Bayonetta 2 - Review

It's hard to review a game that's perfect in every conceivable way....

So I won't....

It's perfect, go buy it.


*Did you buy it yet? Get on that!

Nintendo vs Mobile Gaming

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing articles about how Nintendo should get into the mobile gaming space. What is amusing about these articles is you really never see one of them on a dedicated gaming website, but instead on some analyst site, or news site. What sparked the debate was mainly from Nintendo's own stockholder's meetings last year when the Wii U was struggling even more than predicted. A transcript of that meeting was released where some at the meeting (who also do not understand the gaming market well at all ((seriously read the transcript they ask some honestly dumb questions)).

One of the things they bring up is mobile gaming and why Nintendo hasn't sought any revenue from that area of the market. What really bothers me about these suggestions isn't just that Iwata or Miyamoto doesn't feel there's profit to be had there or that they fear it will hurt sales of the 3DS, both logical assumptions, but that none of these analysts understands Nindendo's business model and how they've functioned all these years.

Nintendo is probably the most paranoid company in the world. They hold everything close to the chest and nothing more-so than their in house properties such as Mario, Zelda, etc. Their company model is entirely built on their hardware, and they need Mario to sell that hardware. They have stated in the past that if they ever leave the hardware business they would be done making games too. They won't become what Sega has become, a game publisher. They don't even VIEW themselves as game publishers for the most part. They view themselves as a company that makes hardware. They are not interested in making games for consoles they can't sell.

They not only see making a Mario game on the iPhone as an affront to sales of the 3DS, they see it even worse than that. Not only do they feel that would hurt the sales of their system by offering a Mario alternative, they see Mario as something that will SELL their 3DS. It's not so much that they mind you are buying an iPhone, but they want you to buy a 3DS too, and they're not going to do that by wasting energy and time making a Mario game on the iPhone. The software they make is strictly there to sell their systems, period. That's how they view this game business. Sell the console first and the rest falls into place, that's their business model. Once they sell you the console then everything else begins, sales of controllers, accessories, and yes, more games. But they always care about the consumer that doesn't own their systems yet.

Whether they are right or not about this stance, that IS their stance and their business model from ground up. They are very slow to change and very nervous about being in competition with their own hardware which is perfectly understandable. It's why Microsoft didn't want to put Halo on PC, they wanted to sell Xboxes. They reluctantly did eventually, but we haven't seen another Halo game on PC since Halo 2, methinks they took a page from Nintendo. If you want to sell consoles you limit the choices consumers have about getting the software they want. That's why first party games are so important to Nintendo and why they don't give a rats ass about third party games. They want to sell the consoles, period. Get with the program "analysts."

This is why you rarely see these articles on actual gaming sites because they KNOW Nintendo like I do, and they know it's absurd to suggest it.

*I am picturing Mario as an Angry Bird flying at a pile of Goombas....that could be fun...*

UPDATE: I figured I should update this to note that Nintendo caved, and I ended up being wrong lol. That Nintendo caved to investor pressures though is...frankly unprecedented so I maintain that my theory about their business practices was incredibly sound =)

Time Heals All Games?

I have recently been running a test on a theory I had about 'bad games' or games when I played them I was disappointed in. The theory I had was that over time, my opinion of a game will change for the better. I've found that as I've aged I get more forgiving of a game's flaws, or notice them less, or even compare it to the current state of games and things I hate about them and have the old saying, "in my day" fond reflection on them.

Now I haven't taken this theory too far back yet, but my inclinations began by playing the PC re-release of Final Fantasy 8. I loathed this game when it came out. Firstly, it was a love story, a romantic drama and it didn't do it very well at all. It's not my cup of tea. I much preferred a fantasy or sci-fi setting for a game in which the story centers around a great protagonist and a great villain like what FF6 or FF7 gave me. I played it through again though recently, and, well it's still a god awful love story to be sure, but I noticed I was enjoying the battle system a lot more. Having been my third play-through of the game I was very familiar with it by now and knew what I had to do so I wasn't fumbling around a 200 page Brady Games strategy guide for my 40 hour trek. It made the game more enjoyable, and thus my opinion of it has softened from vile hatred to it's not so bad.

Similarly, I recently played through Bioshock 2 again and while my initial opinion of Bioshock 2 was basically, "it's not as good as the first," it was a much harsher opinion of it than I have now. I actually believe 2 is better than 1 now (though Infinite is the best still). At first I argued 1 was the best because it actually has a boss fight and your activities around Rapture a much more varied than Bioshock 2. But, I was ignoring how many great improvements 2 had.

Firstly, the characters of 2 are much more interesting. Sure, we all love Andrew Ryan from the first game, but the protagonist wasn't as involved as 2's was. In 2, you are the first Big Daddy, and you have a direct relationship with Elanor which gives the game tension and suspense throughout as you uncover their history. It's not nearly as detached as the first game. Also, the combat in Bioshock 2 is better as well as you get to wield a gun and magic at the same time. The music I also found to be much better also.

Bioshock 2 is really only mired in how you collect Adam as it's very repetitious...and also makes no sense. In 1 you kill a Big Daddy and choose to save or suck dry a little sister. In 2 you kill a Big Daddy and then you have to make her collect more Adam before you choose to save her or suck her dry? Why? It's very clearly tedious filler.

Never the less, my opinion of the game overall changed for the positive as years passed. I'm down to my last example though as I don't normally force myself to play a game that I remembered hating. Final Fantasy 12 is a game I absolutely hated when I played it. My opinion of it went like this:

"It's a game that starts off strong and then devolves into a 40 hour treasure hunt for Nethicite ignoring all the characters and their plights to basically retrieve what amounts to a nuclear bomb to win a war. The only two decent characters are Dr. Cid and Balthier. There's no airship or overworld despite having a pirate as one of the main characters who you are introduced as someone owning an airship. Characters actions makes no sense either. The battle system is an utter travesty as you have to rest your faith in the AI far too much. The License board should burn to the ground with how incredibly stupid it is."

I had a list of other complaints too at the time, but a lot of them have phased away. Sure, some of these have remained. Characters do make really dumb decisions like right after Vaan and Basche escape the prison they return immediately back to Rabinastre. They also move freely in Rabinastre afterwards, despite being wanted. Or why is Old Arcadia guarded by 2 guards that you must do a ridiculous 20 minute side quest to pass rather than just take them down. Or when Fran sends you ahead in her village to find Mjirn she comes to you later saying the wood told her Mjirn isn't here. The very next set of lines she's accused of not being able to hear the wood now, and in shame Fran agrees that she can no longer hear it. But...the wood just accurately told you Mjirn isn't here!  Of course, I need not remind you of the "I'm Captain Basche" incident. Still, overall the writing is damn good. There's a compelling story in here about an ongoing war, corruption and takeover, political intrigue, assassinations, and of course a band of rebels who take back what is theirs against all odds.

The basic structure of the game's plot is Star Wars when you boil it down. I can't tell you how many times I see Balthier as Han Solo and Fran as Chewbacca. But at a deeper level the writing is really well done. There's actually character development going on here unlike FF13 had. Vayne was a really good soft spoken villain as well and we got to learn about his history with his brothers and how he had been shaped into the man he is by those experiences. Larsa is a nice complementary addition to the drama too. Balthier is actually funnier and better than I remembered him. Ashe is much less dull than I remember too, but she's still pretty dull sadly. She's mostly stressed out by the loss of her kingdom and husband in such a short time. I also like how they don't shoehorn in a love story where it didn't belong. Ashe remains loyal to her deceased husband, not that she needs to, but there's a war on and it doesn't make sense for her to adjust her focus on a new relationship so the story doesn't go that way. The absence of this speaks volumes where most games would shoehorn that in because it's easy mode drama. You can tell the writers really stuck to their guns on the story, and made sure to have the characters act in as much a natural way as they could. Sadly, Vaan and Penello are still pretty useless and not focused on at all. They are as Vaan puts it "just along for the ride."

Still, my impression of the story had improved greatly after playing it again. My negative thoughts on the battle system are also washed away. The gambit system, though reliant on AI is programmable down to such minute details that it rarely screws up. It does a much better job than FF13 did. The license board is also no longer a complaint of mine. Actually, it's one of the games strongest points. Many complained about not being able to equip certain items and that it's dumb to not be able to wear a hat you buy at the store because you don't have the license for it. Logically speaking I agree, but focusing on character growth and progression options the license board does a far better job than FF10 or FF13 did, let me explain why.

