Overrating the term "Overrated"

This will mark my very first post without a picture. Why? Because pictures in blog posts are highly overrated.

Everyone uses pictures in blog posts, absolutely EVERYONE. I am here to paint a broad spectrum of bloggers for you, the reader, to grasp just how many people use pictures in their blog posts. See diagram below:
There, now I feel you have some sense of the magnitude of this phenomenon. Everyone puts pictures in their blogs, it's a fact as proven above. See? Even I, determined to not post a picture in this blog, have indeed done just that! Why is this true across the board? Why because pictures in blog posts are overrated, which means everyone does it so it must be good...or bad as in the case with "overrating" something. But if everyone posts pictures in their blogs (as we have now proven they do) why does it suddenly get the mark of being "overrated"? Well, it doesn't really, since I made that claim. It's an arbitrary claim to make with no point of base or reference as is when anyone uses the phrase "overrated" for anything at all.

This is where I leave my sarcasm and get to the heart of the matter. I've discussed this term before in a post I did about Final Fantasy 7, but I want to revisit that word as I have noticed it has not died yet. People still use it, a lot, and I find the word to be quite overrated...

The term is used to describe something that "everyone" feels is "amazing" and the person using the word feels it is not as amazing as "everyone" says it is. Here's where we have the first and main issue I take with this phrase. WHO is "everyone"? Who are these people? What standards are their "amazing"? Let's take a really basic example on why this logic is outright ridiculous.

Example:

Guy 1 - George Bush is the greatest president EVER!
Guy 2 - Nah, he was overrated.

Now what we see here is one guy professing his admiration for our previous President. Guy 2 claims that president to be overrated. What is the basis for Guy 2's claim? Who are the people that loved George Bush? Republicans, sure. Evangelical Christians, ok sure them too. War vets, probably. How many of those people do we have in America? A lot, and enough to vote him into office TWICE. Does a majority vote make Guy's 2 claim valid? He was historically a bad President sure, but a majority of people got him elected which in turn means they think he is the shizzle, so in that view Guy 2 is right, George Bush was overrated since Guy 2 believes Bush was a poor President.

However, when we see ratings and national polls Bush was rated the worst President in history making Guy 2's claim wrong. How could he be "overrated" when the majority feel he did a poor job? Well ask the people who voted him in twice, what do they feel about Bush? They loved him as he fought for their needs such as preventing stem cell research, gay marriage, and lowering taxes for the rich. This is where we have a sort of paradox. On one hand he was voted in by "everyone" and yet later torn down in polls by "everyone" as an awful President. In the perspective where he was voted in calling him overrated makes Guy 2 correct (correct to him), but he is wrong by calling him overrated in the face of polls that show he was hated by "everyone".

So the question becomes, who are we asking when this term gets thrown around? Or who is this "everyone" the term overrated automatically refers to? Isn't it just a blanket statement for opinion? Why yes, yes it is! The problem is people like to try and base this term in some kind of perceived "fact." This perceived fact is created through an idea of popularity, like Chrono Trigger for instance which is a very popular game that could often be called "overrated" by some ignorant putz who refuses to have an opinion of his own and simply throws that term around to tally some kind of impersonal scorecard through others. While it is perceived that "everyone" loves Chrono Trigger and no one doesn't, this outcast as we shall now call him, must not only spread hate on something he doesn't like, but must also include those who do by immediately placing those who rate it highly into the "overrated flock of sheep (as he sees them)" into his own little category. This empowers the outcast, makes him feel stronger as a person, makes him feel like an individual for going against the grain. I find this to be a very common emotion among those who use the phrase overrated.

Now sure, there are people who do not like what is popular for one reason or another, but they will often give valid reasons and never throw around the phrase "overrated" and then call it a day. They will have actual opinions on the matter, comparisons and so forth. But then there are people, many people that will simply hate what is popular just because it is and use overrated like it's a flag they say an oath to, proud of its immediate power and concurrent defacing of those who don't go with the outcasts perceived grain.

Gamers everywhere, I beg you, please stop using this word. If you do not like something that is perceived as popular, that is fine, please explain why with thoughtful words, words of meaning. Do not have faith in your conviction for hating something, have reason instead! Reason would not use blanket statements like overrated, it would instead invoke thoughtful dialogue on the subject rather than be proud for whatever reason that you are different from everyone else for going against the grain on something as stupidly small and otherwise meaningless to "everyone" as an opinion.

*See what I did there, I just said opinions were overrated without using the word, boom!*

PSN is Down yall!

Those of us PSN users have been well aware that since this past Wednesday the Playstation Network has been dead. While we were all hoping it would be resurrected like some mythical figurehead that brings us chocolate bunnies every year, that has not happened yet. As for Sony they haven't made many comments on its status either except that the issue was through an external force.

This external force could easily be the group Anonymous, an elite gang of cyber hackers who has waged war on Sony. While all of that is speculation the fact is the PSN has been down for the longest stretch since its inception.

As a PSN user myself it really doesn't bother me. I don't have to pay for this service so I don't really care, but it seems like some people care quite a bit. IGN even went so far as to post this:

"I barely have the will to play PS3 without its online functionality, and I know there are millions of gamers that feel the same."

Wow really? That bad eh? Can't enjoy some Uncharted? Some Bayonetta? Maybe a bit of God of War 3 (or any of the hundreds of titles that end in "3" now). Assassin's Creed? Has single player gaming died that much? Have we gone so far that we "need" to see friends online? That we have to send messages in between killing bosses? Can we only play games that gives us a bonus +5 points for a headshot? The article goes on further to say that the PS3 is no better than the NES now that PSN is down.

Really it isn't any better than the NES now? Well the games are way better graphically, sound is better, gameplay in general is more robust and interesting, you can play with up to 4 people offline in some games (only 2 on the NES), stories are better and make more sense. I mean there are some pitfalls like 90% of lead characters are all space marines now and most games want to be first person shooters but that's not really any different than when every game wanted to be a crappy side scrolling platformer on the NES. Some are good some are bad. Still I'd say the PS3 has a lot over the NES. Can the NES play Blu Ray movies? Can it play music? Show a picture slideshow? Do you have to blow in the PS3 to get it to work? Of course, I need not go on to point out how stupid I feel this comment is, but the idea that people think a console without online is useless still shocks me.

When I started writing this I couldn't believe how integral online gaming has become to the gaming community. I knew it has become imperative for developers to include multiplayer in games, that was the motif in 2010, but looking at 2011 it seems like every game is made specifically for online play.

Just gazing at this year's PS3 lineup we have Little Big Planet 2, Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, Twisted Metal, SOCOM 4, and Infamous 2. Most of those are pretty much online only games with the offline being an afterthought. Even games like Infamous 2 and Uncharted 3 which will likely have robust offline only seems to be touting their online gameplay in previews and interviews. It's like they don't even care they made an offline component at all.

I'd like to point out that the PSN won't last forever. All these games people buy specifically to play with their friends online will die off and newer games will come. I can still enjoy games like Tetris and Mario 20 years later, but who's going to play Little Big Planet 2 or SOCOM 4 in 20 years? No one that's who. And it's sooner yet for even our modern games. How big is the online scene in the first Resistance game? How big is it even now for the new Homefront game? It sucked, sure and that's why people went back to playing Black Ops, but that's just my point. Why do I have to guess at what online game will stay popular for more than a few months? I'm glad I don't have to guess, I'm glad I can find enjoyment in the single player or offline aspects of games.

But sadly my way of gaming is dying it seems. Even Nintendo's new system is code named Project Cafe. Now what that means we have no idea, but the code name feels like it means online connectivity like being in a local cafe. I'm sure that's where they are going with it. Who knows. All I know is I will rue the day if I ever have to coordinate a dungeon with several other people in Zelda. And YES Zelda 4 Swords sucked ass don't even try say it didn't!

It's not that I'm totally against online play either. I do enjoy it a lot actually. Playing Street Fighter and Marvel online is loads of fun, (albeit frustrating at times) but honestly the offline play is far superior for those games and any fighting game fan will agree with that. As much as I do find 0nline fun for some games I just don't see it as an essential aspect of gaming. It might be for most people, but I can still happily play Vagrant Story on my PSP while watching some online streams of a fighting game tournament or something. I'm only annoyed that I can't play Final Fight HD on my PS3 because it requires a PSN connection. I learned my lesson not to buy Capcom games with that restriction on them ever again. Looking at you Bionic Commando 2.

