In Defense of Linearity

I'm really not sure why I have to speak on this subject of linearity in gaming, but there seems to some major confusion in the gaming community about linear games. It SEEMS that there are people out there who think that all games should be free roam, even ones designed as linear games.

What do I mean by this you ask? Well after having completed Alan Wake on the PC and enjoying it tremendously I had to clear up a few questions regarding the plot so I swung over to gamefaqs for some plot synopsis. Catching my eye, however, were user reviews and a few of the top ones being quite low. The main complaint of these reviews you ask? You guessed it, the game is too linear! Ok...so what I ask. Clearly the developers made a game with the intention of guiding the player along a path with a story to tell. What's wrong with that? Games have been doing that since Super Mario Brothers. I never heard anyone complain that Mario was too linear.

So apparently people want more freedom in their games, and you know, that's fine by me. But don't play a game that is clearly NOT a free roam game and then complain that it wasn't a free roam game. It's as if people don't understand that there are linear games in general.

What's wrong with a linear game anyway? Personally, I prefer linear games and I wouldn't scoff at a free roam game because it wasn't linear either. Linear games have distinct traits that defiantly outshine free roam games by a mile:

1. Better Stories:
         Linear games by far have the best plots. Take the most basic example of Final Fantasy vs Elder Scrolls. Both are RPG's but Final Fantasy always tends to have better stories and this isn't just opinion either. Basing my logic on the basic structure of storytelling open world games lose out on one major front and that's pacing. A linear game can convey a plot and characters with a keen sense of timing and purpose that is severely lacking in open world games. Think of it this way. Start reading a book, and in the middle of a chapter go out to your local library, pick up an encyclopedia and start reading about dinosaurs. This is the equivalent of an open world game starting you on a quest and you get sidetracked by another random quest that has you research a large monster of some kind. Suddenly you are immediately whisked away from the main plot, character development, and the sense of urgency never formulates. These are all key facets of storytelling that is utterly lost on free roam games. Take a guess why Alan Wake wasn't a free roam game...

2. Better Characters:
       Much in the same way linear games deliver better stories, they deliver better characters too. A linear game allows the director to make the player listen to characters problems and develop them more. You learn to like or hate them rather than dialoge box skipping over everything in a free roam game. Not to mention the characters are often with you on your journey rather than passer-byers in a free roam game where the player cannot be tied down. Further, in a free roam game you are always some user created character with zero personality which also makes characters around you just as hollow since their interactions with you are played out normally with the players "good" or "bad" choices and subsequently offer very little depth for everyone involved.

3. Boredom doesn't kick in as quickly:
      This is more personal taste or how well the game is done in general. But if I were to be forced to play more Skyrim combat than say Devil May Cry or Lollipop Chainsaw I'd go friggin nuts. Open world games rarely have fun gameplay, Saints Row 3 being one of the few exceptions for me. I'd much rather have a game with a small room where it required some kind of twitch based skill combat where winning and losing is based on how well I'm doing as opposed to say Fallout New Vegas's free roam accidentally running into a Deathclaw right at the start with no way of winning. With better gameplay boredom doesn't kick in as fast. While you may have the freedom to go wherever you want after a while the magic of freedom gets marred by the repetitious tasks / combat you're given.

4. Most Games are Linear:
     While this isn't exactly a compliment to linear games what it says though is that if you are a gamer there is a heavy chance you've played more linear games in your lifetime than non-linear games. Though that doesn't speak to quality either, what that is also saying is the odds are very high you became a gamer based off of linear gameplay experiences.

Really though, the point of all this is the next time you play a game that isn't free roam and you expected it to be, don't blame the game because you were too stupid to know what kind of game you bought!

*((real life dumbass moment from me)) "Hmm...I'd like to get an easier game because I can never beat any game I have now." Sees Ninja Gaiden 2 NES. "Huh, a ninja game that can't be too hard." Blatantly overlooks the large "Hard To Beat" sticker on the box...*

Call of Duty: What is the Difference?