RPG's often try to have systems that makes the player feel like they are having an input into how the character is customized and how they are formed, FF12 actually succeeds at this with the license board. In FF10 or FF13 you are following a designated path for each character, there's really no reason for you to be there. You could just level up and have it say +5 for str, there would be no difference, but instead you have to pause the game and select +5 on the sphere grid or crystarium. It's senseless. But in FF12 you get to branch your characters out with what armor they wear, what weapons they should use, what magics they can learn etc. You've chosen their path through the game, you feel as though you've had a direct input in their growth and it makes the game more personal this way. Sure, it's not the BEST idea in the world, but it feels nice, it works within the system and it's interesting.

My major complaints of FF12 have softened quite a bit and the game looks much brighter in my eyes. Will time have the same effect on other games for me? Should I go back and try Grand Theft Auto 4 again, or Metal Gear Solid 2? I cringe at the thought, but the at the same time wonder if maybe it's not such a bad idea.

*Superman 64 still sucks by the way*

Smash Brothers 3DS - Smashing Good Time

 

I'm not even sure why I'm writing this review, apparently 3 million people already bought this game. It's a wonderful addition to the Smash series so I'll just quickly go over why upgrading to this new game is worth it!

Smash Brothers Brawl had a lot of issues. It was too slow, the online was a mess, and it added in "tripping" which was a random occurrence when you run you could potentially trip. Absolutely no one liked this. Thankfully, all of these complaints were addressed by the new game. The tripping has been removed, the game has been sped up (still not to Melee standards), and the online works REALLY well for 1v1battles. I have 50 games under my belt and maybe only one or two games lagged, it was phenomenal.

Other positives are they also made it way easier to unlock characters which now takes 3 times less overall Smash matches to get them unlocked. It also boasts a massive roster that now includes Mega Man and Pac Man! Another lovely change is edge-guarding is no longer a thing. If you guard the edge the opponent can steal it from you, this opens up a lot more strategy and planning for matches rather than just be an edge camper. The game is way more interesting now from this minor adjustment. They also very closely listened to the fans about balance and so far this game feels pretty even with no obvious Meta Knight like Brawl had, though as usual the game seems to favor the faster characters. Yet another welcome change is they made every stage have an "Omega" mode which makes every stage a flat playing field so they can all be used competitively.

I believe that rounds out all the welcome additions. Though you can also add by subtracting too. They decided to remove the main single player campaign that everyone hated in Brawl, and I have yet to see anyone get annoyed by that move. Personally I don't mind little distraction modes like that, but in Brawl you were basically forced to do it. I think they could have kept it in if they made it optional. Luckily, every mode in this game is optional, you can play it any way you like.

I only have a few complaints about the game and most center around the online. While the 1v1 is SUPER solid it comes with drawbacks. You can't use items, and you are stuck with the Omega stages. As fun as competitive Smashing can be, Casual Smashing can be even more fun. It does have a casual online play mode though, but you're forced to play 4 man free for all, or a 4 man team game. Normally this isn't an issue, but the connection suffers greatly in these 4 man games and is damn near unplayable. I've only had a small handful of these matches run well, the vast majority are a slideshow. The best Casual match I  had was when two guys dropped and it turned into a 1v1 casual game with items. GREAT! They should have had a mode of 1v1 Casual online. That would have been perfect.

I also hear tell that local 4 man games lag heavily. Why? This is inexcusable. I haven't personally tried this, but I've heard about it from several sources and it's pretty disappointing. Some suggest turning off your Street Pass to make it work, but that's absurd, it should just work. I know Nintendo is releasing a New 3DS with more horsepower so possibly that one will fare better, but it's still inexcusable that local multiplayer lags.

The only other minor complaint is the controls. The Circle pad is not optimal for this game, but it's really not THAT bad either so it's just a minor annoyance. It's just not as good as a Cube controller, there's no way around that. The New 3DS will actually improve the game a lot letting you Smash attack with the second stick so that'll clear up most of the control issues.

Apart from that it's an amazing package. There's plenty of challenges to do, many game modes, many Trophies to find, and if you like 1v1 Online like I do then you'll always have something to do in this game.

*Hulk Smash too!*

Why Am I Excited?

Today I turn 28...and I must be losing my mind. Square just announced they are releasing the Final Fantasy 13 trilogy on PC and Steam, for like $15 a game. If you've read this blog you'll find my personal trilogy of reviews on these three games and how much I hated them. Yet, this announcement fills me with excitement! WHY?

I mostly hated the story of the 13 series, it is dreadful, and makes no sense. The characters are bland and none of them are any fun. Admittedly, I DID have fun playing these games for the most part. Despite my undying hatred for how they did the battle systems, a lot of it was personal preference versus how it played, and they played well, but I would have done it differently. I was still sucked into these games from start to finish regardless eagerly awaiting every new battle I started.

But honestly, what is making me anticipate these games on PC? The novelty maybe? I love that my favorite games are coming on PC and Steam, and though 13 would never make that list of "favorites" it's a sign of things to come. It's a sign that game companies are looking at PC seriously again. After an 8 year drought of developers fearing pirates and lackluster PC sales they are crawling back slowly but surely.

Maybe this is what excites me most. Seeing all of this previously exclusive console games come to my PC is fantastic. I love having all of these AAA games in one lovely place on my Steam folder. It's so convenient. Plus...these prices! My GOD these prices! Investing in PC is by far the best thing I've ever done as a gamer. Not to mention I never trade games in, so it's perfect for me.

Still though...FF13 exciting me? Really? I think I am getting too old...

Game Design

Something that comes up often with gaming and people commenting about what is good and what is bad is the term "game design." People on the internet are full of opinions, and they will throw this term around all willy nilly without really understanding what they are doing. They will cry foul over the choices a developer made with regards to how your character levels up, or discuss bad AI, and then they'll say this was "bad game design." In some of these arguments they could very well be right, but you have to carefully phrase what you are talking about when you toss around this term and many do not understand this.

What is "game design" after all? Can't it be applied to everything about the game? Yes and no. The overall idea of game design asks a simple question, "What is the goal of x?" X can be anything from level layout, characters, weapons, graphics, etc. But the most important thing to understand when discussing game design is we have to look at what the game is trying to accomplish, what is the goal, and does that design choice accompany that goal in a positive way, or hinder it. Judging game design on this merit is far less subjective and much more objective, whereas just saying something is "bad" or "good" is entirely subjective.

A perfect example to use here is Metroid Prime 2 where they attempted to throw in multi-player combat. If you were to look at the game design of Metroid Prime you'll find that the game is entirely designed around player versus enemy AI, or what we call PVE. From the lock on system, to how Samus moves, the game is designed as a PVE experience and without heavy modification to this structure a PVP (player versus player) mode will ultimately not accompany the goal set out by the designers when they developed the game very well at all. To wit, the multi-player of Metroid Prime 2 was indeed, "badly designed."

It can be difficult to separate one's own personal opinion versus the objective view you should have when discussing whether a game was badly designed or not. Another example would be Ninja Gaiden Sigma in any section where platforming around the environment unsuccessfully can lead to a detrimental setback for the player. This is badly designed because platforming in Ninja Gaiden was poorly implemented and does not fit with the game's overall design well, and then to punish the player for attempting to jump around the area skillfully when it doesn't control right is really bad design. The difference here is the subjective statement of the game having bad jumping mechanics, and the objective statement that the game also has bad level design because of this badly done mechanic. Having a jump mechanic is in and of itself not a "bad design" but the implementation of it in levels that don't accent it certainly is. The level design needs to accent the game's strengths, and when it fails to do that, then you can say it was badly designed.

Most gamers will agree that any mission involving having to protect an AI is another good example of bad design and they would be right. In most cases, games have not developed AI well enough to work in the situations they are attempting. And, in most cases the game's central goal is rarely that of "protecting" something but instead of "killing everything." It would be apt to call that segment poorly designed as they are not supporting the game's central goal with this mission type, nor does the game possess the infrastructure to handle it well.

To further assist in understanding the difference, take this hypothetical example. The goal of designing a soccer ball would be to make one that rolls well, bounces, and can go a good distance when hit. In thinking of how do I make such an object, the first thing you should consider is that you should make it round. A poorly designed soccer ball would therefore be square as it is not adhering to the goals of what this object needs to perform in use.

Needless to say that doesn't mean an opinion on "design" is entirely objective either, because it does include some subjectivity. Take for example an upgrade system in a game. Someone may feel that the upgrade system supports the design of the game very well, while someone else may feel otherwise. Both can have their logically reasoned points, but the difficulty in the argument comes in ensuring you are removing your personal preference in which upgrade system you'd like to see versus how well it works with the game.