**EDIT 4/26/11**

Breaking news on the PSN debacle. Sony has finally sent a message to all of us saying it was INDEED hacked and furthermore everyone's personal data has been compromised. That's right, credit card info / passwords to home addresses and phone numbers all hacked. This is seriously FUCKED up! Sony got hosed hard and the backlash from angry consumers will certainly be heavy I imagine. Class action lawsuits abound I am sure. It is ultimately their fault for not securing our shit. This doesn't happen with any other online source I'm aware of, Steam, Amazon, Ebay, my bank or credit card sites have never had this happen. Sony screwed the pooch on this one bigtime.

Worse yet if you use your PSN password for other things be sure to change that IMMEDIATELY. Also, once PSN comes back online you must change your shit IMMEDIATELY lest the hackers change your shit first then you become locked out....from your SHIT! Brad Pitt could have delivered that funnier than I...still...

*PSN is down. So what?*

Achievements in Gaming

Achievements, trophies, carrots on a stick, whatever you prefer to call them they are apparently here to stay in the world of gaming. As a gamer of the late 80's early 90's I immediately recoiled at the idea of a game telling me I "did good" when I "did something good..." Why do I need the game to tell me I beat the end boss? Why does it have to tell me with a cryptic message like "Worst Day Shift Manager Ever" - Star Wars Force Unleashed- Achievement unlocked! What purpose does this serve?

When this craze began, I quickly dismissed it and assumed it would go away. But then Sony tagged in with Trophies, and then some Wii games have their own personal dedicated achievements. My beloved Steam has achievements as well! It seems like these days if your game doesn't reward you while rewarding you (playing it) then it's doing something wrong.

Once I realized these silly things weren't going away I quickly wondered why? People actually like these things? The answer is yes apparently. Perusing joystiq.com as I often do I came across the quote below:

"GFWL has achievements, integrated with your XBox live account. Nothing on Steam can compensate for that. No one gives a crap about Steam achievements. "

The worst part about this quote isn't that it's so stupid it's hard to be believed, but that it got up-voted to blue. People AGREED with this, which on joystiq is often hard to attain blue status on a quote. But what makes this quote so unabashedly stupid? He's arguing one achievement means something where another means nothing...

News flash - They BOTH mean nothing!

And this kind of behavior isn't exactly new from gamers either. I see things in forums all the time like "I won't buy this if it doesn't have achievements," and "Are they going to patch the game to add achievements? I really hope so!"

Yes that's right companies have retroactively patched games to add in these worthless achievements! Star Wars Force Unleashed and Grand Theft Auto 4 are two I can think of on the PS3 that retroactively got trophy support. The worst thing happened was with the indie game called The Last Guy. Great game, I played the crap out of it. Automatically it updated to add Trophy support. Ok, whatever... Then I start up the game to find a message telling me that my game has been deleted because of the Trophy patch. Let me get this straight...the trophy patch deleted my game save file? The WORTHLESS trophy patch DELETED my VALUABLE game save? Ensuring that all I have achieved prior is now gone?

What I learned from that is game developers think that gamers can no longer recognize their own achievements. Like you know me getting all perfect runs in The Last Guy levels. I have no ability to recognize this according to game developers. No, I need a fucking Golden trophy to tell me I did this. BULLSHIT!

And gamers want this. They WANT it. I am so baffled by this. I simply can't understand it. You now it's really sad when Blizzard added achievements to World of Warcraft. THAT is utterly sad. Here we have a game that you dedicate your life to, and it gives you achievements? A game that rewards you constantly while playing it whether it be exp, gold, item drops, skill upgrades, new friends added, you NAME it you get rewarded. But Blizzard thought, no, that's not quite enough we need to give players tiny symbols and phrases of praise with tiny points next to that to really hook them in!

Dear Blizzard,

You have already enslaved a mass number of people that even the Germans would be appalled by and you feel you have to further secure these people with MORE ego stroking digital appeasements? You sick sons of bitches!

PS - Where do I buy stock options?

I remember gaming for my own achievements, being proud of things I set out to accomplish in a game which was mostly just to see the ending. Somewhere we got lost and we want to be rewarded for seeing the first cut-scene? For completing the training mode? For using a Hadoken more than 100 times? For going online? Playing in your first online match? Setting up your first online lobby? Patching the game? Replacing your batteries? Blowing into the console to clear out the dust? Buying the "I survived the Red Ring of Death," T-SHIRT!!!!

*pant wheeze* Ok, only SOME of the above are true. But the fact that some of those ARE true at all disturbs me greatly. What happened to us gamers? What has become of us? We have to play video games, things that are already giving us pleasure, but they have to now inform us we are pleased with what we're doing? That's what it comes down to honestly. That's exactly what these "Achievements" mean. It is like going down a huge water slide at an amusement park and at the end a large park mascot yelled "Congratulations!! You just had fun!!" Then he takes your picture and posts it on a large park board. And your response is "I did! I really did have fun!" And now that you did "achieve" this you won't do it again. Why would you, there's a record of it for all to see.

Now, I'm the kind of guy that wants to go down that water slide again. I'm the kind of guy that wants to play a game again, and yeah, maybe I do want to collect all the flags in Assassin's Creed again too even though I know I've done it before. But that Trophy tells me I already did it, and I won't get "rewarded" for doing it again, so I have no real reason to do it...

I have a ton of Final Fantasy 7 completed save files. All different, all perfect completions. Same with Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, and Pokemon Blue. I have no achievements for these games and I guarantee I have put more time in just one of these than all the games I have got a "platinum trophy" on combined.

I am not sure what the moral of this story is exactly. I hate achievements of all kinds. I hate that people feel they are useful in some way. I hate everything about these digital rewards. It's not what gaming is about. Though, I am not one to tell anyone what the point of doing a pointless activity like gaming, or anything classified as "entertainment" because everyone has their own reasons, but this....this is basically outright telling you why you're doing something which is exactly what I'm against. People read the achievement lists and go "Ah, yes I have to parachute 500 meters out of an airplane for this achievement." And then they do it... Not because they thought of doing it for the fun of it, no they want the 10 gamer points!

*Arguably the hardest achievement in gaming is catching all the Pokemon. Guess how many gamer points it's worth? NONE!*

Marvel vs Capcom 3 - Review

There are a few kinds of fighting games. Some are very balanced where all characters are created equal. Some require a high amount of skill/practice and patience to be great at it. Some are just stupid amounts of fun and totally unbalanced. That is what the Marvel vs Capcom series has always been, fun, but horridly unbalanced. Games that stop being fun at tournament level because they require you to use the very best of the best characters and not who you want to use to win.

Luckily in this day and age of online gaming, not everyone cares about who's the best, and don't play with an always win mentality, so games like this aren't so bad anymore. What's better is MvC3 is much more user friendly where combos are relatively universal between characters and are pretty simple to pull off. This offends the pros, but honestly I think it's for the better. There's nothing I hate seeing more than in MvC2 someone whip out Magneto and use his infinite that took him years of practice to do. That is not my interest when playing a game, to invest years of time into it to 'get it.' That's just sad really. MvC3 lets everyone in on the fun, and the high level stuff is still hard enough to do where you'll need a few good months of practice still.

Now enough with my initial banter, onto the review.

Graphics:

This game is gorgeous. It plays and feels like you're in a comic book. The lights are flashy, the frames are smooth and the backgrounds are interesting and always on the move. The level of detail on the characters shine through, and the animations really make you feel like you're using certain characters. Like Dante, if you've ever played a Devil May Cry game this really feels like Dante if he were in a fighting game. He has damn near all of his moves from the games, and his sword swing flows just like the DMC games. That's pretty impressive, and that isn't noticed just with him, but with everyone else too.

Still, it's hard to write anything else about the graphics. They are great, the end.

Sound:

The music is shockingly good, I guess they needed these 10 years to finally get decent tracks for a Marvel game. MvC2 was noted as having practically the WORST soundtrack for a fighting game ever. MvC3 on the other hand, not only has really great music, but it fluctuates by what characters you have out which is really neat.

The voice acting is...good? Ok, it's good...but annoying and ever present. I think I've gone to bed the past few nights hearing Deadpool scream "PINEAPPLE SURPRISE!" It's not as bad as some games like Blazblue where EVERY character is constantly talking, but this is still pretty bad as MOST characters are saying something all the time.

The sound effects are very satisfying and fit well with everything going onscreen. Chris's shotgun blast sound is especially good.

