You'll never believe it! Check the link. I'll try and get video of it at the show!

Hello friends, did you hear that EGM is returning to print hopefully later this year? This is awesome news for those that grew up on the magazine. I'm happy to hear that the magazine is back, especially that its going back to one of the founders. I'm hoping that they might be looking for new writers, perhaps a genuine fan of fighting games. Not a "fan" in the popular sense of the word, but somebody that likes to play fighters and take them apart as well. A writer that has a pretty good long-term memory of the genre and more importantly, will try to avoid the mistakes in covering their development.

EGM might be considered infallible when it comes to reporting on Street Fighter but they have allowed their own interpretations to color the development of the series. The things they have written, even as an April Fools joke, ended up influencing the actual game. This never sat squarely with me. I felt as if people that didn't really understand all of the nuances for Street Fighter, especially the Japanese origins and influences, were shaping the American perception of the game. What EGM had done to the history of the franchise was endemic of a larger problem. The timeliness and efficiency of print journalism.

It was the February 1997 issue of EGM that got a multi-page preview of SF III. The observations they made were based on a both a work-in-progress and their assumptions about how the characters played and their origin myth. I wonder if the editors ever called the writers on the assumptions they wrote.

The very first photographs of SF III that EGM published were a few issues prior to their dissection. Back in the November 1996 issue. Interestingly enough it was the only time I had ever been published in EGM, as a letter of the month, questioning whether SF III would be good or not. Even back then I was passionate about the franchise. I had followed the SF III developments in American magazines and had noticed that the gap between what was being published in Japan and the US were still a few months apart. In November of 96 my other favorite US magazine, Next Generation also published a news blurb in their "Arcadia" section. The information seemed mistranslated and incomplete. Worse, it lacked a screenshot.

These gripes might seem inconsequential as most Americans got their first glimpse of SF III in November's EGM. However for those lucky types that visited Japanese bookstores had actually gotten a glimpse and solid information of SF III in September 1996's issue of Famitsu. I was one of those lucky types. I brought the magazine and poured over the solitary screenshot and info on the CPS-3 and Warzard day and night. I took it with me to school to share with the other die-hard SF fans. This single page spread allowed me to question whether Capcom was doing the right thing by staying with 2D before EGM had even published a screenshot.

So why am I mentioning all of this now? Why should what was published 13 years ago matter to someone looking to write for EGM today?

Perhaps because I grew up with a firm appreciation for both American and Japanese magazines. I saw how much hard work it took to make articles memorable month after month. I also learned how much influence these magazines held with both publishers and audiences. I didn't want to see EGM, or any other magazine, fall into the familiar habits of making friends with the publishers first and then writing light previews to ensure future access. By ignoring hard-hitting questions most magazines were doing a disservice to the audiences. They were also ignoring the things that made titles memorable in the first place.

I'm not one for making friends in the industry. I'm also not much for newsy writing and reviews. I am a fan of longer features and believe that gamers deserve to know every side of the story, even if that means having to call the developers on their inconsistencies as much as praising their greatness. Damned if I wouldn't want a chance to prove that in the new EGM.

I have no published material to show Steve Harris or any of the former editors. No way of showing my ability and insight other than a mountain of blogs on 1UP and a smaller list on Capcom-Unity. Would my style even fit within the walls of EGM, where higher-profile writers and editors already have a history with companies like Capcom? Or am I destined for other things?

What do you think?

Howdy fellow Unity members. I hope you are well and are eager to see what Capcom has in store for us at the 2009 E3. Things should be great. I have had the good fortune of attending the show a few times in the past decade. I have to admit that the Capcom of today certainly feels a lot different than the Capcom back then. A decade ago their web presence was a little cold and sterile. It doesn't compare at all to the Unity site we know and love. The staffers are really going out of their way to make the community feel welcome and giving us updates from behind the scenes as much as they are participating within the forums here, abroad or sharing links from outside the community as well. S-kill, Kramez, Sven, Snow, Deezie and the rest of the people behind the scenes are going above and beyond. Be it Street Fighter, Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Flock or Bionic Commando... every game in the Capcom stable gets some shine. Plus each and every member gets to vote on titles and participate in special events. 

10 years ago was my first E3 experience. It was surreal. According to many insiders the 1999 E3 was the biggest and best show ever held in the LA Convention Center. However Capcom's showings there used to be anything but welcoming, kiosks set up for demo games and a video running on loop. Unless you were media with an appointment then you couldn't get any info from the staffers. Sort of how every other publisher treated (and still treat!) many of the attendees at conventions. The fan participation used to be rather demeaning at the Capcom booth. A DJ/emcee would show up and stir the crowd into a frenzy making them yell and act like fools for a tee shirt or a sticker, sometimes being very condescending to the fans. My friends and I wondered what type of message Capcom was sending to its customers as we passed by, listening to the host heckle the crowd. A few other developers would create spectacles like this at the event but most were rather low key and friendly. For a while that's how Capcom's presence used to be at the E3. Thankfully times changed and we have a new approach and new people running things.