A great example here would be Final Fantasy 8. Subjectively I can discuss all the many ways FF8's upgrading system is heavily flawed. How it homogenizes all the characters making them blank slates for you to dictate how they'll perform which removes personality to the characters, how the levels don't matter in the slightest, how tedious it is to acquire materials for the upgrading system, etc. While I'd vastly prefer the design used in previous titles, I have to once again ask myself if the design of it is "bad." Though I still think even this is still somewhat bad design, it's much less harsh of a review than my personal opinion of it. Did the developer succeed at what they were trying to accomplish with it? I would say they very much did. This is a game where you can fully customize your characters how you see fit, equip them with spells, dictate their health, strength, resistances, speed, etc, to such a meticulously high degree and it's done fairly well with minimal tedium. Where the bad design might come in to play here, is it was very confusing early on. Otherwise the system does work.

So there you have it, my overly complex understanding of game design and how it should be viewed more objectively than people tend to on the internet. Am I being a little too picky here? Absolutely, but I find it all fascinating none the less.

*Why is my character's sword 8 times his body length? What dumbass designed it this way?*

Console Wars - The Reverse Buyer's Remorse

I've always been fascinated with human behavior and psychology. Why do people do the things they do? Usually I've applied my untrained yet keen eye on matters of politics, economics, and characters in fiction. One thing I've never really thought to do was take a look at the gaming community...which I really should have given their very strange behaviors about certain things.

The absolute peak of strange behavior in the gaming community is easily "The Console War." What is a console war? It's when two or more companies release a game console and fans of both yell at each other online explaining why they chose the right console to have fun with. To such an extent, they will even attack you personally as a human being for choosing x console over y console. It gets pretty intense, and has so ever since Nintendo fought Sega.

Baffling isn't it? Why would gamers do this? Why would they put themselves under such emotional duress over which game machine someone ELSE purchases? Don't we all just want to have fun and play games? Well, it's not so simple it seems and I want to delve into why.

Prior to the age of the internet, console wars were really simple and made a little more sense. You'd convince your friend to want a Nintendo system so he'd tell his parents to get him one. The reason being is you already had a Nintendo, and you wanted to play together, or share the same gaming experiences. Unconsciously, you were taking sides so you could essentially remain friends. You'd worry that you may no longer have anything in common anymore if you couldn't play the same games together. This is psychologically what was happening but on the surface you were just openly bad mouthing the system you didn't have, because there was no way your parents would buy you both of them and you knew it. Plus, everyone hated "that kid" that did have both...rich snobs... ;)

It's way different now though. Now us gamers are a "community." Well...we're several communities split by what console we own and further split by certain games that more or less consume all your time. As a community though, we're mostly strangers. You're no longer trying to keep a friend, but you're trying to ensure that there are people to play with online. With the massive number of gamers now in these communities though, I think what is driving gamers to take part in these console wars though is less about having people to play with, and more about something I'm calling Reverse Buyer's Remorse.

As you know, buyer's remorse is when you buy something and wish you had your money instead or something else, but now you're stuck with the thing you got. What I am dubbing reverse buyer's remorse is when someone makes someone else feel buyer's remorse so that they can feel better about what they bought. For instance, a PS3 owner can make fun of an Xbox owner so they can feel better about having a PS3 and not having an Xbox. Usually they can't afford both, so they create a reason for not wanting both to substitute the bad feeling of wanting to own both systems. Because, in the end, we're all gamers and if we could have it all, we certainly would. But relieving that yearning for both consoles, while improving your feelings for only having one of them, is a powerful relief for those that take part in these console wars.

It's further driven by others in the community agreeing with them and having it take on a sort of mob mentality. Being in a room of others that think like you do is very mentally rewarding. Nothing makes someone in a console war feel better than when someone from the other side says they wish they got your console instead. There is a moment of success there. A victory even. You've done it, you have now proven that your gaming machine is superior, you've chosen the right gaming console to play on. It feels great, but there are still dissenters out there, so you continue and maybe even continue just to have another moment like that one where you 'convert' a gamer if you will, to your side.

This kind of behavior isn't limited to gaming though, and isn't even something that only kids do. Adults do it all the time with just about everything. "Oh, you got the 2012 Dodge Avenger," they'll say sarcastically, "We got the 2013 Malibu, it's a much smoother ride." Or they'll say things like "We've had terrible experiences using AT&T, I'm sorry you have to deal with them now, we've switched to Verizon." These statements aren't helpful to the person you are saying them to, it's not "advice" like you think it might be. You're just making yourself feel better for whatever purchase you chose and they didn't.

I think the theory of reverse buyer's remorse is the biggest motivating factor for these types of behaviors. Of course, I have no studies to prove it, I'm not a psychologist, I'm just one gamer with an opinion and I could easily be wrong. There are also plenty of other factors involved as to why console wars start or persist, I just personally believe this to be the biggest reason. If you commentors are out there please feel free to discuss this topic and add your two cents.

*"My mom bought me Sonic!" "Don't you own a Super Nintendo?" "Yes..." "Oh...that sucks..."*

Destiny - Day 1 Review

For the first time ever on Start Button I will be doing a DAY 1 review of a game. Usually I absorb myself in a new game, let my mind settle on it and then write about it later if I feel I need to. But this is probably the most hyped game since Titanfall (I didn't even write about Titanfall....quick review: it's really fun you should check it out!) so I thought it would be a good idea to have a topical game article on here for a change.

Without further ado let's dive right into it!

The Good:

The gameplay of Destiny is a mix of MMO, and the loot and shoot gameplay pioneered by Borderlands. Destiny does a lot of this setup right, and much of it is left to be desired.

What it gets right is the core gameplay, which is very important to ensuring the game will have legs and be fun. Bungie is the king of rock solid FPS action and this game is no exception. The shooting mechanics feel fantastic, you really feel like you are delivering some impactful mayhem on your enemies with nearly every weapon. None of them feel like pea shooters so it's satisfying to kill something every time you do it...which is good because that's all you're going to do in the game.

Character building in this game is very thoughtful and interesting. On the surface it feels like you just select skills after leveling up, which you mostly do, but your gear levels up too based on your actions. You can add skills to your gear and that's where most of the customization will come into play for everyone. People will choose different builds to focus on, and may likely end up having more variety than say Borderlands where all you do is pick the two of three trees you want to focus on. So in this regard it does much better than Borderlands did.

Since this is a Day 1 review I haven't unlocked all my skills yet so I can't say whether the skills are above average yet or not. I will say that so far they at least feel more noticeable. Like unlocking double jump for instance you immediately notice something new about your character. Unlike in Borderlands where skills would consist of adding 1% critical hit damage. You knew you were stronger, but you couldn't really tell. If this sort of unlocking continues in Destiny, I will be pleased.

The social aspect of Destiny is done VERY well I feel. It seems very easy to jump in with another group and form teams. I joined two in my playing of the game and I didn't even try, they just randomly invited me. People you see roaming around all have the ability to quickly pause and click on your name to say hey, I need some assistance. Seems to work wonderfully, though I haven't tried to form a team yet myself, I didn't need to when people kept inviting me!

The enemy AI is pretty bad, but the enemy variety is good enough. There are enemies that chase you, some that hide, and they try to maneuver on you. Bosses are bullet sponges making battles long and nail biting. It's nail biting because if everyone dies, or if you're going solo and you die, you have to start at the last checkpoint. This is both good and bad design, but mostly good in my book. It's bad for people who keep losing and spend hours on one boss, but it's good for people who want a challenge and the game is preventing people from just coasting on by. It's making you work for it and think about your movements deeply rather than going headlong into a fight and dying. It gives you CONSEQUENCES which few games do anymore, and I respect that highly.

There are a variety of other things the game does right too, crafting, upgrading / equipping, customizing your character look, unlocking rewards, interacting with people though limited brings the laughs like kicking soccer balls around or having everyone sit after a mission completion is hilarious to do and watch happen.

Apart from gameplay, the music and sound effects are great, you really feel the kick of your guns. The graphics are phenomenal too. The environments, though lifeless and sterile, are very pretty to look at.

The Bad:

For all that Destiny gets right, it does need quite a few improvements on the gameplay front.

Firstly, for being a loot and shoot type of game the loot you get is pretty limited. You're not inundated with gear like you are in Diablo or Borderlands. One could argue this is a good thing as nearly everything you do get in this game improves your character whereas 99% of gear that drops in other loot games is totally worthless. But part of the fun is collecting that useless crap hoping for something good. Seeing stuff drop is always a "chance" that it'll be good loot and that constant carrot on a stick is what keeps you motivated to play more. That's why they design them that way. But not so for Destiny. Most of your loot is given to you after you complete a mission. They aren't even dropped on the ground for the most part, you're not actively picking it up, it's just given to you. Destiny gets one half of itself right, the MMO part, and doesn't really understand the loot part.