Gameplay:

Unlike the previous Marvel vs Capcom game where you needed a Ph.D in combo execution to play it, MvC3 tones that down and makes it much easier for nearly anyone to play. This is great honestly. I can't find a downside to this. While it's nice to know playing Street Fighter that I can do this or that and few others can, it still creates a barrier of people in the know and people who are not. And those who are not are often in the majority, so you're left with a smaller selection of people to play against in the end who are at or above your level.

Making the game easier to play was the best thing they could have done with this kind of game. It's still challenging to do advanced combos, and the best of the best will still undoubtedly be the best, but at least the worst of us gets a sporting chance now.

The game plays as such, everyone has a light, medium, hard, and launcher button, and two assist buttons. You get a 3 man team, and combos are pretty much always A, B, C, D or light, medium, hard, launcher (special as Capcom calls it) as is the case with this game. Once you hit the launcher you may jump to meet them and continue a A, B, C pattern ending on D to ground/bounce them to continue another combo or end in a super move. See? Simple isn't it?

There's advanced things to do like air dashing, super jumping, instant overheads/crossovers, and maintaining a zone like in most fighters. But the basics of the game are very simple, probably the simplest I have ever played.

There are 35 characters for now, and more on the way comprising of course of Marvel and Capcom characters. A fine selection to choose from indeed.

Online:

Online is great, once you get into a game. But that's the problem, finding a game is REALLY dumb. Unlike Street Fighter 4 where you select from a list of potential opponents which showed their connection speed, MvC3 does an auto search that has a high chance of failing. When it fails, it sends you back to the loading screen, which takes a bit, then back to the online menu. This is very annoying, and very frustrating. It takes longer to find a single match than it takes to play two of them.

With that said the online is decent. It matches you up very close to your opponents rank. There's a fun RPG level up mechanic much like what is found in nearly every online game ever now. And you can save 3 of your favorite team combinations for speedy access.

Player matches are great, because you find someone and can quickly rifle games off at the speed of light. Once a match is done if both players select rematch, then BOOM you immediately get another match, no loading times, no menu selections, nothing, it's fantastic. The same is for offline Versus, which is just super convenient.

Lobby is terrible though. There's no spectator view, and I have yet to find a fighting game except MvC3 that doesn't have spectator view. That's pretty bad. So when you're in a lobby you get to watch...nothing and wait your turn. It's so boring. I'm not sure what Capcom was thinking here. I almost bet we'll get it in DLC for an added cost...

Story:

N/A it's a fighting game.

Conclusion:

MvC3 is a pretty fun fighting game. It will most likely end up being known for a handful of cheap tactics the pro community comes up with, but oh well, hopefully a bunch of people from all skill sets stick with it to make the online stay fun for a few years.

Keep up the good work Capcom.

***UPDATE 4/1/11***

I couldn't hate this game more. Sure it's still fun in small amounts, but it has a TON of issues. Blocking things for one seems utterly broken and sometimes impossible. There are times in this game I have my hands off the buttons entirely, blocking in the correct way and the game doesn't register me blocking. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, and it's ridiculous. Most of the cast is entirely pointless as well, and utterly useless. Just like in MvC2, there are only a handful of characters worth picking and you'll never get a team of 3 where you like every character in it. No, you are FORCED to pick some characters just because they work well with others.

Other notes: X-Factor is the dumbest system ever. Wesker is broken beyond belief, he has way too much priority, is way too fast, does way too much damage for having way above average health. Everything is WAY too safe especially Wesker who I honestly believe has nothing punishable about him.

After 40 hours with this game I can honestly say I think I'm done with it. I find no enjoyment in creating teams for the sole purpose of killing characters in one combo, or teams that just run away and throw projectiles. I'd like to use Zero and Haggar on a team if possible, but they are both terrible and REALLY don't work well together. Too bad. Sticking with Street Fighter where you are allowed to block, can pick whoever you want, don't have to worry about stupid things like team synergy and broken hypers that deal WAY too much chip damage (especially in x-factor where blocking nets you as much damage as if you ate the hyper cleanly).

The game frustrates me to no end, and I'm not easily flustered. Sure, I could be good at this game too. All I have to do is pick Sentinel, Dr. Doom, and Ammy. Or a similar combination of broken characters like everyone else does.

***END UPDATE***

*"Pineapple Surprise" is in reference to grenades Deadpool throws at you*

Super Missed Opportunity All Stars - Wii

I rarely say many bad things about Nintendo on this site, mainly because they rarely deserve it. But in this instance I am so ashamed to be a huge Nintendo fan. Marketed as Mario's big 25th anniversary birthday bash, a culmination of Mario magic, 25 years of koopa stomping fun and what do we get? A lousy port.

Now, I'm not naive, I knew what I was buying going into it. I knew before I left my house to go buy this that in my SNES was Super Mario All Stars, still hooked up, still ready to play. However, I kept saying the extras would be worth it, the swath of history I will soak up will be well worth the $30 purchase. Besides that, my classic controller is way better than my old gimpy SNES controllers anyway.

There was a sudden air of doubt that fell over me however, as I made the transaction at Best Buy. A feeling of doubt so heavy, that I considered the $30 in my hand before sending it on it's way. One more look at Mario's glistening eyes on the box though was all it took for me to continue my transaction.

I went home with a renewed vigor that I had not made a poor choice. It was just $30 after all...just $30... Rushing through my door I immediately hunted down and unearthed my CD player that I haven't used in ages. I wiped the dust off, and plugged the CD in and cranked up the volume. Quickly, the room had filled itself with Mario ambiance as I then brought out the only other extra packaged within this milestone title.

The other item is a book, a sort of history of Mario. Now I have read and viewed MANY articles about the history of Mario over the years, even pseudo wrote one myself, I had anticipated this version hoping to learn many new things since it's from the mouths of the men who created it directly, no middle man. While the Mario music played in the background, I dug in. Each page contained a picture of a Mario game in the main series, and there are 10 in all. Below the box art are quotes from Iwata, Miyamoto, and Kondo capsulizing one distinct memory from the game.

These quotes were very short, and one sentence long...No interesting stories were told, and no fun insights on the game. No tales of trial and tribulation while developing it, no team quarrels, nothing...I would say there is more detail given from Punxsutawney Phil every groundhogs day than what this book contained. Sure, there were ancient early drawings of the game by Miyamoto and apparently they wanted to give Mario a weapon and have up on the D-pad be jump which was interesting and it would have been nice to hear their thoughts on that more, but no we just have to interpret that they chose not to do those things because they knew it would suck.

The quotes probably annoy me most of all. Iwata has nothing very interesting to say as he was never really part of the team that helped create these games. Miyamoto's quotes usually brought up one interesting challenge he had making the game, or something new he wanted to showcase. That was nice, but it leaves you wanting to know more. Kondo has the worst quotes of all as he literally repeats some of what he says between games. His early quotes are just him being annoyed with the tech limitations and how he got around them, and then after that he's just happy that he can do percussion...We get it Kondo, percussion is a great addition to music in gaming.

As I flipped the last page, I sat back and let the music from the CD finish. A song had just ended and I awaited the next tune. I awaited the amazing amount of percussion to fill the room that Kondo went on and on about...but instead I was greeted with a single noise. A Mario sound effect. Then I was greeted with another, and other, then the game over tune, and another sound effect. 10 sound effects later and the CD had ended. It was under 30 minutes long in total. So not only did they only use a fraction I can't even calculate on the game disc for 1 SNES port, they didn't even bother filling up the CD with more music. They used ONE song for each of the 10 main games. Why? They could have gotten away with 2 per game and still had CD space to spare.

So in UNDER a half hour I had gone through what Nintendo considers 25 years worth of Mario history. The extras were pathetic, poor excuses, an absolute shame. It's clear Nintendo doesn't care about Mario in the same way its fans do. I was born alongside this character, grew up with him on my TV, and while I had no hand in his creation I imagine I could have drummed up better extras within 24 hours of planning than the projected 25 years Nintendo had to plan this anniversary collection if they wanted.

The game itself is even more a slap in the face. Again, it's just a port of the SNES game which contains 4 games Mario 1-3, and Lost Levels which is the real Super Mario Brothers 2 that Japan got, but we just got Doki Doki Panic with Mario characters (our Super Mario 2). The sad thing is, Nintendo had released Super Mario All Stars + at the end of the SNES life. The "+" is in reference to the additional game of Super Mario World that was added into the collection. Did we get that port? Nope...no Mario World on this disc.

