Yes, I have a Playstation Vita in my hands. I will be doing a full review of it soon. I just haven't decided how I want to go about it. Of course the hardware means little without the games. Here's six capsule reviews of the ones I've tried out so far.




Tales from Space: Mutant Blobs Attack

Canadian indie developer DrinkBox released an adorable PS3 game about a little blob from space with a huge apatite. Its sequel is by far the best launch title on the Vita. You play as a mutated blob who escapes from a university science lab. You roll around, sucking up objects to grow bigger and eventually conquer the galaxy.

It's a quirky tribute to 1950s B-Movies and modern online-culture. Beyond that, it's a solid physics based puzzle-platformer. The difficulty ramps up nicely as you go from the lab, to the moon, to rampaging through Canada's largest city. There's plenty of traps along the way from lasers, spikes, and angry army men that will blast you to oblivion. My favourite parts are the rocket blob segments, which really show off the game's fantastic physics engine. Bonus levels do an excellent job showing off the Vita's motion controls as you tilt the system to move Mutant Blob around the playing field.

Mutant Blobs Attack oozes charm and is definitely the best game to appear on the Vita so far. My only problem is the game was too short. Sure, there's 30 some odd levels, but even that didn't feel like enough. When you finish a game wanting more, that's definitely not a bad thing. I hope DrinkBox will keep expanding this quirky franchise. DLC ahoy.

Score: 9.5 out of 10

Wipeout 2048

Wiprout is the definitive anti-gravity racer, and with good reason. There have been plenty of imitators but nobody has reached the nirvana between fast racing and solid combat.

Wipeouts Pulse and Pure defined the racing genre on the PSP. Wipeout 2048 on the PSVita is just like those games, and every other recent Wipeout game. The combat is the same, the racing types & classes are the same, the racing teams are the same, the vehicles aren't that much different. That's not to say it's a bad game. It just feels like SEC Liverpool has turned the series into an incremental release with a fresh coat of paint every couple of years.

That said, Wipeout 2048 is the best racer the Vita has right now. It's also the best anti-gravity racer since WipEout HD launched on the PS3 four years ago. Wipeout's relentless difficulty returns with a mix of racing styles. It also does a good job as a tech demo for the system. Even during the fastest Zone races, the Vita doesn't even hiccough. The colours and eye-popping visuals the series is know for look their best on the Vita's gorgeous OLED screen.

My biggest beef about this game is the price. At $40, it's double the price of other Wipeout games. Yet the content is virtually the same. The game also loses points for the inclusion of the much maligned online pass.

Score: 7 out of 10


Lumines: Electronic Symphony (Demo tested)

Lumines is a Tetris clone. That's really all you need to know about this game. Your goal is to create 4x4 blocks of the same colour. It's a lot like Tetris, Mean Bean Machine, Columns, and every other block puzzler. Simple games can make or break a system, and Lumines is one of Sony's few portable exclusive series.

Lumines is more known for its robust art style than gameplay. It's a gorgeous game with a fantastic soundtrack. There are supposedly some RPG mechanics involved but they're not included in the short demo version. It's definitely a treat for puzzle game fans.

Like Wipeout, I think the game is a bit overpriced. $40 is a bit much to ask for a Tetris clone. Especially when there are far cheaper alternative on competing platforms.

Score: 8 out of 10


Rayman: Origins (Demo Tested)

Rayman is one of Ubisoft's oldest franchises. As you know, Ubi is probably MMNTech's most hated developer. Even I must admit that Rayman Origins is a solid gem.

As the name suggests, Origins takes us back to the original 2D format of the PS1 original. Rayman's friends have been captured by the undead for disturbing the peace. It's up to our arm and legless hero to save them. What follows is some of the best platforming I've seen in a long time. Fantastic physics, good special moves. This game is just pure fun, and a rare right move for Ubisoft.