The next bump in the road is how repetitive this game is. From a personal standpoint I honestly don't mind, I am still having a blast actually playing this, but I can see most people getting bored really quickly. There is one mission type the entire game, go here, fend off waves of enemies, repeat. It's even worse that these missions are also set up the same way too. When you get to the destination that you have to encounter waves your little Navi thing called Ghost has to scan some shit while you "defend" him. I put defend in quotes because he has no life bar, but the motive is you're defending him. EVERY mission is this way it seems. It's pretty ridiculous how little variety there is in missions. Borderlands had about 4 or 5 different things it had you do and was fairly creative on how it delivered those setups, Destiny is very straightforward however, very deliberate and if you're not motivated enough to improve your character, or don't find the core gameplay as solid as I do, you'll lose interest quickly.

Another reason to lose interest quickly is just how painfully bad the story is. There are no excuses for how bad the plot is of this game. While I haven't beat it yet to see if it improves, the first 5 hours has been nothing but dribble. The entire plot so far has been just a bunch of vague...vagueness. Your character apparently was resurrected from the dead...though we're not sure how that's done or why. They go on and on about "light" and "dark" just about every other line includes these words in some form or another. The plot basically reads something like this: The light of the light will carry your light through the darkest dark parts of the darkness against the dark forces out to kill the light with their dark powers. May your light be brighter than their darkey dark....nightlights...Ok, I got a bit carried away there, but with no frame of reference to what the hell they are talking about, this is honestly how it came off to me.

They completely missed the very first step of storytelling which is to introduce the characters and let the audience know a bit about them and what problems they are dealing with. All we really know is there is there's some last city of the human race and they are apparently being protected by zombies called Guardians resurrected by flying monotone tiny robots. One guy even says they will not survive their next attack. Ok well, let's run the fuck away then right? No instead he sends you on a mundane task to gather information....kaaay.

The awful plot is compounded by terribly written side characters like one female hunter you meet who, again talks entirely too vague about whatever nonsense. But what I could make out is at one point she tells you of a super important place to go to and then your character smartly asks her if she can show him how to get there. She response with "that's not my path," and I couldn't have facepalmed harder. WTF does that mean? It's not your path? The human race is at stake and you want to pussy-foot around? If this was Mass Effect your character would get the evil choice to choke her to death until she told you where to go. Seriously though, she doesn't say why she won't tell you, there's no "prophecy" they reference, she's just being a total bitch, but that's not even her character! She's just some bland female character that's trying to help you. She's not like a two-faced highly nuanced well written character where you could be like, oh look she's trying to screw with him here, NO she's just so inconceivably poorly written that it boggles my mind. This is like shit I used to write as a kid, but at least I had the decency to write those characters as obvious villains so their vague banter gave you an inkling that they were just fucking with you.

I should quickly discuss how bad the AI is, but in a way I think it's funny and adds to the game, but many would prefer smarter enemies so it goes in the bad section. The AI is INCREDIBLY stupid. There are times you get ambushed by melee only enemies and you can literally jump up on a box and they can't hurt you anymore. Borderlands knew you would do this and so all of their enemies that don't shoot can leap an infinite amount directly at you like a homing missile. But here...you can outsmart them in this pitifully stupid way.

Another way I outsmarted them was standing behind a barred off area. Their bullets are ones that are big and explode, so they don't go through this area, so I stood there and shot through it just fine, and this was a boss fight end sequence mind you. How did they fuck that up?

Lastly, in most cases you can run away and enemies will not follow you past a certain point, they'll just stand there. So you can lure them one at a time to this "checkpoint" type area they are programmed apparently to stop at. This has to do with the reviving system and set spawning points and Bungie wanting to ensure that if you die that there won't be enemies hovering over where you spawn and kill you again immediately. It has this bad side effect though of being able to manipulate the AI like this and abusing the system in many cases to remove the difficulty from the game. Again though, I've always liked finding this kind of stuff in games and it makes me chuckle so I really don't care, but it's clearly poorly made there's no disputing that.

Apart from the repetition, plot, AI, and not understanding what a loot system should be the only remaining faults of the game are minor at best. Bad loading times, god awful voice acting (Ghost (Peter Dinklage) sounds bored the entire time) and that's really about it.

Final Thoughts: 

Destiny is not a game for everyone. I can overlook it's faults as I understand what this game is trying to do and it mostly succeeds at that for me so I find it enjoyable to play. I want to be with this game for the long haul, get all the DLC, and eagerly await all the extra stuff they plan to do with this world. Because in the end this game is a platform for content, and hopefully some of that content will include different missions and unique gameplay. It has a very solid structure so it can only improve from here. Much like how small of a scope World of Warcraft was in its first year, so is Destiny, but that scope will expand as Activision is heavily investing in this game. That is good for fans of Destiny since we know for a fact they aren't giving up on the game. We know they put down $500 million for Bungie to continue to create content for the game and that's very exciting to me. So many of these games come out and die off with no promise of continuing, but here we have the exact opposite. We have the basis for a LOT of potential.

If you're like me and this gets you excited then by all means dive in. For gamers who prefer that 8 hour story with solid linear structure you might want to stay away. I personally am one of those gamers that prefers that 8 hour linear game 90% of the time, but lately I've also been looking for a game like this where I can turn my brain off. I never could get into something like World of Warcraft because the actual gameplay of it was so pitifully bad, but this is a solid FPS game and I'd much rather play this that requires a bit of skill and stamina than WoW that has zero skill to it. No monthly fees here either.

Is Destiny a good game? Well, it's an average game with a lot of potential that I believe will be realized with their investment, unlike most games that come out and they are final and can't be fixed. The story will probably always be bad though, but I believe Bungie will continue to give us reasons to play this game for a long time and I'm very happy about that because in the end, it is really fun to play.

*Haven't tried the PVP yet, but I will soon. I'm sure it's good though based on streams I've seen of it, though I doubt it's as good as Titanfall's PVP*

How the Gaming Media should Respond - Thunderf00t

I'd like this to be the last word on Anita Sarkeesian for this blog. It's not even my words, but it's not discussed better online. As previously mentioned, Thunderf00t is very good, and very descriptive at pointing out Anita's BS. But, in an interesting twist, he focused his latest video on the very topic I tackled, which is the gaming media's stunningly dumb coverage of her, and portrayal of others who were lambasted by the gaming media such as Jack Thompson and how they made a joke of him, but cried foul over Anita. Ironic given they both received death threats, yet the media came to Anita's defense...which Anita should hate because she shouldn't "need to be saved," given her own stance on how all games have women as plot devices to be saved....anyway, as usual  Thunderf00t hits the nail on the head here...and in an awful twist I also get to learn how indescribably stupid Joss Whedon is on this subject.

Please watch from beginning to end. If you've sat through a full video from Anita you can sit through this. If you are new to Thunderf00t he is an actual scientist who doesn't stand for made up garbage as he works really hard to actually test his hypothesis without having a biased conclusion prior to those tests...you know...real science.

NEXT blog will be about gaming I promise!

Open Letter - Anita Sarkeesian - Gaming Media

I never really wanted to formally address Anita Sarkeesian on this blog, I find her to be unworthy click-bait for outraged gamers. But IGN posted an article recently that caught my eye.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/02/hundreds-of-developers-are-fed-up-with-the-hate

Developers are asking the gaming community to stop being dicks basically. And, of course, I agree. It doesn't mention Anita specifically, but IGN does mention her as she is a lightning rod of hate in the gaming community.

Sure, no one deserves death threats like she's apparently getting (read my earlier blog about internet bullying), but websites like IGN and Joystiq and any gaming site out there does whatever they can it seems to post her picture or name on their gaming site for the sole purpose of attracting angry gamers to whine and complain about her. She's click-bait for them and they know it. What I'm tired of is not seeing any insightful op-eds on her from respected gaming sites. No one is critiquing her in the slightest, just posting her videos up and calling it a day.

My issue here is gaming websites like this are FUELING this hate by posting this stuff while not taking a stance one way or another on her opinions to open a respectful dialogue. It also doesn't help matters that Anita's stance on any issue is male = bad female = good but only if she's not acting very male. Her videos are filled with inaccuracies and outright lying too, which people rightfully call her on it. She closes her videos for comments which basically puts the ban-hammer on everyone too. It automatically gives the entire discussion a hateful atmosphere. Like someone claiming they are right and you are wrong AND a male chauvinist pig and then walking away. Of course, death threats go way too far as I mentioned, but when you're wrong about something on the internet, they let you know it and often go too far to let you know it.

I feel like the reason this boils over as much as it does for Anita is we don't have a face for the gamers countering her horribly contrived points. Thunderf00t on Youtube does a great job of breaking it down for us, but he's not really a gamer. In fact, in a follow up video he made after people in his comments made points about how she's flagrantly misrepresenting games like Hitman, he did some research looking up 12 let's plays of the game pointing out that the game doesn't "invite" gamers to kill helpless strippers like Anita says they do, but instead costs you points, and could ruin your mission entirely for doing such actions. You are encouraged to sneak by and avoid confrontation, but if you watch her video you'll think that boys will grow up thinking it's ok to choke out a stripper and put her in a box, despite the game only rewarding you for putting men in boxes, and punishing you for doing that to the strippers... But you won't see IGN defending developers on this or any other lie that Anita tells and instead they promote her.