The game could have been so much more. It could have had Mario World, it could have had his Game Boy adventures of Mario Land. It could have had Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine with Wii controls. That would have been a great 25th anniversary, that would do Mario justice. Sad to say that Sega has actually outdone Nintendo at something. For Sonic's anniversary we got something pretty special. The Sonic Ultimate Collection on the PS3 or Xbox 360 contains 40 Genesis games, and most notably all the Sonic games. 40 games, and it is $20. Nintendo on the other hand gives us 4 games, for $30. The very idea that Sega managed to do something right over Nintendo boggles my mind and I never thought I would even say it. It's sadly true.

Maybe I'll live to see Mario's 50th anniversary and they'll celebrate it by making a disc with Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 on one disc, with a CD that contains two songs total, and a booklet with pictures of space in it. Get on that Nintendo, you got 25 years to make it happen!

*gets CD and plays the "game over" tune*

PS: I know the box art pic is in French, but that was on purpose. I don't understand French and I really don't understand this decision by Nintendo.

I've Been Digging Around...

Oh.

Hi there, I've been gone a while. That is because there is an indie game that has been taking the Internet by storm and that has taken my life over. That game is Minecraft.

If you have not heard of the game, allow me to enlighten you. The game started development in 2009 by Markus "Notch" Persson. Released to the public in a pre-alpha state, and having just hit the beta stage in December 2010, the game has hit ONE MILLION total sales just last month.

Now this popular game must have the sweetest graphics and you will need a high end computer to play, one might ask.

No and yes. The beauty of this game is the look and the feel of the game. It is a 3D open sandbox block game about construction and I could leave it at that because there is currently no story or goal to the game yet, but why has something so seemingly simple attracted so many fans?

It's the detail within the game. You start off plopped on a map during the day. The map in the game is randomly generated and infinate. Hope that you are spawned near some trees because that is one of the first things you need to harvest. Once you harvest the lumber, you can then craft it into wooden planks, and from there you can craft a crafting table.

From there you need to craft a wooden pick axe and find some coal to harvest to make torches and a small fort before the day is through because at night, zombies, spiders and other enimies will sneak up on you with little to no warning.

You continue a pattern of building during the day and digging during the night. You can find iron, gold, and diamond to craft with. and there are way more building materials than I would like to list on this blog.

You can also find Red Dust, which is used to make circuts and even make your own traps. The level of though that has gone into this game is insane. One can only wonder what will be added to the final version.

Speaking of the final version, Notch ended up forming his own company and hired people to help him develop the game.

The beauty of the game is you are in control of the design of the city and the what you want to add. It's even better when you log on to a multiplayer server. Getting to see and interact with others creations gives inspirations on what you can do.

What did I do last week? I make a hockey arena. The week before? A skyscraper. Before that? spent 6 days explore a cave system that was naturally formed under my city. What have I seen others do? Oh, how about making a Cake Dispenser of DEATH! (awesome I know)

While the game is still in development, Notch is giving a discount to those how purchase the beta. which I belive still clocks in under $20. This is $20 that will be well invested. So have fun and check it out. I got more digging to do.

Burnout Paradise - All Burnt Out

I just recently got into the racing game scene again thanks mostly to some killer Steam deals, (seriously if you're not using Steam and you are a PC gamer there is something very wrong with you). I used to play all manner of racing games, most of my N64 game library is racing games for some very strange reason.

Each new racing game I got though always seemed worse than the last. I was constantly disappointed with games like Top Gear, some RC Car racing game I got, and a few other racing sim games that I can't remember the names of at the moment. I noticed the only racing games I was actually enjoying were from Nintendo like F-Zero, Mario Kart, and Wave Race. That bothered me a bit and made me wonder if I actually like racing games at all or do I just like the wacky fun of Nintendo games instead. So through the whole Game Cube/PS2 era and even this current gen I didn't bother with any racing games for fear I would continue to be disappointed.

But I knew I loved the chase, perfecting time attack scores, edging out a narrow win on the final lap, and so on. All of those things I knew I enjoyed from F-Zero and Mario Kart but I could never find that satisfaction in any other racer.

Teleport to today and a lovely string of Steam deals that let me get Grid, Dirt 2, and Burnout Paradise all for under $25 total. I started off with Grid and immediately fell in love. I would do a review of Grid or Dirt 2, but those games are such a perfect mix of arcade/sim that it would just be nothing but gushing.

Enter Burnout Paradise, a game that I have oddly logged more time into than either Grid or Dirt 2 and yet I feel it to be quite inferior to both of those.

Graphics:

Not too shabby in the looks department. The cars are shiny, sleek, and overall very pretty. The landscape could use some work although I can't run this game at max settings so that could be my fault. It just seems to lack decent lighting effects all around, though, again that could just be my mid-range computer. What is dumb is I can run Grid and Dirt 2 at max and they look way better than Burnout...optimization EA...optimization...

Sound:

This game has a very large selection of music, mostly stuff I hate, but all of it is quite fitting for this game. Many times a song will pop up at the most opportune moments and makes me smile like crazy. Like if I'm in a mission where I have to wreck X number of cars I'll get some awesome Beethoven track to go with it perfectly.

The car noises themselves aren't as apparent, at least not when compared to Grid or Dirt 2. I don't sense the "umph" in these vehicles as much as I think I could have with some proper effects. No matter, the sounds of cars smattering together are pretty good though.

Gameplay:

I admit I really should have looked into what this game was before buying it a little better. I was not aware in the slightest that this game is an open world, free roaming racing game. I really wish I had been aware though, because this is really not the type of racing game for me.

The setup is you're the car in one large city, and you travel to intersections which all house an event of some kind. The events are, standard race, stunts, marked man, and crash other cars. There are a TON of events, but the main issue is each one is essentially the same after a few hours of play. Where in most racing games the variety comes in the courses you get, Burnout has one course, a large city. The gameplay itself is very good. The cars go very fast, fly far, and you get crazy awesome boosts and crashes are satisfying.

The city is covered in ramps, and you can do extra things like hunt down and destroy billboards, or find all the hidden areas and extra cars, but that tends to get boring. Again the main issue I have is the severe lack of tracks as I was not aware what type of game this was going in.

Let's break down the events for a moment. In the standard races there are many starting points, but only 5 total end points. So you will see the same checkered flag over...and over...and over...The only upside is you can choose how you get there and what streets you take and what shortcuts you want to use. The game gives you suggestions, and honestly what the game says to do is usually always the best route. Following the path you want though can become annoying as you constantly have to pause the action to check your map...lame!

What is worse, is in the marked man event you get the SAME 5 end points, they never change. In marked man cars are out to kill you and you have to get to one of the 5 end points before you die 3 times. It's fun...but again it feels exactly the same as a racing event minus the AI blood-lust with the exact same 5 end areas.

The wrecking cars event is probably the most fun though. It's stupidly simple to wreck cars and always satisfying. I have no issues with this honestly. Except that I always won it so early and the game doesn't stop until the time runs out even though you reached your allotted wreck amount. So I end up pissing away two minutes actively avoiding cars, because wrecking them GAINS you 10 more seconds!

The worst events are the stunts. You have to get lucky to win these I think. The scores you have to set are SO high after a while, and the time you get is VERY small. You have to chain your stunts for the entire amount of time to win really. But the problem with doing that is how easy it is to wreck in this game ruining your combo. The issue with chaining a combo is you have to maintain stunts consistently, or use your boosts. Of course, doing this makes you drive recklessly, and at high speeds cars tend to pop out of nowhere effectively ending a combo.

There are certain stunt areas though that make getting a high score REALLY easy as it essentially sets you right in front of multipliers and super jumps in one long strip. Other stunt areas leave you with next to nothing, and often I find myself hunting down that long strip of awesome wasting half my timer in doing so. Thankfully, as long as you maintain a chain without wrecking the timer is meaningless. You can stay on 0:00 forever really as you get a "Final" streak if you will, to get more points.

Doing events allows you to increase your license and get more cars essentially. The goal, I guess, is to get the best license possible. Each license has an incremental goal. At first you have to succeed at a few events of your choice then you upgrade. Then the events reset so you can do them again for your next upgrade, however you have to do more this time. So not only do you end up racing to the same checkered flag ALL the time, you end up doing the EXACT same events over and over again.