Over the weekend I decided to play the newest Medal of Honor and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 single player campaigns. After about ten hours of this I began to forget which game I was playing honestly. Each game has waves of enemies coming at you, and you mow them down with advanced assault rifles and what-not. Each game lets you be a sniper for a bit, lets you bomb raid stuff, and lets you hooah your way through awful plots and faceless characters. The only way I could really tell I wasn't playing Modern Warfare 3 was the ability to power slide in Medal of Honor, which to me makes it the better game automatically because I can do something fun like power sliding rather than nothing interesting in MW3.

But is this really ALL I can say about the differences between these two games? On a single player account, yeah pretty much. You can argue the levels in MW3 were a BIT more interesting and had better set pieces, but in the end they still all blur together in a bloody mesh of shooting things for hours on end. The only real differences come in the multiplayer...right? Well it's supposed to be different...right? Or did Medal of Honor just copy-paste Call of Duty online with the level up system and the....yeah they did....right down to that little white x that appears if you score a hit on the enemy. I can BARELY discern the difference between these two games when watching online matches apart from looking at the HUD. Don't even get me started trying to tell the difference between MW2 and MW3.

I only bring up Medal of Honor as my first example of how all of these games are exactly the same because it's made by a completely different developer and team, you would THINK it would be a different game! What angers me about all of this isn't just that these are obviously all the same games since Call of Duty 4, it's that fans of the series actually have opinions on which is the best or worst, or Battlefield 3 is godlike and MW3 is trash, Medal of Honor is awful!, blah blah. But really play these games, think about the mechanics of what is happening, think about what you are ultimately doing here, what is the difference if you get +100 for killing a guy in MW3 as opposed to getting +100 in Battlefield 3? And yeah, I can tell that some guns that were once really good in MW2 or Black Ops got better or worse in MW3, or this or that gun is overpowered and should be patched. Or how we all complain that it's really stupid people who played longer get all the good weapons unlocked and those who don't play much struggle with the shitty weapons.

How is this a measure of which game is ass and which is good though? Look at what we're comparing, weapons or rather firearms. All of them shoot bullets but some shoot them better than others...ok? So what? It's not like MW2 offers a distinctive difference in strategy just because it had a better P-90 than MW3 does (I do not claim this is accurate, just saying) sooooo you just use something else in MW3 that works with equal efficiency right? You're not really DOING anything different, you are still pointing and shooting trying to kill stuff fast and stay alive.

This isn't like a fighting game where each character has fundamental differences in how they can and should be played and how each game has to be approached with different strategies depending on your opponent. In these shooting games you can take one approach to everything all the time and still be successful at it, but in a fighting game if you play Vega like how you should play Ryu, ie trying to cross-up the opponent then you will fail consistently every time since Vega can't cross-up at all. And what is amusing even more-so here is you can't play, Vega for instance, the same across each iteration of Street Fighter. If you played Street Fighter 2 Vega the same as Street Fighter 4 Vega or even Alpha 3 Vega, you will never be successful with him. But hey, you can pick the P-90 in any Call of Duty game and still kill shit...

Now I don't consider myself a first person shooter aficionado like I do with fighting games by any means, but I am an avid video game player and I can often gauge the differences in games very quickly. I can play Resistance 3 online and tell you without hesitation that it is a pretty different experience to playing any of the Call of Duties even though they gave it the exact same RPG elements. Despite this the weapons are more unique and different than just the run of the mill point and shoot, and unlike Call of Duties you can actually base strategies around using some of these weapons and perks whether you are using them or combating people with them. Does this make it a better game you ask? Well it makes it a unique game and that's saying something. I can actually tell when I'm playing that game and when I'm playing something else.