This DOES enrage gamers. Sites like IGN and Gamespot have long tried to make gamers feel like they are "one of us" that we are all part of a larger community who love games and how much fun they are. Then someone like Anita comes in with what could have been an innocent and valid point that women aren't represented enough in gaming, and instead openly attacked the entire industry like it were run by sexist pigs, and we don't see a logical counter-point from our "fellow" gamers at IGN and Gamespot? But instead they fuel the fires further by shoving it in all our faces with their arms crossed? It's clearly just click-bait for them, and it has worked EVERY time they post something about her.

Then they closed the comments section on this article they posted due to the harsh negativity of it. I read through many of them, and as usual the majority seem to be well thought out, logical responses with a few hate filled messages peppered in. Frankly, it's MUCH less than what you'd see in a console war debate. The few ruin it for the many as usual. Honestly though, that action once again fuels these fires, closes off gamers for an open discussion and puts it further underground with Anita coming out on top and assisted by the likes of IGN whether they've intended that or not, that's how it comes off.

In the real world, people like this would get interviewed, and pressed about their stances. Gamers don't really have that either. When will IGN interview her, press her really hard on her points, call her out on her bullshit? Have a REAL talk about women in gaming and how we can address it rather than simply demonize the entire industry, fanbase, and anyone who ever stomped a goomba or saved a princess? No, that's not happening, they want to keep their click-bait happy for as long as possible because it's great revenue.

*For the sake of my soul I hope this too doesn't become click-bait*

EDIT: So, thankfully there is an outlet with sanity that I'd never heard of until someone on the Joystiq comments in an article of this very topic, brought it to our attention. I encourage anyone reading this to stop and read this instead, it makes the points I was going for but in a much less angry way and far more well put: http://techraptor.net/2014/08/29/witnessing-end-gamers/

Off Topic Gaming - Robin Williams

I've never mourned a celebrity before. I've been sad before over Heath Ledger and Phil Hoffman, but the news of Robin Williams hit me really hard. I used to watch celebrities pass and see videos of fans crying and I couldn't understand why they felt this way. Especially over Michael Jackson who I perceived as a child molester, I watched thousands gather and mourn him. Yesterday, I understood them, it suddenly became all too real. I actually cried a great deal.

Perhaps it just takes that special person that you've watched as you've grown up. That someone who's been there in your life to make you smile. Robin was that for me many times over. Sure he was a celebrity, I didn't actually know him, he wasn't family, and a version of me on 08/10/2014 would scoff at the idea of getting so emotionally involved with someone so removed from my own life. But the news came, and I was overcome with sadness.

He meant so much to so many people. Robin could make you laugh, make you cry, and make you laugh until you cried. More importantly for me though, in his movies so many times over he would play a character that would tell everyone that things will be ok, no matter what, and that life is worth living. Cliche' perhaps, but Robin had a way about him that you just believed him and it would sink in. He always knew how to warm my cold black heart and make me believe in life again.

Of all the messages Robin gave, my personal favorite was in Mrs Doubtfire. Sure the movie was really silly, but ultimately it was about something so simple and profound, that a father would do anything for his kids just to see them one more day. I am lucky enough to have a father and a mother who feel that way about me too, and that movie really reminds me of how much they care for me.

Life, of course, is a cruel bitch. Ironically, Robin left this world no longer believing in the messages he used to give. Many will point to his role in Dead Poets Society where a troubled young student took his own life after not seeing any way out of his father's hold over his life. In many ways, Dead Poets Society was about depression, trying to show people that these warning signs are so mild and hard to see. With Robin, and his depression, few if anyone really saw it. He hid it very well as most people with depression do because they feel embarrassed by it.

The news of Robin's death hit especially hard for me as my wife has depression too. I constantly worry that I might someday be the cause of her leaving this world like this and I'd never forgive myself. I often feel ill equipped to handle it, that I lack the patience needed or control over my own emotions and then remember just how delicate I have to be after going off the deep end on something stupid and then hating myself over it.

But maybe we should try to let Robin teach us one more time. In his passing we can learn that depression is a very serious problem. It can take even the most zany and hilarious individual and make him think there is no hope left and that no one cares about him anymore. People with depression see life black and white with few gray areas, polar extremes of joy and sorrow constantly flinging back and forth with no stable middle to take refuge. In severe episodes someone with depression will stay in extreme sorrow state for an extended period of time, which is exhausting and unrelenting. The best way to describe it for those of us without depression as I understand it is, you know that feeling you get when you make a grave mistake, something that you really messed up and you beat yourself up over it telling yourself you aren't good enough and just getting really down about it coupled with the feeling of insecurity? Well that's what someone with depression feels like all the time in one of those extreme states, and where most of us will get over it in a day, someone with depression will feel that for months or years at a time without it easing up, especially if its untreated.

If you have depression, please do not hide it. You will still be loved, and supported by those around you. Let them help you, let them in. Don't fight it alone, because life is worth living.

U-Play, Origin, and Lord Gaben er Steam

Capitalism is about money and choice, the freedom to buy the things from people for stuff or services you like. But...computers are weird...and they change people's perceptions of things for reasons I cannot understand. Unlike in the real world where I can go buy, say Super Mario from Gamestop or Best Buy and the game remains indistinguishable from either place, people who buy something on a PC have a very different understanding of the same item they bought between services like Origin, U-Play or Steam. Somehow, Mass Effect is a magically different game if you buy it on Steam. People of the internet will claim how profoundly better Mass Effect is on Steam versus Origin. Or how much worse Far Cry 3 is on PC because of U-Play.

I personally fail to understand any of these claims myself, nor does anyone ever present me with a decent argument as to why the services of U-Play and Origin inherently make a game worse.

You don't hear this same spat from people reading Game of Thrones on an iPad versus someone reading it on a Surface Pro or Kindle do you? Never once have I heard someone tell me "Man that new Stephen King book was great, too bad I bought it on my Kindle." But you'll hear this all the time from gamers wishing they could play Titanfall on Steam instead of Origin.

I ask, what's the difference? I personally see none. All three services are pretty darn good, they take up few if any system resources, and they are all very well made. Furthermore, the actual game you are playing doesn't change in the slightest just because you booted up one platform that has more orange than one that is mostly black in color. Sure your friend lists are different, the game library is different, and oh dear your achievements are given by someone other than our Lord Gaben...errrr Steam. Big whoop, I still fail to see how any of that decreases the quality of the game.

Was Super Mario a worse game because you had to blow in your Nintendo to make it work? Sure it was irritating, but the games were still great, we put up with it. The games EA and Ubisoft put out are also fantastic, and as long as your PC isn't a buggy mess you won't be doing any blowing to get them to work. So what is really getting everyone's goat on these different platforms that the PC has? I have some theories:

U-Play:  When U-Play came out it also came with a caveat that you must always be online to play the game, it would even boot you out if your connection was interrupted. As DRM restrictions go, this is by far the worst one. Ubisoft quickly removed this restriction after all the flack. They went so far as to add things in their service that no one else has. Achievements actually earn you DLC for the games you play. No one seems to care though, they just still hate U-Play presumably for this reason.

Origin: I feel like Origin only gets a bad rap for a few reasons. One is people love to hate EA, they just do. I'm not sure why exactly. Sure they make some lame choices like the Sim City debacle (another always online idea...see the trend?), the botched Battlefield 4 fiasco (something that should be online that failed to stay online harharhar), and of course people hating EA for making a Madden game every year (yet it still sells like hot cakes). The other reason Origin gets so much hate is that EA refuses to sell their games on Steam now and people like having all their games in one happy little place in their computer. News flash, your games on Steam aren't all in one happy place either on your computer technically. Some games root your saves into My Documents, some in My Games folders, others will actually use the Steam folder by default. Want to mod them? Again, more searching for the right files, more poking around. It isn't the same thing as having a PS4 and shoving all your games in it people, PC gaming requires some work and that will never change.

I think the main complaint with both is people don't like "more DRM." DRM gets an understandably bad rap because it restricts gamers on using the thing they bought. PC gaming in general is restrictive in that you can't lend or borrow games you have like console gamers can. We used to be able to buy one game and install it on all of our friends PC then use the disc as a frisbee and still play the game. Then DRM stepped in to make sure everyone was buying the game. It mainly came about as an answer to Torrents and people outright stealing the games. DRM became so restrictive and so terrible though, that it soon became less intrusive and less of a hassle for gamers to just steal the game. More DRM inevitably led to more people stealing games. People buying games legitimately suffered from DRM whereas gamers who stole the game didn't. It was awful. There was a time where Gears of War was programmed literally to stop working on PC on the new year of 2011 (I think that's the right year) but people who stole the game didn't notice at all. This was fixed, but just one of many, many examples of where DRM was a hindrance.

