story, great graphics, but it doesn't matter if the gameplay just plain annoys you. For turn based RPGs, this usually entails plenty of menus, decision making and strategy. For action games, this usually entails mashing buttons until the enemies drop dead where they stand (while not dropping dead yourself). For platformers, well, there's a lot of jumping.

Of course – there's replay value. Some games have insane replay value – racing games are a good example. It's easy to replay most of the game multiple times – and you're expected to do so most of the time. Most other games don't have quite so much – action games tend to extend replay time by unlocking more difficulty levels to keep challenging the player, RPGs on the other hand try to push sidequests and the occasional New Game Plus. While some would claim otherwise, I think FPSes have little replay value in the single player department. Real time strategy would depend on the player and the game. Some people might see the joy in playing through Dawn of War: Soulstorm's campaign with every race, while most people just play it once and go back to multiplayer after that.

Then there is the rather ambiguous and difficult to define satisfaction from completing the game. This satisfaction increased the longer and more difficult the game is – seeing the ending is only part of the utility gained from finishing a video game. There is also the sense of achievement and euphoria – rewards of the past 5 to 60 hours of gameplay.

- to be continued -

Note: This was meant to be longer and include the multiplayer portions, but I've decided to push those to Part 3 in favour of getting Part 2 out to begin with.

For the first part, let's just look at the visible value your money pays for when you buy this particular game. When Halo 3 was released, the RRP for it's collector's edition was AUD109.95 (if I am not mistaken). Being the shrewd customer, I took advantage of certain market mispricings and a certain trade-in promotion to get hold of my copy for a lot less than that. But that's not the point.

So let's have a look at what you pay for:

1. Nice plastic cover for the case.
2. A painted steel case emblazoned with the Halo 3 logo.
3. Halo 3 Game Disc (this is why you bought the game after all)
4. A Halo Bestiarum – hard cover book with nicely laid out information on Halo 3′s races
5. Halo 3 Manual
6. A folded controls cheat sheet/poster
7. 48-hour XBox Live Gold Trial Membership
8. Halo 3 Essentials Disc One (with Making of and other videos)

(The photo is just meant to give you an idea of what's inside )

So just look at the box, that's the tangible goods you pay for – 2 discs, a steel case, and many many printed sheets of paper – some more valuable than others.

Let's put aside the two discs for a while. Do you see value in the other 6 items?

Some people don't – but I do. The plastic cover may feel stupid – but it is the one with all the details, the nice artwork for the logo, and overall completes the package for retail sale. A lot better than Halo 2′s plastic cover mind you.A lot of people are attracted to the steel case – and so am I. The steel case is black, which makes it look sleek – and it's got a big stylized number 3 on it so you know what it is. Ths case is what makes it special and stand out from all the other XBox 360 games in their typical green DVD cases.

The Halo Bestiarum is simply somewhat a small hardcover book filled with info and pictures of the races in Halo 3 and brings you a little up to speed with what's been going on if you haven't been to the world of HAlo before. The Halo 3 Manual is what you'd expect, the mandatory manual. As much as I make it sound like that – I value the manual highly. A game without its manual is significantly less valuable to me, since I buy games mostly for collection purposes. A manual gives it completeness – not to mention it is more often than not, good fun to read. Some games come with thin manuals which are extremely lacking – which I do not like. Thin manuals to me feel sloppy and convey a message that the game doesn't have enough depth or features to put into a manual, or that the company was just plain stingy. We paid for the game – we deserve a fair thickness manual together with it.

Controls cheat sheets are very normal nowadays – but this one happens to be a nice poster all well, which is a nice touch – I don't use it, I don't use posters, but having it around makes one happy that one bought the game. The 48-hour trial was worthless and still is worthless to most people – it's more of an advertising ploy – some later games came with a more generous one week or one month trial – which is a lot more valuable.

OK – back to the discs. Now, I'm from Malaysia. Piracy is rampant there. I am used to not caring about copyright, acquiring counterfeit discs, and all other nonsense normally associated with a typical Malaysian. If there's one thing you learn – it's that original games and discs come with nice fancy manuals – some people make take these for granted: I do not. I think it's extremely important that you make originals look nice and fancy.

Good looking discs make game publishers look good, they make consumers happy as well. The Halo 3 discs are no different – they look beautiful and well thought out. The discs are a pleasure to look at, not to mention play in my XBox 360 – carrying the Microsoft XBox 360 holograms. On the other hand, some original discs look like crap. Wii discs for one are usually ugly – and PS2 games suffer similar treatment. I find it unacceptable original discs look worse than pirated discs. Effort to make your discs look nice do go a long way to making people convert. I like having presentable discs.

The demo played exactly as expected, giving you a good sense of power, being able to throw around practically anything that isn't tethered to the ground, and the Force meter depletes in a very sensible way. What do I mean by sensible? It doesn't deplete while you are fiddling with something you've Force Gripped (at least in easy, didn't bother trying harder difficulties), which means plenty of leeway to fiddle with something in the full 3D space (yes, you can control it to move left, right, up, down, forwards and backwards relative to your character, and if you are forceful enough, you can get it to actually rotate).

The way Force Lightning is used seems like a pretty sensible evolution for someone who has a lot of energy to spare, imbuing your lightsaber attacks with lightning and even a small shockwave. You have a sensible air combo with which to attack enemies, and taking down larger more difficult enemies require QTE-esque button pressing, which is fine.

So, what's wrong with it? It seems that Western developers can never get the camera right. (Too Human being the poster child of high profile game with terrible camera. At least in the demo, I'm not gonna even buy the full game seeing how 1up and gamespot tore it up.) The camera isn't broken, but you do occasionally find yourself fighting with the camera since if you can't see the enemy, you can't lock onto them. This means that pressing the lock button in hopes it will give you sight of your next enemy is unfortunately not gonna work. This is actually perfectly acceptable, since you can lock on to quite the variety of objects, so that could cause a problem.

There is the occasional strange bug with the camera, where the camera can somehow end up stuck in a peculiar angle under your character, I'm not sure why, I'm not sure how, but it is annoying to have it just plain stuck. Thoughtfully, a camera center/reset system is in place and is triggered by pressing down on the right stick (PS owners will know this as R3.), which does remedy the problem, although it would've been much nicer if the camera didn't get stuck to begin with.

The game should be pretty good. It'll come down to level design and enemy variety, I guess.

Yes, I've played through Soul Calibur IV. I've unlocked every prefabricated character except Starkiller – mostly due to my laziness to learn how to play Yoda well enough to pass Arcade mode. I can't say I love the game, since I'm easily bored by fighting games, but it is still Soul Calibur IV. It feels harder to combo now, although I think that's probably a matter of practising and memorising the move lists as compared to my button mashing of the X and Y buttons.

If you like fighting games or just the Soul Calibur series, this will not disappoint and is most certainly a must-buy for anyone with a console who can play it. Just maybe, not now – and later when it hits budget price status, since I don't really value it at 60 dollars. Not the worst 60 dollars you could spend mind you considering the oh-so-vast number of games for XBox 360 this year.

I was severely disappointed by the Too Human demo but the Tales of Vesperia demo was a pleasant surprise.

Now addicted to:

Waga Routashi Aku no Hana by ALI PROJECT
Die, All Right! by The Hives

(I realise that I prefer doing this to illustrate my point rather than write out some long essay.)