I grew up on Doom, Goldeney, Turok, Perfect Dark, Timesplitters and so on. Each of those games were unique and offered something the other didn't. Opinions on which was worse or better actually made sense and weren't the rhetoric of gibbering fanboys. Even Halo was a welcome step up from those games offering unique gameplay elements and sticky grenade based strategies. But how did we as gamers in this generation of gaming, the one with the most potential being the online generation become so stagnant in the FPS genre? What happened? Why did it become so unabashedly cookie cutter?

I don't claim fans of the series to be stupid either. I assume most of them know that these games are basically the same every year and only the younger ones will crow about how x game is better than x game mainly due to the subconscious fact that their parents could only afford the one they think is best and they can't buy the newer one themselves so they defend the one they have to find some measure of self worth...? That may be too deep, but it's not uncommon for game companies to get away with this. Madden hasn't changed much for a decade and it does obscenely well still and it isn't  because gamers aren't aware they are getting ripped off, they know they are buying the same game every year because they like it. That is fine too, I'd buy Mega Man through 100 if they made that many, but after a while I wouldn't be able to tell you that Mega Man 31 was better than Mega Man 43. Hell, I still don't get the argument that Mega Man 6 wasn't any good but people love Mega Man 2 despite it not having charge shot, slide, and the awesome jetpack attachment of Mega Man 6.

But there may be some hope yet for the FPS genre, maybe. Black Ops 2 actually looks interesting to me mainly because they changed the setting quite a bit and it appears they added some different gameplay elements. Maybe it will be the Perfect Dark of today we have been missing. Maybe the weapons will be more interesting than quantifying them by their damage per second or the noises they make. Hey, the first Black Ops gave us a leaping prone ability that was fun as hell, hopefully they'll expand that uniqueness to other elements of the game.

*Call of Duty taught me people are only worth 100 points.*

Mass Effect 2: Effective Improvement

To sum up my thoughts of the first game in this series would be to call it a blithering pile of doggie doo would probably be giving it far too much praise. The game had issues ranging from the AI to an unholy inventory system, with a bad overall plot that wasn't fully realized and characters that I couldn't give two shits about and couldn't even remember half their names.

Thankfully Mass Effect 2 improves in most of these areas but still retains some glaring flaws keeping shy of being a decent RPG. If there's one thing I have learned about playing Bioware games it's that I find I like them only when reflecting on the characters in the game. It seems to me that the more I like the characters in a Bioware game the more I can overlook issues I have with it, and enjoy my time with the game. This is true of Knights of the Old Republic 1, but not 2, Dragon Age 1, but not 2, and in this case Mass Effect 2, but not 1. Bioware games as I have noted all have pretty lame overall plots and setups but relatively great characterization depending on the game.

With that said, let's dig into Mass Effect 2.

Story:

The story of Mass Effect 2 is you are Commander Sheppard...and you just died! But then you are brought back together by Cerberus who apparently was some evil doing organization in the first game that I must have completely ignored because I really didn't recognize them here...But your main character knows them and doesn't trust them one bit! You meet up with the "Illusive Man" who might as well be the cigarette smoking man from X-Files, or the G-Man from Half Life. We never learn one goddamn thing about him, who's side he's on, how he's so well informed, or...well...anything at all and that becomes a MAJOR disappointment for me at the end of the game.

Needless to say the Illusive Man is your tour guide giving you all the vital info you need to get to your next mission. Bioware's formula if you haven't already been privy to it yet is go here, here and here, collecting this, that, and the other thing until we have them all to finish the final level. In both Mass Effect 1 and 2 that "collection" of things are people and spells out your entire mission list for the game. That's right, your main mission in this game is to recruit a crew...

In a good game I'd expect the crew to join as the plot develops, but nope, not in the Mass Effect series! Instead of actually completing important objectives, learning about the enemy, and all the while gaining support for your cause along the way in some natural story arcing pace, Mass Effect's formula is thus: create characters, give them wacky back-stories and call it a day. It becomes so tirelessly formulaic that it becomes really hard to care about the overall goal of the game which you learn is to stop the "Collectors," which is a mysterious alien race who has been capturing Humans.