Conclusion:

Now I won't lie when I say I did have fun with this game. It is the kind of game that made me do that thing where I'm like "Just one more event then I'll quit," except I wouldn't quit. But it has an empty sort of fun to it. While playing I would stop and reflect on what I'm actually doing, and realizing I've "been here, done that" a good dozen times and try to understand why I'm still doing it. Just because I have 13 events left for the next license? What for? New tracks don't unlock, there are only a few more cars left to get, and what happens when I do that? I looked into it...nothing happens. You get the best license...and that's it. Game is done. And it doesn't even take all that long to do. Maybe 12 hours or so of grinding the same events constantly and that's it.

I mean the game is even shorter if you're not a tard like me and kept playing. You do a few of each event, jump a few things, hit a few billboards...crash a car or two...and then that's it. You have now experienced everything Burnout has to offer save for unlocking all the vehicles. That's why I say I got an empty feeling playing the game after an hour...because I've done it all already and yet I'm still doing it.

Is that the mark of a good game, or me feeling guilty that I paid $14 for a game that only took me an hour to really do what I wanted in it so I kept playing anyway knowing there weren't any more goals to set? I don't have an answer to that, but it is a functional game in its own right. Sadly though it really feels like a chore doing the same events over and over for seemingly no real reason chasing after some vague goal that barely exists.

*just one more event*

The Witcher Review

The Witcher 2 is nearing its release so I figure I should get my thoughts out about the first game that I just started playing again a few weeks ago. I obtained it on a steam deal for $6.00 and I must say...I feel quite ripped off.

The Witcher is everything that is wrong with Western RPG development, and doesn't do what Western RPG's do right either. It is possibly the worst game I have ever played in my life and I don't say that lightly. There are only a handful of games that I haven't completed on the account of I hated it. The Witcher not only joins that elusive club, but is probably its new king.

From the setting, to the battle system, to item management, characters, enemy behavior, spells, crafting, and especially the quests themselves, the Witcher manages to get every single one of these wrong.

Graphics:

Going into an RPG I care about this the least of all. But the Witcher doesn't disappoint in being flawed so hard that even I can't ignore the issues it has in the graphics department. Firstly, for a next gen title of its time, it looks really bad. Look no further than the main character himself. No detail to be found, and the hair....oh the hair just stands out like a sore thumb. Not since Vaan's abs in Final Fantasy 12 have I ever not been able to ignore a character feature before for just how bad it looks. It sticks out long, no texture, just white draped over his head like someone forgot to finish it...ugh!

And the NPC's are worse in that there are MAYBE 6 different models? You see the same character model everywhere unless they're a main character with lines. You have one dwarf type, one fat merchant, an old guy, hookers, and some sparse peasants and kids. I was always one to joke and comment about Oblivion re-using character models like crazy, but the Witcher goes overboard here.

Sound:

For me it's important for an RPG to have not only good voice acting, but a great soundtrack. The Witcher has neither. The voice acting is muted and uncaring. The main character Geralt is expressionless, never getting angry or sad, and simply never caring at all. Why is he even ON this quest? He doesn't give a shit ever and neither does the voice actor.

The music is less poor, but still terrible. The main theme plays way too much, and I think mainly because they didn't have enough money to pay for a variety of tunes. The other songs drain on you since the game makes you spend too much time in one area too long.

Story:

I actually began playing this game the moment I got it from the Steam sale which was about a year ago now. The story is a bit hazy for me so I took a look at the wiki to refresh my mind. Sure enough the wiki highlights just what is wrong with the plot perfectly enough. Geralt is a Witcher, loses his memory after awakening from death...(Jesus?) and generally heals people that can't be healed by normal means...(really...Jesus?). He's held up with a band of other Witchers who allow themselves to be robbed by a Mage and a pack of thugs.

How the sequence plays out if I remember correctly is just god awful. They had every chance to stop them from stealing their shit, but they don't and instead talk with them...at length...while they're stealing shit...and they go through a portal and oooohhh no....couldn't stop them....*snaps fingers* Shouldn't have been talking with them all that time...

So the quest for the game is to...get your shit back and probably Geralt's memory in the process, but really who cares (read character section).

As I said I didn't finish this game, but I can't really comment any further on the story either. Even though I plugged maybe 20 hours into this shit-fest the game NEVER brought up any key story points from then on! Oh, except for Geralt fucking anything with two legs, which hilariously if you read the Wiki plot synopsis it DOES actually mention every time Geralt is to be fucked in the plot...why? Probably because that's the only interesting thing going on while he's fetch questing....oh yes....there's fetch questing more than I have ever, EVER seen.

Gameplay:

Fetch Questing:

So the gameplay...err...I mean Fetch Questing of this game is trash. You sword fight by clicking on your enemy, then timing further clicks highlighted by the sword icon to increase your combo. That's it! Oh, yeah there is magic too...that's the right click. Magic varies from stunning enemies...to stunning a group of enemies...to setting them on fire...or casting a protect spell.

But the combat is so incredibly basic it doesn't allow for any strategy to develop at all. If you're weaker you lose, stronger you win, the end. You can't guard anything you want, dodge anything you want. All you can do is stand there and either get beat up, or beat things up. The game gives three stances, strong, fast, and group. You pick strong stance to fight...strong things....fast to attack...fast things....and group to attack....many things...What imagination employed here!

Leveling up involves going to a fireplace to meditate and place skill points where you want. Traditional things here, nothing special, moving on.

So outside of battling what actually takes up ALL your time in this game? Why fetch-questing of course. Fetch questing of the HIGHEST order, the worst kind of all. These are the kinds of fetch quests that BREED more fetch questing. What's worse is they are ALL boring, ALL tedious, and ALL encompassing of what you do in this game.

I will take an actual in game scenario and describe it to you. Let me know if you think this is fun:

In one quest you have to find this one chick in a hospital during the day to get her to do an autopsy, she tells you to meet with her in her house at night. Please note how HORRENDOUSLY tedious it is to change to night as you have to find a fireplace and there's only one and it's on the other side of town. Then travel back to her house which is guarded by an old lady who has random things to say and over half of them AUTOMATICALLY sends you back out of her house for NO reason. Once you MANAGE to get in and talk to the chick upstairs she agrees to do the autopsy...but you're not done. You have to learn about how to do an autopsy first and find the gravedigger....but the gravedigger doesn't show up at night! So you have to change it back to daytime....(note I gave up researching autopsies as I couldn't figure out how) then you find the gravedigger and ask for the corpse you need....except he wants Dwarven Booze first....which you get from the tavern. Travel to the tavern and buy some Dwarven Booze (though none of the liquor is labeled "Dwarven Booze" you have to make a shitty guess or buy all the booze). Then return it to the gravedigger who gives you the corpse. You then meet the chick who now wants you to go to the hospital at night (GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!!) ....find fireplace, make it night now...and THEN do the autopsy.

Was that fun? Did you enjoy that? I hope you did because the above describes EVERYTHING you do in this game from start to finish. Below is a rough chart describing quests in this game:

"I need a rare flower" "Well sir you've come to the right place....except I need "X" thing first. Go see "X" guy to give me "X" thing." You meet "X" guy. "Hello, sure I'll give you "X" thing as long as you give me "Y" thing. To get "Y" thing go kill 10 "X" enemies." Kill 10 "X" enemies. Give to "Y" guy who gives you "X" thing. Give "X" thing to "X" guy who gives you a rare flower.

(note the above scenario does not include switching from night to day, or dying from encountering enemies you're not supposed to fight yet...)

Oh right! Did I mention that at any point in the game you will come accross enemies you're not supposed to fight yet? I didn't? Well in this game you will often come across enemies you can't defeat, die trying, and have to start from wherever you saved last to continue the fetch quest. My personal experience with this occurrence was as follows:

"Oh look, a giant red plant. I have defeated the giant green plants this should be no troub-LEWTFBULLSHITISTHIS??" .....*dead*....

So there you have it, The Witcher. Enough fetch questing to choke a horse (which you don't get in the game) and WTFBULLSHITISTHIS moments where you die immediately.

The worst part about this fetch questing is how you are often not told what to do. For instance in the example I mentioned, you are NOT told the gravedigger can only be found in the morning, or how to start the quest the chick cannot be found during the night in the hospital. You are not told where to get Dwarven Booze, and you are NEVER told where the research materials for autopsies are. Many quests like this you have to make shitty guesses.

What's worse is ONLY the main quests have a tracking marker on the map and even the tracking marker is bullshit. It will point you to a place, but often not update appropriately causing you to flounder around the red dot until you come to your senses like me and shut the damn game off.