Cut to today where most every company has gotten the hint that people don't like intrusive DRM schemes anymore. No longer are there games that require you to be online for the sole purpose of DRM despite all the rumor flinging about Sim City 5 their goal was more of an interactive city game, not imposed DRM. And yeah, it was a bad idea lol. Never the less, Origin, U-Play and Steam all have the exact same amount of DRM which requires you to...load their program *gasp*

Such a hurdle has never been faced by PC gamers. Loading a program? What blasphemy is this, what heresy, what...what....wtf? Really is that all it is? Why are people complaining about this?

I think the worst amount of complaining comes in the form of Amazon reviews of games. Any time you see a PC version of a game on Amazon it's likely to have 3 or less stars regardless of game quality. What are people complaining about you ask? God you're dumb...it's the DRM of course! What reasoning do they give for not liking it? Because...it's...because DRM that's why! And that's it...These people are somehow trapped in 7 years ago back when DRM was bad. I swear it's like these guys don't even play the game and just review all of them to knock DRM.

Let's go back to my book example one more time. A better comparison would be if someone bitched online because they bought The Stand on Amazon Kindle and could only read it with the Kindle app on their iPad, but instead wanted to read it on the iBook app or whatever it's called. It's the same device, the same book, just a different animation of page turning...RIOT!

Here's what I grew up with and had to deal with...remember when you had to RENT games from a store? That's a building for those of you who just turned 15 years old. Back then you had to hope they had a copy in stock. You didn't worry about WHAT you played it on, you worried about WHEN you got to play it at all. If it was out of stock all you could do was peer over the counter and see who had it so you could hunt them down and steal the game...ok I never did that...I was never tall enough to peer over the counter.

The point of this rant of course, is quit your damn bitching!

*Apparently loading up Origin, U-Play and Steam all at the same time is akin to spinning around 3 times in a mirror at midnight chanting to summon Bloody Mary*

Final Fantasy 13-3: Lightning Returns

It's taken me a while, but I'm finally closing this Final Fantasy 13 saga of mine. I've previously written two other articles about FF 13 and 13-2, neither of which were really reviews but critiques on one or more things that baffled me about the direction Square had been taking the Final Fantasy series. This one will be no different, and more of a combination of the previous two.

Final Fantasy 13 I outlined just how horrifically bad the battle system was and that became the most popular post on this blog. 13-2 I went into great detail the many glaring plot holes I saw as I went. I picked apart what each game did the worst essentially and what stood out to me as really questionable. With 13-3 though...I honestly can't point to one thing, and that's not a good thing. Literally everything about this game leaves me scratching my head asking, why? Why did they choose to do this? Ultimately, I ask myself, why does this game even exist?

I think I will focus this blog on the main character Lightning. I've discussed in the past how terribly vexed I am about this character. How she can have 3 entire games about her and yet I know next to nothing about her at the same time. How is it that Cait Sith from FF7 has a deeper and more meaningful character arc than someone who's had 3 games devoted to her? She has no arc what-so-ever. Hilariously, the opening cinema of FF13-3 explains how God has taken her emotions away for her to complete her current quest. To which...if I had been drinking water, immediately spewed it at my TV in shock and dismay. Lightning, for the uninitiated has NEVER had any emotions to speak of to begin with. God took nothing away at all. Her entire character amounts to protect her sister....the end. She has no personal goals or needs. She has no sense of humor, no personality, she is completely a blank slate.

What vexes me so about her though isn't so much that she has literally no character to speak of, or that they had 3 games to develop her and didn't, no what vexes me is the creators of the games have all spoken out about how much they are going to miss working on games with Lightning. Interviews with them they go into great detail how attached they became to her, developing her, and going into her life and struggles etc, etc. Here I sit with my mouth agape reading this and wondering...what am I missing here? What is there about this character that has them nearly in tears having to part with her after this game? I am at a complete loss for words on this. Here are some quotes:

"We would never feel sick of these characters or these worlds," Kitase-san says. "Don't worry, we love them and we have an attachment to this whole story and characters. But in terms of this story, the whole Lightning saga story, this is going to be the end, and we're going to be moving on and not continuing in any sort of way. But the characters, since we do love them and do have an attachment to them, we're hoping there might be ways where they can make like a cameo, or something like that. For example, in Final Fantasy XIV, we're going to be doing like a collaboration with that game, and Lightning will make an appearance within the game. So we're hoping that there will be an opportunity to showcase them in some other form."

And this little ditty:


"What sets Lightning apart from the other [Final Fantasy hero] characters is that you don't see very many female heroines being the main character," says Kitase-san, "of course apart from maybe Terra from Final Fantasy VI. So that's definitely something that sets Lightning apart. She's not only a woman, but she's also very strong and also very cool, and she can put up a good fight. That's definitely one of her positive features. Even outside of the series, I got to go see the show floor at E3 and at Gamescom, and looking at other publishers I noticed that Lightning is probably one of the only female characters that pushed out in the forefront for their game titles. Of course, we had Lara Croft when Tomb Raider was about to be released, but now that that has launched, Lightning is one of the only female characters that is out there being the face of a title."

This one is my favorite:

“When I was making the game, I wasn’t really thinking about it, that I was going to have to say goodbye to her at the end of the process,” Abe told IGN through a translator. “But when I was playing the game during testing, when I reached the very end of the story, for the first time I felt a kind of weight. All the time that we’ve spent to create her from scratch and develop and progress her, it dawned on me there that this was the end, and that was an emotional moment.”

See what I mean? This is all from the creators of the game. Is anyone who played the games THIS emotionally attached to Lightning? I can't imagine how. I couldn't find the interview I wanted, one that I read around the time this game came out, but I recall reading how much time they said they spent developing her character, her background, her likes and dislikes, how she ticks, etc. Of which, NONE of that actually made it into any of the games and it floors me how that can happen. It's almost like how people describe their favorite color and why. No one ever really gives a great reason for it, you can't express it all that well, you just say that you like it, the look of it pleases you in some way. I swear that is the extent to which we have Lightning. They made something pretty to look at, and that was it. Then they try to go into how much depth she has, and that she's the female "Cloud" and us gamers scratch our heads and try to figure out what the hell they are talking about.

Let me please destroy the comparison to Cloud if I may as well. Now to be perfectly fair the creators made the comparison in terms of "popularity" not to literally put boobs on Cloud and call it a day. The internet however has maintained that she's just like Cloud! Yet, offer zero reasons as to how this comparison makes sense. Cloud begins his journey as a mercenary who is only out for money. He makes jokes, snide comments, dresses in drag, he's full of personality. Then he grows attached to the quest of his comrades and eventually befriends them. So much so, that he'll risk his life for them. But then tragedy strikes one of his closest friends and he couldn't save her. This causes him to go into severe depression and he doesn't want to take on the responsibilities of leading his group anymore as he feels he is unfit to save anyone. His friends convince him otherwise as the quest progresses and Cloud gains a renewed sense of hope in himself. THIS is a clear character arc. This is also a very cursory glance at the depth to which Cloud was written and presented. There is so much more nuance into how he developed, how he thinks of himself, and how he views others thinking of him and I could go on all day about it. We were told all of this about him though in the game, he was very well developed. We know his mom, we know his friends as a kid, we know his hopes and dreams, we know how he reacts to tragic events and how he deals with stress. He is very well fleshed out.

Lightning though? Uh...we know she wants to protect her sister and she doesn't really give a damn about the other people in her group either. She's very cold, she's all about the mission, whatever that may be and that's really it, that's all we can say about her. She's also exceptionally gullible as we see in the first game the villain outright tells her what he needs her and her group to do, and she DOES it essentially helping him succeed at destroying Cocoon. Only slightly after that does she attempt to save it, but she was helpless to do so and her friends had to be sacrificed to stop it from being destroyed. GREAT job Lightning...In this third game she's also unquestionably following the orders of God to round up souls for a new world. Now I haven't beaten the game yet...but I did discover that God is the final boss...so clearly it was being evil in some way or another and once again our gullible heroine was helping evil apparently.

I'm not sure I've ever played a game where they wrote so much and said so very little about the main character except for those games where you create a character and it has literally no character at all. It's dumbfounding that a company like Square can make characters as profoundly deep as those seen in earlier FF games or Xenogears and then have an entire trilogy devoted to what amounts to nothing more than eye candy. That's Lightning's character, eye candy, and this game pushes that notion to the forefront. The battle system is designed around changing her outfits for fucks sake.