Just as in the first game you are constantly told about the imminent threat of the Reapers and how dangerous they are and you never actually fight any, in Mass Effect 2 you also hardly ever fight any of the Collectors. Thankfully, at least you do fight them once and a while but the larger threat, the Reapers, make ZERO appearances in this game. All the while you are given hints that the Illusive Man is the real danger, but he never presents himself as evil in the game despite our heroes assertions. Once again I'm playing a game without a real antagonist and it bugs the shit out of me.

So the "story" boils down to go here, recruit this guy, and then solve some problem he's having. Those are the main missions, and takes up 90% of the game. The rest is just the last level where you take out the Collectors. The entire mission of getting a crew then killing off what is essentially the B team of evil all feels like it should have been done with as a mid-point to the game...not the whole damn game! I mean you just don't care enough about the "Collectors," they aren't that threatening, and really never play out as final boss material.

It's just so weird that with TWO games now telling us again and again how badass and evil the Reapers are and to never really have us confront them is entirely too annoying and pathetic. It's like if I played Final Fantasy 7 and never once fought Sephiroth, barely heard about him or saw him, then was told at the end of the game that he was so stupid evil he will wreck your face in Final Fantasy 7-3 coming out in 8 years...oh and never shows up at all in Final Fantasy 7-2. I just can't understand a series where it's central villains are played down SO much and yet remain the topic of imminent threat to our heroes. Oh, but hilariously the galaxy doesn't seem to give a shit about the Reapers because there is no evidence of Sovereign's attack in the first game which was so ridiculous I had to leave my chair and punch a defenseless baby sea cow. I mean honestly! The entire Citadel ran in panic of it, it blew up all sorts of shit, and has it's own goddamn action figure for sale in a local market. YES YOU CAN BUY something called Sovereign in the game, but OH the Council denies Reaper existence. What a load of shit.

All I see these two games as is super filler. Stuff we don't need to see or hear about, it's padding. Bioware wants this series to be a trilogy, so they avoid a climactic battle with the villains they set up until the final game just so they can have three games. This just proves a severe lack of creativity. There's no reason we couldn't fight the Reapers in the first two games, or learn more about them, or give a shit. Plenty of good trilogies allow the main villains to play a central role in the conflict throughout. It seems to me like Bioware avoids it because they are horrible writers and think that if a conflict occurs with the Reapers at ALL then it has to be the last one too. I mean, how can I, an audience member care in any way about the Reapers as a threat when I am told essentially nothing about them? Well I can't...and they had TWO FUCKING GAMES to tell me about them!

Graphics:

This game is jaw dropping beautiful. Great set pieces, textures, ambiance, everything is really well done. Character models are really neat too. I was on the PC version so I do have a few complaints. Firstly, you are given nearly no customization options which is terrible. I couldn't set the anti ailising at all so I had to deal with jaggies until I told nividia to override the game and force AA in. So happy nividia lets me bitch slap games that won't let me customize.

My other issue is character reactions. This is more of a programming compromise Bioware made than graphics but hear me out. Every conversation you have with anyone in the game plays out generally exactly the same way. You both stand and get over the shoulder shots, then the other character with step back a bit, then in the next dialogue sequence he'll pace back and forth. Granted this doesn't happen with sitting characters or ones in a small room but anywhere else in the game you will see this crap over and over again. It bothers me that different races and species will pace exactly the same as all the others! They would have been better served to have species act differently during conversation than other species. Reminds me of Star Ocean 3 where Cliff would ALWAYS pound his fist into his hand regardless of what he was talking about. He could be like "Let's go!" *fist pound* or "My name is Cliff" *fist pound* or "I like cheese" *fist pound* It just comes off as unnatural and irritating.