Inventory:

So...much....shit. There's SO much shit in this game. 95% of the shit you get is ingredients to make MORE shit. Pretty much just potions to heal or buff stats, nothing special. What is retarded is you have to go to a damn fireplace every time you want to make something. WHY? And your inventory fills up VERY quick, so why can't I just make shit on the fly to get more space?

But really, everything gives you something. Plants that grow, enemies defeated, bushes, mushrooms, hundreds of types and sizes. Ridiculousness. And you always have to either find a fireplace to clear up inventory, or an innkeep to store your shit, or a merchant to sell your shit. Oh, the WORST thing is you have to find the RIGHT fatass merchant to sell specific things. Like a flower merchant won't buy Gold Rings you find, or the Tavern will ONLY buy your food and booze. That is ANNOYING. If I want to turn a profit on my collectibles I shouldn't have to seek out every single merchant in town to do so.

Oh, and the worst part about your inventory is you can only carry 3 weapons. You can never sell weapons without actually removing them from some of your slots either. So turning a profit off weapons is nigh impossible because you don't have inventory space to carry shitty ones for selling. You literally end up dropping weapons and picking up better ones on the go without being able to reap money off an old one.

Characters:

If you haven't stopped playing yet, and actually want to see who you're fighting for well then meet Geralt, your hero the Witcher.

Geralt is the only character you get to relate with outside of a slew of side characters that come and go as the game goes on. Geralt has no memory, rose from the dead, but unlike Jesus he's an asshole. Not just an asshole, but one that fucks every female he can. Any time you have a conversation with an NPC chick you will see and option to fuck her, and sometimes it is done on accident. Once, I banged a chick not knowing that would be the outcome of the option "how are you today?"*cue porno music* So this is the hero, this is the guy, an apathetic monotone amnesiac nymphomaniac who can't block attacks...Really, that's it. That is Geralt, that is your hero...

Conclusion:

I couldn't continue this game for any reason. The fetch questing, the constant fuck scenes, the incompetent battle system, gathering of ingredients to make potions that I NEVER gave a fuck about, the abominable and unforgiving night/day system, the inventory...nothing was fun about this game. Not one thing kept me those 20 hours save the idea that something interesting MIGHT happen, but it never did. I don't care if the game somehow got better in the story department later on, dealing with those fetch quests wasn't worth it, and will never be worth it. The story would have to change the very foundation of my moral fiber to swath through the unending number of NPC characters I have to barter with each and every quest.

You know how in most Zelda games there is a fetch quest? A quest where you trade random shit to different NPC's like 12 times until you end up with either the greatest sword or armor in the game? Those are fun for two reasons. First, you get something amazing at the end, and second...you do it ONE FUCKING TIME. Not through the whole game, but ONCE! The END! Here's the BEST SWORD IN THE FUCKING GAME for putting up with our stupid fetch quest bullshit. But in the Witcher? Here's 150 Orens (money) for that hour of running around we made you do...uh...thanks?

*100xp for fucking a whore*
(I only wish I could obtain xp that way)

Zen Pinball Review

As a kid I used to see arcades nearly everywhere, in malls, just down the street, various arcade cabinets in Pizza parlors and restaurants, Chucky Cheese, and so on. Walking in you would hear various noises, screaming kids, music from rhythm games, ski ball, "hadoken!", or my personal favorite the sounds from the pinball tables. They drew me in every time, the lights, the bells and whistles, crappy voice overs when you did something well.


Even when I was too short to actually play these games I knew I loved them. They were so simple in concept yet so complex in execution. One silver ball, two paddles, and an endless score cap, this was the ultimate test of skill and endurance and it was alive. Not housed in a digital realm like the video games I was used to, not bound by lines of code, nor a set boss attack pattern to remember, these games were in reality boasted high speeds and ate money like nothing else. Legends were born and died on the high score board, initials were more than just people, they were gods!

Enter the future, where arcades are dead and pinball machines are relics of a forgotten past. Here we have Zen Pinball, an indie studio pinball game that came out some years back and their more recent affair Marvel Pinball. It has been quite a long time since anyone took on the virtual pinball world which took over from the arcades in the 90's. There was a long era of gaming where you couldn't go two months without another virtual pinball sim game, and more recently we would see maybe two or three a year all lackluster, all rather terrible. But Zen studios breaks the mold, they go full force, balls forward if you will. They GET Pinball, and know what makes it so great.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt these are my favorite downloadable games on PSN. Probably because I have a bias toward pinball in general as my above gushing of its history in my youth suggests, but also that these games from Zen are just really, really well made.

Graphics:

I have played probably every digital pinball game in existence at least on the PC and really dated titles on the NES and handheld systems and Zen/Marvel Pinball are the best looking pinball games I have ever seen. The ball is shiny and reflective, the boards are vibrant with color and lights, and the ball itself zooms with a tail to help track its movement and speed. Every table has a theme and the graphics reflect that theme all the way down to the paddles you use. From V-12's engine, to the red planet of the Mars table everything looks fantastic. There are some MINOR moments of frame hiccups when big events happen on a few tables, but it really doesn't hinder play as the ball is usually out of play during these sequences.

Also, I really love that they allow you so many options on these tables. You get 7 different views of the table to pick from, and you are allowed to show the score or not of everything you hit on-screen. So if you hit a ramp or anything you'll see a number like "5,000" in yellow pop up. Some people hate to see this some like it, but Zen let's you pick and that is quite rare in this day and age of gaming.

Sound:

The music for these games go from terrible to amazing and the voice acting is always bad, but really that's just a mark of a great pinball game to me. The music isn't that important though as Zen allows you the option to insert your own music to play during these long sessions of pinball madness. The sounds of the ball hitting things on the table is perfect, and hearing the ball roll around gives weight to it as well.

Gameplay:

Ah, the most important part of any virtual pinball game is how it plays. I have played so many I can tell the immediate pitfalls developers make. Many make the ball too floaty, have bad camera selections, targets that make the ball drain to the side immediately without fail, and just plain awful graphics.

Zen makes none of these mistakes. They clearly made a "video" pinball game though, and I am fine with that. The physics aren't perfect, but they are consistent. They made a fast and tight pinball game with many unrealistic tables. Tesla is a good example wherein one mission the ball becomes magnetized and sticks to other balls causing a whirring of Tesla science! Or the mechanics of the table in general where suddenly you're not using flippers but magnets to bounce the ball around.

Practically none of these tables could be played in real life, but that's exactly what makes these games fantastic video pinball games. Purists harp on how video pinball games should be as close to real life as possible, and to that I argue why? Why make something real life already has? That's kinda the point of video games, to be imaginative and fun. Let me tell you, these tables are not short on imagination. Every table presents new and fun challenges to overcome. Difficult shots and tight timing are paramount in every table. Learning every nook and cranny is very important to last and reach a new high score.

Comparisons:

If you're on the PSN though and you're wondering which set of tables to get either the Zen original or Marvel tables I would of course urge you to get both but here are the differences. The original tables come with 4 initially, V-12, Tesla, Shaman, and El Dorado. All are great, and this game has MANY DLC tables Street Fighter, Ninja Gaiden, Earth Defense, Mars, Excalibur, and Paranormal. These are also all great tables, and you can't get them through the Marvel pinball package.

However, the old Zen tables are not presented nearly as well as the Marvel tables. For one, you have to be online to see your scores, you only get ONE high score instead of the usual top 10 scores that I am used to for pinball, and the loading is atrocious. I mean it takes a solid minute to load up a table on this game. Marvel doesn't have these issues. You get a top 10 local leader board, also your online friends combine to form what is called a "hero" score. The higher scores you and your friends have all add up to give you a personal hero score. Ultimately the more friends you have the higher your score, but your personal scores matter too. It's an interesting concept and something that wasn't employed in the first game.

On the Marvel side you get 4 tables and DLC is incoming. Wolverine, Spiderman, Ironman, and Blade are the first 4 and all of them are great. My favorite is the Wolverine table so far though. This will probably be the set Zen supports in the future as we'll see Captain America, and probably the Hulk tables soon. Either choice is a good one, but I do prefer the new interface of the Marvel tables.

The best part is what a value these tables are. I remember paying $9.99 at Best Buy for the last PC pinball game I ever got called Fantastic Journey. It was ONE table...and not a very good one either. With Zen you get 4 tables for $9.99, and the DLC tables are only $2.50. For me, I put countless hours into each one, lost days at a time to just the Tesla table alone. The value is astounding if you're a pinball nut, and won't break the bank if you're casually interested.