Even characters that didn't have any depth to them in previous efforts like Squall in FF8 still had some notion of character in how they reacted to problems. Squall's character arc went from not caring what happened to Rinoa to risking his life for her. The game doesn't do a great job expressing WHY they become close as Squall's dialogue amounts to "...." and Rinoa incoherently goes from wanting to jump Seifer's bones to immediately wanting Squall's wang after they presume Seifer to be dead...but the point is Squall does go through a character change in that he is no longer self centered. What change can we say about Lightning? That she went from emotionless to God stole my emotions so now I'm even MORE emotionless? That about sums it up right there honestly and really this is not only the most glaring flaw about this third entry, but definitely the overriding flaw of the entire 13 series of games.

*If it looks like plastic, smells like plastic, and tastes like plastic, then you just ate plastic...wtf is wrong with you?*

Off Topic of Gaming - Political Correctness

So Gary Oldman had an interview where he went off on a tangent about how this country is far too touchy lately, and how no one is really allowed to express themselves freely. I generally agree with his sentiment, and urge people to also read George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops which is mostly an outline of the ridiculousness of people, and essentially mob mentality bullying through this guise of political correctness.

Political correctness is ok in small doses. It mainly serves as a barrier from the public and hate filled diatribes. Much in the same way you shouldn't yell fire in a movie theater, you also really shouldn't directly attack a certain group of people based on race or gender on TV. But lately it seems that nearly everything said, even ever so slightly is a broad based attack and the person that made those comments should be completely and utterly destroyed over it.

A rebuttal was made to Oldman and, while I agree with some of the things said in it, I'd like to point out how very wrong it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/gary-oldman-doesnt-get-fr_b_5532638.html

What the author here is basically saying, is no free speech is not dead, but you will reap what you sow. This is a fair assessment, but not a fair assessment of certain instances. Much in the same way Bill Maher is allowed to say call his audience Lesbians and get away with it, Stephen Colbert is bullied by the internet for making a harmless joke about Asians. The author is attempting to show that circumstance is what leads to the "reaping" for these people that make these off the cuff comments. And yet, it's entirely inconsistent. Someone like Colbert can be utterly eviscerated online for a harmless joke, whereas Maher is ignored for his harmless joke?

This is where I feel this author and I part ways. I am in agreement with him in regards to bad things said shouldn't go unpunished, but I feel there needs to be consistency in this whereas he doesn't feel it matters if the mob rises over one thing and not another. It's their choice to bully them and that bullying is perfectly ok. There's also a degree of bullying at which I feel is entirely unjustified.

In Colbert's case, sure his joke may have indeed offended some people. But the level to which the hatred rose seems far too high than what it deserved. This is the mob mentality effect coming into play that the author is ignoring. And I pose the question, which is more harmful? Colbert's simple joke, or hundreds of thousands of hateful comments from anonymous "victims" some that include calling for his death and other unsavory things.

And let's ask some HONEST questions, something that I feel is entirely ignored by these internet victims that turn to bullies. Was Colbert's joke an attack against Asians? Clearly, no it wasn't, it was a joke. Was Alec Baldwin slighting all gay people by using the word fag against someone that was upsetting him? Was it really? The answer, I feel, is no. Sure the word is used as a slight, to demean, and it's representative of that group, but our vernacular has taken the word "fag" to simply mean someone you dislike, and that was the context with which he was using the word. If you lived in England your concept of the word fag is also different, it means ciggarrette. And our use of words evolve over time too. No one says they are having a "gay old time" anymore, and in that time period it wasn't used to describe a circle jerk or some other gay activity ;) We live in a time where the word "fag" can mean TWO things, and Alec didn't mean them both at the same time. Who does, unless you're trying to be needlessly clever utilizing wordplay. So we have to ask ourselves the HONEST question of was he using the word to slight gay people, or to use the word in the same way we could also say, that "jerk" or that "moron."

This is where political correctness goes too far, and will tear down a human being like Stephen, or Alec, by taking their commentary out of context or reinserting their own context. More obvious instances would be ones like Mel Gibson who the author and I are in agreement, clearly was attacking the Jews unprovoked and really got what he deserved. Donald Sterling would be another example of this. If you were to ask yourself honest questions with their instances, rather than take a knee jerk emotional reaction to buzzwords, then the answers are much more clear and the flack given is deserved.

But even still, it goes too far. These people that make these lousy statements deserve second chances too though. Instead they are thrown out entirely without another word and bullied endlessly. They can't defend themselves or explain it either. It could be they were just having a really bad day, or drunk. And we've all done stupid things like that, every human alive has, and that's Oldman's main point. The punishments aren't befitting of the crime. They are far too extreme.

I feel that a lot of this started with the Michael Richards incident. Now I grant you, public figures who say bad things have gotten their just desserts too in the past and probably didn't start with Richards. But what DID start with him is the internet flaming that is now the expected reaction. The bullying. The vitriol. The outcasting online. One really bad incident and suddenly Richards is less than human. It wasn't until a year later where he was even allowed to discuss what happened and explain himself, and by then no one listened. What actually happened that night was he was doing his bit, got heckled, got upset, and tried to heckle them back using broad based black generalizations, but sadly lacked the material and light touch it needs (like say Family Guy or South Park) and he came off as hating them. And yeah, it was really bad. It's what's stand up comedians call dying on stage, but Richards just kept nosediving and put himself in a far worse position. He has apologized endlessly for it, but his career is still in the shitter anyway. All for one bad performance and internet bullying. The HONEST question that should be asked here is, is Richards actually a racist? Was his goal to victimize an entire group of people, or combat hecklers? If you answer these questions, and then read the hundreds of thousands of comments wanting Richards to be killed, then please answer me this....who are the real victims of political correctness here?

Hilariously, this entire piece I've written here will be misconstrued as protecting racists or people that spew hate or giving excuses. That's not at all what this is. This is a plea for common sense. This is a plea against needless victimizing of people on knee jerk reactions. I want the people of the internet to think and discuss rather than cry foul immediately for every possible little thing. The internet called racism over the new Far Cry 4 game box because a "white" guy (who is actually Asian) had another guy held captive of a different race. Clearly the game is about racism and how great it is! Look how successful he is! I want to be just like him! That's the message it's sending...apparently...to people with a screw loose. This is political correctness at it's finest folks, this is what we're dealing with, and this is what I can't stand. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play a game where I kill thousands of Iranians. Which game is that? Who fucking cares there's hundreds of them, and no one calls those games Iranian people genocide simulators.

Mario Kart 8 - Too Well Balanced = Unbalanced

Mario Kart 8 is an enigma for me when it comes to how well, or how not well they've managed to balance this game. In Mario Kart Wii it was obvious, the bikes were over powered as the wheelie boost they got from straightaways eclipsed any hope of karts having a chance. Thankfully, that's been removed in this game but it has other problems...

After 30 some hours of online play here's some things I've noticed.

1. People that place 1st seem to win outright, untouched by others, seemingly gods of Mario Kart.
2. When you're in 5th place or lower after the first lap, expect it to stay that way for the rest of the race. You will be stuck there almost no matter what.
3. Getting thrown off course, or hit by things doesn't slow you down enough.
4. Nothing you do seems to make enough impact on your placement.

Now I am a Mario Kart veteran, I typically dominate this game and exploit weaknesses to get first whenever possible whether it be snaking on the DS or wheelie boosting on Wii, or knowing all the little tricks of MK64. This is a game I have so far, not been able to do that in. One would argue then, that this game is really well balanced! Well...it is, except not in that good old Mario Kart way I'm used to.

Let's review my points briefly to try and get at what I'm talking about here.

The first point is people who get first do so practically untouched. Why is that? Are they that good? No, they're not that good. When I get first in this game, I do so masterfully looking just like they do. But in the very next race I'll get 6th or 7th performing my very same masterful techniques and so will they I've noticed. Sure I've seen someone get 1st twice in a row, then I've seen them get stuck 8th or below for the remainder of their stay with the group. So what is balance if skill is not at play? Let's look at point two.

In my next point, this is the crux of Mario Kart 8. It seems to me that this Mario Kart, more than any other has its items balanced in such a way that you can't escape getting stuck in the middle of the pack if you're still there early on in the race and promotes those who have separated allowing them to gain such leads. The problem is the items are just less powerful than they've ever been. Getting hit doesn't deter you enough if you have a sizable lead to be overtaken, and being stuck in the middle constantly bombarded doesn't allow you to have a chance at 1st unlike older Mario Kart games. This leads to a head scratching dichotomy that I'll get to in the 4th point, but let me balance this out with the 3rd point.