Rayman looks as good on the Vita as it does on other platforms. Eyepopping colour and fantastic hand drawn graphics. This is the best platfomer I've seen in a long time. As good, if not better, than the 3DS's Super Mario 3D Land. It recreates the fun and creativity of the classic games it's trying to revive. Rayman Origins is definitely worth its $40 entry fee.

Score: 9 out of 10

Uncharted: Golden Abyss (Demo Tested)

Golden Abyss has served as the introduction to the Vita for many, if not most. One of the PS3's most successful franchises scales down quite well.

The demo features a platforming and shooting level. First of all, the game looks fantastic. It really shows off what the Vita is capable of, and that's console level gameplay. Visuals are as close as you can get to firing up Uncharted on your PS3. That said, I found the demo a little underwhelming. Platforming is solid but shooting leaves a lot to be desired. Distant targets appear very small on the screen. It's harder to line up a good shot than it is on the PS3 versions. I also found the touch screen mechanics to be more a gimmick than anything else.

If you're a fan of Nathan Drake's adventures, this one is definitely worth picking up. However, new inductees into the Uncharted series would be best playing the console versions before jumping into this one.

Score: 7.5 out of 10



Super Stardust Delta

Super Stardust Delta shows why dual analogues on a portable are so important. This arcade classic has been perfectly ported to the Vita.

For those unfamiliar with the game, it's like Asteroids on 'roids. You navigate your little ship around a spherical playing surface, blowing up asteroids and alien ships bombarding the planet below. There's a mix of different weapons, including fire beam, ice guns, and devastating bombs.

Out of all the Vita games that attempt to emulate what the PS3 can do, this one comes the closest. Indeed, it exceeds Super Stardust HD. Difficulty is better balanced for beginner players. Aside from the usual arcade and planet modes, there are also some new game modes that take advantage of the touchscreen and motion controls. I find the motion controls a little sloppy compared to the sharp stick controls. To extend the game, a content pack adds four new endurance modes.

Super Stardust Delta is the best time waster on the Vita so far. The only reason it didn't get a higher score is because of the day one DLC. It's a crass move by game publishers. The base game is $9.99 and the four new modes are an additional $5 on top. I went all out and payed for the full game plus additional content. However, I don't think it adds that much. It's $5 well saved if you skip it.

Score: 8 out of 10

There might be a Steam console coming to a TV near you. That's the rumour percolating this week. Sources say Valve has developed a mini computer, with the purpose of creating a stand alone console that can play PC games. Should such a thing exist? Blasphemy, so say PC gamers who have heard it all before.

Valve certainly wouldn't be the first company to do this. Phantom Entertainment attempted it as far back as 2003. The hardware looked promising, as well as the allure of a truly open platform. Then a lawsuit and fraud investigation later, and The Phantom disappeared entirely.

Valve has also come up with a system that has promising hardware. It's claimed to feature an i7 processor, 8gb of RAM, and an nVidia graphics chip. All built with off-the-shelf components. Valve  has considerable gamer & publisher support, and an existing distribution model. If we compare past systems, a Steam box would be like the original Xbox. A big company takes a risky move to create a console out of PC hardware.

A standardized system would have huge benefits for software developers. However, such a system wouldn't necessarily benefit gamers. After all, standardized hardware already exists. They're called the Wii, Xbox 360, and Playstation 3. Many, if not most PC titles launching today are ports of console games. Few exclusives exist beyond MMOs and real-time strategy, and that's only because they're impractical on consoles.

The Steam box is a novel concept but it fails to take into consideration one important factor. PC gamers don't game just for the sake of gaming. Much of the hobby comes from building and customizing hardware, or tweaking and modding the games themselves. Especially outdoing those doing the same. As a PC gamer myself, I feel a Steam box isn't going to appeal to this community.