Capcom-Unity is a grassroots marketing campaign. Let's not try and sugar coat the purpose of most community sites. They exist to corral consumers and get them to identify with the brand or message. It's not the product as much as the people that brought me to Unity and places like 1UP. We all share common experiences and common games, its our stories that are extraordinary. For the first time in a long time a publisher was willing to invest some resources and build a place for like-minded fans to assemble and share their art, recordings or thoughts on forums and blogs. When the conventions began they invited fans to attend, participate and ask questions of staff and guests, the velvet rope that used to separate press and consumers had been taken down. That little bit of recognition did far for more the name of Capcom than any E3 or Tokyo Game Showing in the early 2000's. Can you name any other publisher that has been as welcoming to the fans? For this I am grateful to be a member on Unity. 

The site might not be around forever so we should appreciate it while we have it. Let's also take a moment to congratulate everyone at Capcom for the outstanding job they have done on Unity and with the games themselves. A whole lot has changed in a couple of years. The future is looking very good indeed and for a change I look forward to seeing what Capcom has to show at the E3. 

There are many things I take for granted. I should be more thankful for my family and friends, they are my foundation and should hear it from me more often. Even though I live in Southern California, the hub of gaming, when a gaming show passes through I don't expect to get in. If not for small miracles then I'd never get into the E3. My friend was able to secure a pass for me so that I could attend. Rather than take the ticket of another Unity member I asked if I could crash the party. Capcom said yes.  

I feel like the luckiest guy on Earth and don't take any of this for granted. I promise to take pics and video for the Unity members that couldn't make it and hope you'd do the same for me some day soon.

Today I'll be talking a little bit about age and gender in fighting games. There are parallels between Capcom and SNK that might be a cause for concern. There are changes made to content, design and continuity to both Street Fighter and the King of Fighters that might end up painting fighting games into a corner. These changes are subtle and might be passed off as a shift in aesthetics. But what if they were being made to appease critics and lock the respective series' into a needless cycle of fan service?

It all started when the characters were announced for the King of the Fighters XII. Many of the popular characters would be returning as expected. The graphics and designs had been updated. The revision to Athena seemed the most striking. Her physical characteristics seemed dramatically changed, breaking the overall theme of redesigns. Her face had become round, here eyes large and pronounced like a chibi character, her thighs even became a little thicker and softer. As if she had somehow gotten younger while the rest of the cast stayed consistent. This in and of itself might not be cause for concern but what if you consider that a fellow young lady in the game, Leona, was also supposed to be 18-years-old. As Gamers Inn pointed out both characters are supposed to be 18 but why do their appearances vastly differ?

Why would the designers at SNK go with such a young representation of Athena? None of the other females, so far, introduced in the game have the same animé features. This shift in design for one character seems a bit much. It breaks the consistency of the more mature features placed on other characters.

A fan of the series would point out two things in defense of the revised character. The first being that the characters in KOF get a makeover in every title. Their wardrobe, features and even stance vary from game to game. Athena was no exception to this rule.

The second thing a fan would point out is that the school girl outfit and large eyes are a nod to the game that Athena was pulled from, SNK's 1986 title Psycho Soldier. Many of the characters in KOF were pulled from various, non-fighting, SNK games like Ikari Warriors, King of the Monsters, Metal Slug and Psycho Soldier. Her redesign and anime proportions were meant for long-time fans of SNK and we should recognize the efforts and be happy that the studio was returning to its roots.

But what if there was something inherently flawed with the logic of returning a character to her roots? What if there was such a thing as catering too much to fans and by doing so have painted the series into a corner? Certainly this blog might be making too much out of some big eyes and lots of leg action. But consider the trend of young female fighters in recent years and ask if designers are pandering to the (mostly) male audience.

Athena's cosmetic change was a bit extreme. Regressing her appearance in the game might have been an aesthetic decision or one to cater to the fans. Not unlike the addition of Sakura in SF IV.

Sakura made her debut in the SF Alpha / Zero series, she wasn't pulled from an outside game but had been invented for the canon. She was a girl that complimented the young Ryu. When the fans were polled as to whom they would like to see in SF IV Sakura was at the top of the list. But why was it that everyone in SF IV had shown some signs of aging while Sakura herself was kept as a schoolgirl?