So don't hesitate to give these a try if you've ever been interested in pinball or disappointed by years of crappy digital pinball offerings of the past.

*lock is lit!*

Game Companies or "Game Companies"?

A recent article on IGN.com sparked my curiosity on marketing and shift in business interest in this current generation of gaming. Between the PS3 and Xbox 360, recently we are being told that these systems are NOT gaming consoles but are instead "something more." More specifically both consoles are trying to become the centerpieces of the family entertainment center through increasingly more and more complex add-ons and marketing.

The reasoning behind this is simple and no more noteworthy than a fast food chain offering a new sandwich with "apple wood bacon" or "mountain jack cheese." Will the sandwich taste incredibly different than what was offered before? Doubtful. But the goal is clear, to draw in new customers, and clearly members of the gaming community are being told again and again that we are not worth it anymore. Our community is too small to keep up with the ever expanding game industry it seems.

With the additions of Kinect and Sony's Move, gamers of yesteryear are becoming all but obsolete as gaming companies strive to collect anyone remaining no matter what demographic category that person falls into. Both companies following in Nintendo's footsteps have realized the gaming community as it was, was far too small and largely unprofitable. Once Nintendo opened the floodgates of the market to nearly any demographic, Sony and Microsoft took note and are now scratching and clawing their way to appeal to those new groups as much as humanly possible.

The question, and problem I'm dealing with is will this lead to the downfall of gaming as we know it? It's really looking that way. Both Sony and Microsoft are outwardly against calling their machine a gaming system all of the sudden. Not more than 3 or 4 mere years ago they were fighting tooth and nail at how many exclusive games they had, and which system had more power and how the Blu-Ray format would fail. On and on they went, but here we are in 2011 and all they can argue about is who got Netflix and Hulu on their system first. Which has an internet browser, and which can play Blu-Ray movies. Which system can be voice activated and sans a controller.

These are not gaming movements by any means, and profitability will drive their futures. Is it more profitable to produce games like Dead Space, or video chat apps for Kinect? That's what developers will ask, and are asking. The answer if obvious for anyone following the likes of Nintendo and Pop-Cap games. But it's further escalated when these two companies are now trying to take over the hub of entertainment itself.

What's worse is consumers are buying into it and wasting their money. A decent PC off the line at HP or Dell can do what any video game console can do and much more. However, PC's don't advertise themselves like game consoles. HP or Dell won't say our PC is not a PC like game companies say our game system is not a game system. I believe that's what irks me most about this recent marketing affair. They are going so far to stray away from the idea that the PS3 or Xbox 360 actually plays video games, they almost seem to cringe at the idea that they do in fact play games.

I think the main issue I take from this is not only the idea that I and my fellow gaming community cohorts are no longer required, but the idea that Sony and Microsoft are falling into a shallow place of a cliched phrase "Jack of all trades, masters of none." Currently, both systems house credible third party titles that further push the boundaries of gaming any way they can but it's becoming less and less prevalent over the years.

Developers are closing their doors faster and faster, changing names, merging with larger developers, and normally making one game then vanishing forever. Many of them now are profiting through games on Facebook, or cell phone games to outweigh losses through making big budget games. The day is coming when these developers no longer see the need for the big budget title at all, and that may be coming sooner than we think.

Not to mention gaming is getting more and more dependent on sequels as companies become more wary on what games will bring a return and what games won't. After Nier and The World Ends with You Square openly said they would not be doing any new IP's in the forseeable future as both games sold poorly (but both were infinitely better than Final Fantasy 11, 12, 13 and 14 combined). They also just approved future game names such as Final Fantasy 13-2 and Final Fantasy Type-0, Type-1, and Type-2. What the holy hell is this? How far into sequel and prequel naming do we have to get to before people realize these games are terrible now?

Beyond that we're into so many new iterations of Call of Duty and Rock Band, and World of Warcraft expansions that they stopped numbering them all-together. Most games of a series have reached the 5's and 6's and those numbers are growing fast. Soon there won't be any creative eye driving gaming, there will only be one game to classify a genre much in the way EA did with Madden in the football sim game genre. You better love Call of Duty, because soon that may be the only series able to financially hold it's own in the first person shooter genre in the future.

...or the genre will be reduced to an Iphone app where you click on your friends and a video pops up of them pretending to be shot...then you see a "+10" added to your score.
^^^patent pending^^^

*Change is scary...ever see Lincoln on the penny? His eye is following me!*

Vanquish Review

Vanquish is a hard game to review. The score can vary wildly on perception. For instance, if your perception of a good video game must include multiplayer/be longer than 5 hours/have some co-op/has a cohesive story/likable characters, then Vanquish is probably not a game you'd want to throw $60 at.

However if you love heart stopping, break neck speed action games with flawless mechanics and a perfect interface then Vanquish has that in spades.


Story/Characters:

This game is the very definition of Japanese developers trying to have a plot/characters that appeal to western audiences and failing miserably at it. The main character Sam Gideon just got a cool new suit from this professor dude and they're looking for any excuse to test it out. Luckily, the Russians attack America with a super space death ray, they threaten to use it again unless America surrenders, and bamph we have a mission!

Other characters of note are the main villain who has a super suit as well, the American president (who is female and apparently has no advisers around her somehow), a chick that sends you maps and provides intel (I seriously forgot her name, lol), and one gruff war veteran with an arm cannon called Burns.

Sam is the exact kind of character Japanese developers will think western audiences will love. He smokes, he's defiant, and goes out of his way to save everyone. Sadly, there's really nothing else to him. He has no memorable lines, and never says anything funny or witty. Everything he says is to service the further progression of the game and that's it.

**spoilers***
The story itself is so super basic it makes Mass Effect look like it was penned by Stephen King. Not that I expected an actual story, but it would have been nice to feel involved in it somewhat. The game provides the usual Japanese twist of "oh I'm actually EVIL! and not on your side at all! (Burns)" and it comes off just as believable as any Metal Gear game which is not at all, in the slightest.

The worst part is how Sam reacts to this as after Burns makes an attempt on his life, Sam's only concern is Burn's continued safety after he has been riddled with Sam's bullets...and this is ALSO after Sam's dejected reaction to Burns killing off an entire squadron of his own marines because they had to lock down that area of the space station due to a breach. A sensible act by Burns, but Sam's "gotta save em' all" attitude abhors this action. But it's ok Burns, Sam is like a puppy and will stop hating you immediately.

Dear Japanese Developers,

Americans do not understand how a person can suddenly care about the person who just tried to murder them two seconds ago. We much prefer to kill the fuck out of them without remorse; dirty traitorous bastards.

PS - We also don't allow Presidents to be alone in a dark room making sinister deals with Russians after a full scale attack. Seriously, after something like that the President would be lucky to take a piss on their own.

**end spoilers**

Gameplay:

Let's be honest, the story doesn't matter, the characters don't matter, the logic doesn't matter. In a game like this the gameplay is all that is important right? I guess I'm having one of those moments where I want cake and be able to eat it too. This game can be closest compared to Gears of War in terms of gameplay and while that game severely lacked in story and characters too it was at least comprehensible and was somewhat engaging. You felt something in Gears rather than nothing which is the case with Vanquish.

But where Vanquish excels is in gameplay and makes Gears of War look like an old man on crutches. Really though, Vanquish is Gears of War on crack essentially. You get to use cover every five feet, the aiming/shooting is the same and so on. What makes Vanquish as good as it is though is the ability to rocket slide and go into bullet time which combined makes for some awesome amount of addictive fun. The bullet time is no gimmick either as you are penalized for overusing it. Your suit can give out and leave you vulnerable and without rocket slide, a slower dodge roll, no more bullet time, and an increased chance of dying. So it's really fun to use these options on the fly, and with this game you are ALWAYS on the fly.

The interface is another aspect I'd like to point out. It's downright flawless really. Usually I have two or three issues with how the control scheme is for a game but this one does everything very well. There is just ONE gripe I have and that's trying to revive allies. You do this with Square/whatever it is on xbox. But that same button also puts you into cover. So if an ally dies near a wall good luck reviving him, chances are you'll butt hump the wall a few times before you do.

My biggest gripe with the combat though is the melee attacks. The issue here is they use up your suit juice like slowing down time and rocket sliding does. And it would be fine if it used it incrementally like the aforementioned suit juicing abilities do, but when you hit ONE dude with a melee attack all of the sudden you're overheating immediately. WHY? It makes melee attacks completely useless. You may as well forget you even have that button honestly.