As for console gamers, the market is already saturated. There isn't room for more than three systems. There never has been. It's especially true if the system can't offer up any clear advantage over the others. Both Nintendo and Sony survive through well established franchises and unique exclusives. Nintendo furthermore has its gimmicks. Microsoft has their superior online play. Steam would add a direct download, discless alternative. But is that enough?

Valve should not be producing another stand alone console. The world doesn't need it. If they want in on the hardware business, custom PCs are a more viable choice. Especially if they partner with nVidia, as has been suggested. Similar to what AMD has done with their Vision platform. If they can use their leverage to produce a Windows PC focused on gaming, with prices comparable to consoles, then they may be on to something.

The Playstation Vita is a technological marvel. Though that's only if you take its raw power into account.  Sony prides itself on producing the most powerful game systems. Though the PS Vita could already be obsolete, even before it launches.

When the PSP was released, it too was a fantastic piece of hardware. Not only could it play console quality games, but it could also browse the internet, play movies, and music. That was revolutionary in 2005. Sony's products have always been praised for their technical innovation. The Vita also does the same things. However, you've already got something in your pocket that does all that.

A lot of gaming writers tend to dismiss the rise of smart phones and tablets. They don't provide the graphical details portable gaming systems. As I mentioned in my 3DS reviews, I don't think that matters anymore. Then there's games like Infinity Blade II, that prove that these devices can indeed provide the same experience, for cheaper. Smart phones have already rendered it out dated.

As it is, the PS Vita is way too expensive. Sony screwed themselves over on two fronts here. Not so much with the hardware price. Though $250 big ones is still a lot of money to blow. Rather, it's the Vita's accessories that are proving to be its downfall. Nobody wants to pay the steep prices for the Vita's proprietary memory cards. Especially when Android devices and the 3DS use common and cheap SD cards. The iPhone and iPod Touch feature built in storage. The Vita has none. The memory expense raises the real price of the system by quite a bit. Expect to spend at least $300, but likely more if you want anything usable.

The second is game prices. Sony sells hard copies of games for more than downloadable copies. However, the downloadable copies require the expensive storage cards. The games are also still quite a bit more expensive than iOS and Andriod games. The launch lineup is better than the 3DS, but nothing really stands out. I just don't think there's a big enough market for in depth portable games anymore.

The high entry price is why you should avoid the Vita on launch. I expect it will have the same growing pains as the 3DS. Especially if sluggish Japanese sales are any indication. A price cut is inevitable. That will be the time to scoop one up. At the moment, there's just not enough value in the Vita to justify the high ticket price.

It turns out the Xbox 3 will not be the state of the art system the original was upon its release. According to IGN, the successor to the 360 will feature Radeon HD 6670 graphics. Naturally the internet is outraged, as they tend to get over such things. The next Xbox will definitely not rival the best gaming PCs of today. That might not be such a bad thing.

When Microsoft released the 360 in 2005, it shipped with their state of the art Xenos processor. They wanted to create a console that would rival the most powerful Windows PCs of the era. As a result, they chose to use a modified Radeon X1800 XL.  It was considered an enthusiast chip, and part of ATI's flagship line of cards.

One year later, Sony selected the enthusiast grade nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX for the Playstation 3.

Using high end chips certainly extended the life of the two consoles. While no longer cutting edge, they still hold their own against more powerful systems. By comparison, the weaker Wii has already passed its sell-by date. However, using high end hardware came at too great a price.

The HD6670 may not be a power house but will be cheaper and run cooler than the Xenos

Microsoft and Sony sold their current consoles at a loss for many years. Sony in particular struggled to lower manufacturing costs for quite some time. Both systems sold for $400 and $500 respectively. Since the recession, the desire to fork over that kind of cash for a toy has waned. $300 is the magic price point.

Using a cheaper graphics chip makes a lot of sense. While console gamers care about graphics, they don't care as much as their PC gaming brethren. What matters is whether there will be a noticeable improvement over the 360. When Microsoft says it will be six times faster, there is a legitimate case to argue that. Seven years and five generations of graphics cards have passed by, with a new generation about to be released. Even a lower end card such as this will offer clear improvements. Especially if Microsoft adopts DirectX 11, and it's tickle trunk of visual enhancements.