Let's take the observation a step further and question why the live-actor Sakura used in a commercial was even younger than canon Sakura? What purpose did a 12-year-old pretending to be a 15-year-old serve? Had fans become so enamored with the character that they wanted to preserve her exactly as they remembered her; nubile, pretty and full of fighting spirit? It all seemed a little creepy.

Street Fighter IV producer Yoshinori Ono had mentioned that fans had a certain memory of SF II that made it seem bigger and better than it actually was. He wanted to preserve those feelings by not changing the characters too much. By having the team go back and try to recreate the elements that made SF II so successful. This also meant that he would be incorporating characters from Alpha even though that time line had happened years prior and according to canon some of the characters had passed on by the time of SF II. The mix of two different continuities and their respective characters seemed strained. He then went a step further and revived a character that had been assumed dead for some 17 years and added new characters that lacked the creative spark and connection to the martial arts that made the originals so memorable. But I digress...

Had SF fans come to expect a certain level of service and concession? How many titles have been allowed to explore different themes with their characters? Is this a failing of the fighting game genre? One that demands returning characters so as not to create a learning curve on new characters? Would this by why Ono and the team did not bother to advance the canon and characters, for fear of disappointing fans? Strong female leads have always been embraced by gamers, be they Chinese ICPO or British Special Services. These girls and women were allowed to grow up, even if it was a little, in the game series. Should we have expected any less of Sakura and the SF IV cast?

When word got out that there was a possibility of a SF IV update, including a new and old character added to the lineup. One of the suggestions was "Little Miss" aka Hitomi, the daughter of Gouken. In case you are not familiar with her then please read the Street Fighter Magazine to see a close representation of the character. However if the Q&A with Capcom were to be taken verbatim then Hitomi would be introduced very young and very powerful. Some 12-years-old and as powerful as the much older Ken and Ryu. She would be even younger than Sakura even though she was written as much closer in age to Ken and Ryu according to the rare manga.

Am I the only one that finds a problem with female characters added to the titles appearing much younger than before, especially when the other characters are allowed to age?

The artistic medium allows authors and directors to keep a character perpetually young forever. The KOF and SF cast might end up locked at a certain age just for guaranteed sales. Like our popular comic book heroes, where Superman remains perpetually young even though his adventures span 75 years. Capcom and SNK only have to keep going through the motions and they will keep selling games. By including fan-favorites and locking them at a certain age then the sequels can keep coming. However at what point is this too much of the same. At what point does this repetition and saturation of sameness end up hurting the franchise?

The most profound stories, the ones that are truly remembered, have allowed fan-favorite characters to age, mature or even pass on. Fighting game fans, and the majority game players, are getting old. Most high school graduates today never played SF II, they barely have any recollection of Alpha and are lucky to have played SF III considering the arcade scene just about died in the USA by 1999. The kids and teens of the early 90's (those born in the 70's and early 80's) were the ones that grew up on Street Fighter. They held the series in high regards and followed everything with the name SF on it. Including magazines, movies, cartoon shows to anime and manga titles. These gamers are now the 30-somethings with kids of their own. If any concession should be made to the generation raised on SF it should be the acknowledgment that the cast was getting older as well. I am not saying that I expected to see what Ken and Ryu looked like as ancient masters in SF IV, however I was interested in seeing changes made to these characters for the sake of progress.

Yoshinori Ono pulled influences from SF II and SF Alpha for his game. Did he consider that the canon he pulled from were snapshots of different moments in the lives of the SF icons? Within the span of 5 to 10 years, going forwards or backwards through time, a lot had happened to these fighters. The team at Capcom can explore what happened, or could have happened at any point in the lives of the cast. They do not have to keep making them older, but should consider doing so in numbered games. Anything other than that really should be labeled an Alpha title. The only way to ensure that things remain consistent is by making sure that the entire cast matures or moves on at the same pace.

What good are girls in the game if they are not allowed to become women? What is the purpose of Ken and Ryu growing older and stronger if not for revenge and redemption?

Street Fighter was special for many reasons, especially when compared to other fighting games. Unlike rival titles, where character evolution and age is treated cursory (or sometimes regressed!), it actually means something in SF. Or rather, it used to mean something in SF. Mr. Ono showed us and Capcom that fans would be happy with any incarnation of the title. Strict adherence to the canon or logic weren't as important to rolling out a new game. However I am a firm believer that there is a potential for greatness with Street Fighter. Every subsequent title should be improved upon, not solely from a technical and gameplay perspective but from a canonical one as well. There was such a thing as being mindful of the fans while also respecting the tradition that had been established. One way to achieve that was by allowing the characters to grow up. Let's hope that Capcom remembers to do that in future versions of Street Fighter.