Online/Multiplayer:

As mentioned before, this game has no multiplayer and that may be an issue for some people. But I mention it has online because what this game does mainly is allow you to rack up high scores and see your rankings online. So it's a glorified arcade style "lol I have more points than you do" competition. But I put this in my review because I would like to tell you how awful it is. Just like in Bayonetta another Platinum game, you absolutely cannot see your rankings online. They just don't work, they will not appear no matter how much loading occurs. Not for me at least. I can sit there for hours on both games and nothing will ever show up. How hard could it possibly be to create a functional ranking system?

I have Zen Pinball an indie pinball game on the PSN its ranking scoreboards work perfectly. Ninja Gaiden DS has one, it works perfectly. So the fault cannot be on my end as I have countless games with online rankings and can view all of them except Platinum's games.

Lastability:

Make no mistake, this game is 5 hours long tops. I beat it in nearly under 4 hours. For me the game is fun enough to warrent multiple playthroughs on many difficulties, but that varies by person. All it has other than that are challenge rooms to play, of which from what I can see there are only 6.

Final Thoughts:

I grew up in an era where games were 8 levels long and you paid $50 for them but if the game was fun enough that didn't matter. However, gamers expectations have changed over the years and while I still consider this game to be worth it, many will not. So, for Vanquish's sake what they've done here is essentially a disaster not allowing for co-op or any sort of multiplayer or not even making the game longer or adding additional bits of fun. This is literally a bare bones game with 5 Acts, that's it. It screams rental and while I'd suggest to buy it if only to prove to the Gears of War creators that rehashing gameplay and not evolving to Vanquish standards isn't something gamers are going to accept anymore, I can't with a clear head recommend purchasing a game any normal gamer would play once then move on.

*Rocket slide > Rocketman*

Tigger the Highlander

This has nothing to do with video games. But in a podcast Kyle and I did once we made reference to Tigger being a Highlander of sorts, below is the fruit of our random banter.

What is a Video Game?

A while back I defended the notion that video games are indeed art. However, I have noticed that in my posts I often poke fun at and even coined a term "Cagms" to video games that I do not classify as video games. What makes these games less than what I perceive are actual video games? And am I right or wrong in my assessment?

What a video game is:

A video game as defined by webster "an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action." Ok, so by that definition anything played on a screen with a user interface must be a video game. But what about emphasizing fast action? Chess and Solitare can be played on a computer are they video games? Does their board game origin nullify any chance of them ever being called a video game? And does their lack of "fast action" dictate they can never be video games? Personally I would consider Chess more of a video game than Solitare or even the "Cagms" I make mention of. Simply because it defines the idea of strategy in a 1 vs 1 competition. Because it can be played in real life or on screen is irrelevant to me, the game itself has tiers of skill involved and isn't mindless repetition. So I guess my definition would have to include that "lack of mindless repetition," clause.

I don't care for the definition as defined by webster, but who am I to define something? At its core that is what a video game is defined as, right down to those lazy flash games that are programmed as a lame college project. Even those horrible item finding games old women buy for their computer to pass the time would be called a "video game."

What video games should be:

I believe there should be a classification for "Cagms" which are video games created for the casual video game player. It would separate at least to some degree what video games are and what they should be. They shouldn't be "Cagms" and it's unfortunate the industry has come to rely on these.

Here is where it gets interesting however. I consider a "Cagm" to be Bejeweled, however I do not consider Tetris or Dr. Mario to be cagms. Why is this? Both are puzzle games, both are meant for the player to seek a high score, both employ pretty colors with bright lights and sounds, so on and so on. Let's take Tetris for example. In Tetris the goal is to get as many lines at the bottom of the screen as you can with the pieces you are given. In this game you are given many choices and chances to plan ahead. You always get to see the piece you'll get next and in some cases you get to see many pieces ahead. Will you plan to stack your walls tall in hopes of achieving a Tetris or is the speed too high and you need to just make quick choices? These are the levels of thought Tetris allows. Bejeweled on the other hand is completely random. The pieces do not come down in any specified order, you cannot plan ahead in any way, there are no levels of thought to it whatsoever. You seek out pairs of 3 colored gems or more for a minute and see what your score is at the end.

This is probably best compared to a real video game by the name of Yoshi's Cookie. In Yoshi's Cookie you have to pair up 3 or more of the same cookie. You are given a static board and only get a certain number of moves. You have to carefully utilize all of your moves to clear the board. THIS is a puzzle game, this is a real video game, it makes you think!

What a game should be and what it shouldn't are what I describe above as one example. While that describes basically all casual games wherein none of them offer any levels of thought, planning, or strategy there are other games that I do not even consider video games.

World of Warcraft:

To me, World of Warcraft is not a video game. It is a fully interactive social network like Facebook. That's all it is. Nothing about World of Warcraft makes the user think about anything, you stay within the confines of your group, run around and play your role as Barbarian, Paladin, or whatever you may be. You grind constantly, and endlessly. Grant you there are worse players of this "game" and better players, but what it boils down to is ultimately who wastes more time on it. The more time you put in the game the better equipment, spells, and money you will get. But you cannot play this alone. You cannot conquer the toughest bosses without a large group of people. It cannot stand on its own and if the servers ever die it can never be experienced again.

But ultimately, what makes this a non video game to me is that this game is the epitome of mindlessness. Never before have I seen something that can shut off brains quite as well as this. I thought Diablo 2 was bad but apparently this is far worse. I do not have much to say on the matter as I have never touched it myself. I have only seen friends of mine and their friends fall victim to this plague. You may wonder why my opinion matters at all if I've never played it. Well, I'll tell you just why I've never played it.

#1. It's not a video game
#2. Endless fetch quests is not fun
#3. Grinding for levels/gear is not fun
#4. Douchebags inherit the "world" of warcraft
#5. It's a fleeting thing. It will die off eventually.
#6. Absurdly high monthly payments
#7. Battle system has no depth and you basically watch it play out
#8. Again the people on this game are nuts, ever see them at comic con or a Blizzard event?
#9. Playing this usually means you have no time for actual video games
#10. It's not a video game

Arguably one could point out that I spend way more money on multiple games than if I just played World of Warcraft. But that's just it, why would I ever want to just play World of Warcraft? It's a terrible game that I don't even classify as one. Of all the reviews I've written on seemingly fine video games with many inherent flaws, this one takes the cake as not only does it contain every flaw I abhor about today's western development of video games, people love it. Yes, I hate that 13 million people actually give Blizzard money for this tripe.

2 or 3 million people might agree that Mass Effect was fantastic and while I'd argue that they are wrong with valid points I could at the very least understand where they are coming from, and they would have valid points on why it wasn't a bad game. World of Warcraft doesn't have this ability. It's bad through and through. It excels at nothing other than forcing the user to grind away hours of their life. The only reason people play this is because of the mindless constant rewards and social aspect of it.

Conclusion:

This wasn't an article meant to ridicule World of Warcraft. There are plenty of casual games like this that hide themselves under the guise of being a real video game. That is the most notable one however. And some people who play it will actually consider themselves a "hardcore" gamer for playing it. All those people are, are addicts and not in the fun way.

Video games shouldn't be mindless. They should encourage new ideas, new methods of interactivity, fun challenges based on some fundamental game design. It is a shame a large portion of the industry relies on popular opinion for the sake of making a quick buck but I can't blame them in the end.

World of Warcraft and Bejeweled are just the beginning of a wave we're seeing now in western game science that understands how the human mind functions to get people to keep playing. The human mind doesn't like dying over and over again in real video games like Ninja Gaiden or Castlevania. I would much rather die 100 times in a row on Ninja Gaiden just for that one moment where I succeed. Those moments will always be with me, and nothing in World of Warcraft can replicate those feelings of excitement and triumph. No, these challenges are discouraging for the average person. Instead they prefer to see the ever constant rewards of World of Warcraft and Bejeweled where you're never EVER reprimanded for a bad choice or wrong click. They are the equivalent of hiring a cheap prostitute. She'll reward you as long as you pay for her, but at the end of the day what did you get out of it, where's the sense of accomplishment or fulfillment?

Definition:

With this rant I believe I can come up with some semblance of how I feel a video game should be defined. It goes as follows: Video Game: "A game that is played on a video screen offering challenges for the user to accomplish with a degree of strategy/skill and choice implementation employed ultimately fulfilling the user with a sense of accomplishment. Also, the game shouldn't suck ass!"

*Video games: They shouldn't suck ass*