Image source: Xbox360Cheats.com

There's been a lot of talk about the SOPA bill lately. For those who don't know, this is also known as the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's a sweeping piece of legislation that would effectively give private entities the power to remove websites from the internet. It's also pits content producers at war with content providers.

SOPA and it's companion PROTECT IP bill promise to curtail "foreign" piracy of copyrighted content. However, the bill as it is remains far too vague and open to interpretation. Due process through the courts is not required for the government to pull a site. An accusation of copyright infringement is all it requires. It would allow private corporations free reign to censor the internet. In many ways, it is not dissimilar to China's Great Firewall.

This presents a huge threat to sites like Google, YouTube, and Facebook, as well as smaller internet entrepreneurs like Channel Awesome, and MMNTech. While it is an American bill, the internet community has chosen to draw the line here. Other countries are also contemplating similar legislation.

I oppose all attempts to censor the free flow of knowledge in any form. Our society relies on this to grow, and the internet is the best tool we have today for this. While piracy may be a problem, SOPA opens far too big a loophole for abuse and should be scrapped entirely. It was a bill drafted and supported by only a hand full of media conglomerates. They are the only ones that stands to benefit this, should it become law. 

If you live in the United States, please take the time to write your congressional representatives and tell them that you oppose the bill. The Obama administration has already come out against the bill, and I applaud them for doing so.

If you have the time, it may also be worth it to let SOPA's supporters know that you oppose their attempt to censor the Internet. A complete list can be found below.

Many websites including Wikipedia and Reddit will be taking action against the bill on January 18th. They will switch off for the day in protest. MMNtech supports them in their endeavours.

SOPA supporters:

• ABC
• BMI
• CBS
• Comcast/NBCUniversal
• Disney Publishing Worldwide, Inc.
• EMI Music Publishing
• Entertainment Software Association
• ESPN
• Major League Baseball
• Marvel Entertainment, LLC
• MasterCard Worldwide
• Motion Picture Association of America
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association
• National Football League
• News Corporation
• Random House
• Scholastic, Inc.
• Sony/ATV Music Publishing
• Sony Music Entertainment
• Time Warner
• Universal Music
• Universal Music Publishing Group
• Viacom
• Visa Inc.
• Warner Music Group
• Entertainment Software Association

Modern computing turns 66 this year. It was in June 1946 that ENIAC, the first general purpose computer, was turned on. That got me thinking. If the transistor had never been invented, how large would a modern tube powered computer be?

ENIAC weighed 27 tonnes for its 17,468 tubes and other components.

So I Googled vacuum tube weights and came up with a rudimentary number of about 150g per tube. This was for a large triode that appears similar to the ones used in ENIAC. Tube Diodes and triodes share a similar function to modern day transistors. They amplify and gate electrical signals.

My computer has an AMD Phenom II X4 955. It clocks in at 758 million transistors. At 150 grams a piece for each tube, this comes to a whopping 113,700 metric tonnes. That's heftier than a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier.

ENIAC was big...

The original iPhone 4 had about 200 million transistors. It would be about half the size of the RMS Titanic.

Intel's fastest consumer chips, the Core i7 hexes, have about 2.270 billion transistors. It would weigh in at 340,500 tonnes The weight of three of those aircraft carriers.

A vacuum tube 6-core Core i7 would tip the scales, larger than 3 aircraft carriers

Of course this is just for the tubes alone. That doesn't include the relays, wiring, resistors, capacitors, and mounting racks to hold it all together. It's pretty staggering how far we've come in the last half century of computing.