So, you're stuck in the middle, what usually fixed this in other Mario Kart games? The blue shell would usually help here coupled with good driving. Getting blue shelled in this game is a minor annoyance. Previous games you'd get hit with it and be stunned long enough to lose position, but in this game online I've rarely seen the blue shell cause a shift in positions. Furthermore, bad driving also caused you to lose positions but in this game falling off course just doesn't punish you enough. You don't see your character fall in, there is no cut to black as you get put back on course. No, you get saved from the clutches of going off course IMMEDIATELY with very little repercussions. Shouldn't the guy who gets knocked off be delayed more than the guy who got hit with a green shell? Yes, but not in this game.

Lastly, it seems that no amount of good driving practices nets you better placements if you're stuck in the middle. Coupled with the item issue not punishing people enough, boosts also don't help you enough after you've been hit. I take every corner perfectly, do every shortcut right, boost on every jump with tricks but if I'm in the middle from the start due to one errant green shell and no one has checked the guy who got into first, there's no coming back from it no matter what. The mushrooms don't boost you fast or far enough, the stars don't speed you up enough to break away, shells will just keep you locked into the perpetual war that is the middle, and bullet bill is only acquired when you're in the bottom moving you back to middle hell. There is ONE exception to this that I've seen and that is the Gold Mushroom. That is by far the best item in the game as it's the ONLY thing you can really honestly do to pull yourself out of the middle if you got trapped there early on. The only other way you're getting out is if the top 3 racers checked each other enough to bring them back to the middle pack, but that is firstly very rare, and secondly out of your personal control, and frankly out of their control if the item gods are not looking at them favorably.

So in explaining my enigma we have to define balance, and that is does the game provide an even chance for everyone to win. The answer is clearly yes. So in this regard the game is balanced right? Well....not really.

As I've outlined, you'll win if you move away from the middle pack right at the start and don't get trapped with them, you won't win if you don't, and everyone has this opportunity at the start. You also can't really control getting out of it either through good driving practices, and even most items don't assist with this. So in this regard the game is very unbalanced as it promotes the players who by sheer luck managed not to get bombarded early on. Plus, even if they mess up mistakes are not harshly punished enough to make a big difference.

What made previous Mario Kart games more balanced is allowing for good driving, or items to let you break away from other drivers to get into the lead. This game's items are too ineffective, and the pitfalls too gentle to really allow for this. In other Mario Kart games I would get in 1st or near there each and every race. Because I'd race perfectly, hit all the right boosts, gain all the advantages of the course with driving and it mattered. That doesn't seem to matter in this game at all though.

But the game is still amazing, it's still Mario Kart, and it's still really fun, just don't expect to win all the time =)

*I'm a Luigi, I'm a number 6....then a number 4...then a number 10....really depends on a when I get hit with a shell...*

Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze Gamespot Review - More of the Same

I've been around gaming quite a long time, and one important thing I learned very early on is being able to recognize a quality game before I buy it. Gaming is expensive, and people like me hate wasting their money on a bad game, so I've been very good at not doing that and discerning the crap from the gold.

That's where reviews come in. They help you decide if something is good or not. Some reviews are less informative than others though...so I'd like to comment on the recent review of the new Donkey Kong game, Tropical Freeze. I've never actually done this before as a blog, but nothing has been quite as dumbfounding as this review. You can read it for yourself here:

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review/1900-6415667/

Now, I don't want to go into a long diatribe about review scores, or things being poorly written or what consideration is given to what as my reviews are probably full of holes just like I personally feel this one is. To summarize, it seems he gave the game a lowish score because he felt the game was "more of the same" as is my title in this blog, see what I did there?

But on that note let's consider the reviewer for a moment, and let us also consider hypocrisy. This reviewer lists his top ten games of 2013 here:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/mark-walton-s-top-10-games-for-2013/1100-6416737/

On it, we can see some striking choices. Most notably that 6 of these 10 games are sequels, and by design are "more of the same." Sure, there's some outstanding creativity in games like Bioshock Infinite, and Super Mario 3D...but is there uniqueness there, or am I personally loving games like this for what I know they're repeating?

That's an interesting question that I pose to myself when I see such a harsh review of something I am sure I will love for the same reasons I've always loved Donkey Kong. So when I see a harsh review like this, I question the hypocrisy of it especially in the face of seeing past reviews and not even mentioning "more of the same" as a critique, yet it surely can be applied. Let's take his top 10 list of sequels one by one very briefly.

Bioshock Infinite: This game provided a new story and a new environment, but down to brass tacks the gameplay is the same and perhaps even less interesting than Bioshock 2 where they advanced the combat a bit. Overall, all three games are corridor shooters where the gameplay being good is based mostly on how interesting your abilities are, and how interesting the enemies are. Personally, I feel Infinite had the weakest set of enemies, with nothing as imposing or prominent as Big Daddies were in the first two. The powers were fun though, but I wouldn't say they were better or worse than the first two either, if anything most of them felt "more of the same." (please note though, I loved this game)

Super Mario 3D World: As my review of this game stated, I loved this game. But I loved it for knowing what I was getting, which is something I love playing, which is a Mario game. Sure, I can identify a bland entry to the series like New Super Mario 2 on the 3DS, but I'll still enjoy it because the gameplay is solid. Ultimately, what is this game though? Mario being in what was mostly an isometric view has been done on the 3DS game of a similar name. The levels are bigger in this one and more interesting but at the end of the day you can indeed slap a label of "more of the same" on this game too.

Pokemon X: Do I need to even outline what is more of the same about this game? Surely, I don't, but I will say the game was fantastic like previous entries. But, "more of the same" this game most assuredly is.

Rayman Legends: Also, another game I loved tremendously and fully recognize how amazingly uniquely it handled itself and level design. But....so did the first game. It's more of that game, or...how should I put this..."more of the same."

DMC - Devil May Cry: Yes...he lists this game as his top games of 2013...somehow mistakenly missing the fact that this game plays nearly identically to all the previous entries. Sure the story is better and actually makes sense, and the characters are therefore more interesting but from a gameplay point of view what we have here is "more of the same."

Grand Theft Auto 5: Now this game, I haven't played. I can only comment that I've heard the cast of characters is unlikable, the online is great, and there's a lot to do in the game. But it's Grand theft auto FIVE. Certainly, without any detail I can probably say this game has "more of the same" in it and not get any flack from this.

So, this is his best of 2013 with 4 notable other games that you can't really say is more of the same. The argument can be made for The Last of Us since the game plays pretty much like Uncharted but I give it a pass since it's a new IP and that alone is a risk for developers.

Still, if this list isn't identifiable as hypocrisy enough to make the claim that "more of the same" isn't actually a bad thing, here's a link to a random review I noticed this reviewer did:

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/god-of-war-ascension-review/1900-6404941/

See what that is? That is God of War Ascension. Now I'll be the first person to admit loving these games, but I'll also be the first person to tell you all 6 entries have been EXACTLY the same game. I can think of no other series that has done so little in advancing what goes on in the game than say...Mega Man, than that of God of War. And here we are with a glowing review from the guy that claims this new Donkey Kong game is boring, and same old same old, by the numbers etc. He was bored by Donkey Kong, being realistically the 5th entry in the side scrolling version of DK in over a 20 year period....whereas we've had 6 entries of God of War in the last 9 years....

Seriously though do the math on that one. 5 side scrolling Donkey Kong games in 20 years, versus 6 God of War games in 9 years and somehow Donkey Kong is old and boring now?

Now, I wasn't going to poke holes in the review specifically but let me note just one thing he mentions that the level design is stale and doesn't excite him...In EVERY entry of God of War Kratos fights his way out of hell at some point (pretty sure it's every one...most of them anyway...) Never the less, how is that not "stale" level design? How are Bioshock's obvious rooms of enemies not stale, how are Grand Theft Auto's escort driving missions not stale by now, how is catching over 700 Pokemon NOT stale by now?

What I'm getting at here, is the crux of this review is written on the notion that it bored the reviewer personally, because he's been there and done that, and seemingly less so about the qualities of the game itself. As I've outlined here, more of the same is not a bad thing, and I've pointed out how hypocritical this reviewer is being about this game due to his own personal history of obviously liking games that are the same as previous entries. To such an extent he would give 6 slots to his top 10 of best games of 2013 to sequels.

Obviously, I haven't played the new Donkey Kong yet, but I expect what other reviewers have noted that the game plays great just like Returns did, the levels are well designed and challenging. And the game gets high marks for that polish as it should. But, if anything maybe this will help gamers begin to learn how to sift through garbage articles and help figure out if a game is something they'll like or not.

Also, one big thing I'd like to note against "more of the same" is what if this is your very first Donkey Kong game you've ever played? Suddenly, it's not the same as any other game now is it?

*Donkey Kong swung on a vine again....fuck yeah!*

PS - Two the "negatives" in the summary section of the Gamespot review make it sound like he was butt hurt by how challenging the game is...lol.