It's pretty clear that Sony's Cell is more powerful than the Xbox. It was designed for high performance super computing. Yet despite its power, the PS3 doesn't look that much better than it's contemporaries. In fact, sometimes it looks worse. Graphics can occasionally look muddy or washed. You've probably heard that Sony went with a weaker and more outdated graphics chip than Microsoft did. This isn't the case.

Both Sony and Microsoft went with slightly tweaked, off-the-shelf graphics chips for their consoles. The Xbox 360's Xenos GPU, produced by ATI, is similar to the Radeon X1800 XL. The PS3's nVidia RSX is virtually identical to the GeForce 7800 GTX. Both chips have identical specifications to their PC gaming counterparts. Naturally, you'd think the Xbox's chip would outperform the Playstation's. In real world tests, it doesn't.

The PS3's graphics look washed and blurry in the original Assassin's Creed. From Techblog.com

Pound per pound, the 7800 GTX is the fastest. I compared the two chips using Tom's Hardware's GPU charts from 2006. The ATI chip is only faster in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and only in an outdoor environment. Even then, improvements are marginal: about two frames per second difference. The GeForce beats it at everything else.

The PS3 actually has the more powerful CPU and GPU of the two consoles. So why does it tend to look worse, or struggle with certain games like Oblivion? It's counter intuitive.

Crysis 2 is another example of where the PS3 falls short. Notice the missing details. From Androidguide.ru

The potential culprit left is memory. This is where things get complicated. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have 512mb of RAM. The Xbox shares the entire 512mb block between it's CPU and GPU. The PS3 splits it into two 256mb blocks dedicated to the CPU and GPU.

The Xbox dynamically allocates it's memory usage. Basically, if the CPU only needs 128mb of RAM, then the GPU has the rest. It uses these for textures and other things it needs to store and quickly retrieve. The more memory the GPU has, the bigger the textures it can store. The bigger the textures, the better the image.

The Xbox 360 shares it's RAM between the GPU and CPU.

The PS3 on the other hand is locked in at 256mb. At the time of it's release, this amount of memory was considered outdated. That's another myth about it's graphics. In fact, cards with 512mb or more were largely restricted to the enthusiast segment at the time. More RAM helps performance, but not by much. The two PC cards we looked at have 256mb and 512mb for the ATI and nVidia cards respectively. When we drop the 7800 GTX down to 256mb, performance suffers but only marginally. Even at high resolutions, both chips are evenly matched with nVidia still retaining a slight performance lead.

So how much performance does a graphically intense game of the period use? I loaded up Flight Simulator X on the PC and calculated it's ram usage to be about 650mb evenly split between GPU and CPU. Keep in mind that PC isn't an embedded system. So about 50mb of GDDR are likely being used for other stuff that's running in the background. Namely the desktop.

That's not the say that the PS3 wouldn't benefit from more memory, though not necessarily for graphics. The Cell is a very powerful CPU hampered by a limited amount of system RAM. Our quick test shows that a period game easily consumes more CPU memory than the PS3 has. That's not including all the other things Windows does in the background.

In recent third party games, the differences are much less noticeable. From Attackofthefanboy.com

Ideally, the PS3 should have had 1gb of RAM, split in a 512/512 configuration. At minimum, 512mb of RAM should have been allocated to the CPU. So why didn't they do this? Simple, because it would have cost too much.

The PS3 is very much a system built on compromises. At launch, it was already going for $600, which Sony was selling at a loss. Estimates peg actual manufacturing costs to be over $800. While the addition of pricey Blu-ray was heavily criticized, that eventually paid off in spades for Sony. The problem lies with other parts within the system.

Sony used Rambus XDR memory, which is notoriously expensive. It's faster than the Xbox's GDDR3 on paper, but real world performance improvements are dubious at best. On top of that, they insisted on full hardware PS2 backwards compatibility. The original PS3s literally had a Playstation 2 shoehorned inside them. Had they cut that from the beginning and focused on adding more memory, they would have had a better console.

That still doesn't explain why the PS3 doesn't look as good as the Xbox 360. The real answer is much more simple. At the time, nVidia and ATI were fighting a fierce arms race to build the best GPU. There were two schools of thought going at the time. One was to build a chip optimized for raw power. A GPU that, clock for clock, could produce higher frame rates and higher resolutions than its competitors. The other idea was to build a chip that focused it's power on producing the sharpest and most vibrant images. nVidia went with speed, ATI went with image quality.

Uncharted 3 shows was a properly programmed game can do with the PS3. From Gamersyde.ca

However, and it's a big one, there are exceptions to this rule. Sony's first and second party developers have created some beautiful games for the system. Games that exceed the Xbox in image quality. That's because these games are better optimized for the hardware. That's what it all boils down to: how the developer programmed their game.

Merry Christmas from MMNTech!

Image courtesy of Fail Blog WIN!

Every now and then, you'll need to convert a video. Whether you're editing some family films or just want to rip a DVD to your iPhone, different devices require different formats. Here's three great converters to get the job done fast.

Handbrake (Mac/Windows/Linux, free)
Most devices use the the advanced video format (AVC) also known as H.264. If you need to convert any video into AVC, Handbrake will do it, fast. It's designed to do just one thing and one thing well. Of course it does have a few frills, like deinterlacing, freely adjustable bit rates, cropping, and presets for most Apple devices. On Mac and Linux, it also supports 64-bit processors for about a 10% speed bump. It will convert most DVDs in real time, which is pretty quick for a CPU converter. Handbrake open source program, works with all major operating systems, and it's completely free.

SUPER Media File Converter (Windows, free)
SUPER is clunky, a tad on the slowside, and not exactly the most user friendly program out there. Even finding the download link on eRightSoft's website is a chore. However, it's one of the few free converters out there that will literally convert anything into anything. Got an MPEG that needs to be in DV format? Done. It's one of the few programs that actually supports professional formats such as DV, so it's often my go to when editing.

Media Espresso (Windows, $37.56 on sale)
Cyberlink's converting program isn't cheap, but it does have one thing going for it. It will tap into the power of your computer's graphics card. There's a lot of power hidden in there too. It's the most user friendly and straightforward program on our list. It's basic drag and drop converting. Select your file, drag it into Espresso, hit the convert button your device, and it does the rest. You can also set up custom profiles with today's most common video formats. Where Espresso shines is speed. Using my Radeon HD 5770, I can convert a two hour DVD in just 20 minutes. It would normally take the full two hours using Handbrake. Unlike other GPU converters, it works with Intel, nVidia, and AMD graphics chips. If you need to convert big video files fast, and have a reasonably powerful graphics card, it's well worth the expense.

Sony never met a proprietary format it didn't like. Beta, Minidisc, Bluray, Memory Stick. Joining it is the PS Vita Memory card. Like all other Sony formats, it's incompatible with other devices, completely unnecessary, and as we learned this week, very expensive.

Sony announced four size formats for the new PS Vita Memory Card. It will range from 4gb to 32gb and be priced between $30 up to a whopping $120 for the 32gb model. By comparison, commonly used SD cards in the same sizes range from $6 to $70. Sony's own failed Memory Stick Pro Duo cards retail at $95 for 32gb. This makes Sony's Vita cards the most expensive flash storage cards around.

Contains gold, platinum, and unobtanium... which is my theory for the high price

Like the PSP before it, the Vita has no built in storage. As PC World correctly points out, this bumps the true cost of the Vita to at least $320 with tax factored in. That's even before you buy any games or accessories. In other words, Sony is repeating the same mistakes it made with the PSP.

With companies trying to push downloadable games over retail copies, I find the high markup on storage puzzling. It made sense when there were no alternatives, but the iPhone and Android have changed the game. It's certainly not going to convince people to drop retail.

Source: PC World

Images courtesy of PC World and Meme Generator