Gameplay:

Ok, here is where I saw a ton of improvement. Enough to make me actually enjoy the game. First and foremost the inventory system is gone, literally. They scrapped the idea of having items at all in this game which is fine because clearly they couldn't get it right in the first one. No more having to sift through unsorted guns, ammo, and upgrades for hours on end ensuring you have the best shit equipped, now you have universal upgrades, ammo is used as a sort of bio power or selectable on the fly, and there is nothing really to keep track of. Sure, some may be annoyed that your customization options are a bit limited now and that may be true but honestly you only lose a SMALL amount of customization for a vastly improved and streamlined inventory, ie none at all. I found it very refreshing to play an RPG where I didn't have to eyestrain at every little tiny stupid fucking item. It made me very happy.

Gunplay is improved and at the same time confusing plot-wise. The game has a better cover system in general, the AI is greatly improved on both sides, and being able to select the type of bullets you want on the fly is a godsend. Everything here I feel was an improvement. I would only like to see a bit more command options for your allies. Selecting the AI to use a bio power for instance I lament that I also cannot select the target they use it on. Often they will hit nothing at all, or not the enemy I want them to hit. It's a small complaint, but an odd omission from the team that gave us KoToR which let us choose what enemies we wanted to hit with all AI allies.

What I do NOT understand about the guns in this game is why they have bullets. This is set in the future of ME1 where there was no ammo and guns shot forever with a cool down. Here...you run out of ammo? How is that an improvement? Like...what gunsmith two years after ME1 decided infinite ammo was worse than finite ammo? It makes NO sense!!!

I do not miss the lack of a rover to traverse planets either. What a pain in the ASS that was. It was fun at first, but after doing just that for 20 hours I was ready to kill myself. Mass Effect 2 instead just lets you scan planets for minerals, which is also really boring but far quicker. Personally, I would just say screw all of that and allow the player to buy the needed materials, or do something fun like manage a workforce dedicated to mining those minerals and you could decide if you want slaves or an actual paid team. It would be simplistic and not overbearing in any way. Also, it would be totally non-intrusive as you would get minerals automatically on a periodic basis. And those periods can be controlled by the player if you put more of your resources into your staff you get more minerals sooner, and so on. So instead of gambling your time with needless mini games you actually invest your money into it giving it a much more strategic and satisfactory feel.

But I digress...

The game itself becomes very formulaic even by Bioware standards. You get essentially 2 missions per character and you don't have to do both. One mission you save the character, or recruit them, the other mission you complete some objective or tie a loose end they want tied. Every mission is exactly the same though. You go to a place with long hallways and kill shit until you get to the end. Sure some have mild creativity peppered in like solving a murder, or luring out an assassin, but none of that is ever fully realized. But that's it, that's all your missions.

Characters:

I really enjoyed the characters of Mass Effect 2 over 1 by a longshot. They were much more interesting this time around. And yeah there were a few duds, but mostly I cared more for them here than anyone in the first game. My favorite character was probably Mordin followed by Jack. Mordin was more interesting than all of ME1's characters combined. I just really loved how he was behind the genophage, and the justification of doing it. The political comparisons can be made today easily. How our country (USA) decided to go into Iraq to prevent war, the idea of attack them now before they attack you later mentality despite Iraq never being an imminent threat of any kind. Much like the Krogan not posing a threat to the galaxy but they decided to play god and lower Krogan fertility to control their population thus removing their perceived "threat." While Mordin's choice was more scientific than ours it still raises the same questions and brings up wonderful points and things to ponder.

There were plenty of other characters in this game with similar interesting plots, but I don't need to go into them. It's just nice that more care and attention went into thinking about these characters than the ones from the last game who felt way more stereotypical and boring than anything else.

Music:

This was another large improvement. Mass Effect 2 had some pretty dramatic moments where a good score was needed and the music came through here. ME1's music was often lacking, or just not there as the majority of that game was very slow and plodding with nothing going on. ME2 has moments of danger with large set pieces crumbling and many things going on which helped allow for more music.

Conclusion:

Mass Effect 2 had many much needed improvements over the first game but it was still heavily lacking in story and pacing. This is something I still feel western developers are struggling with in gaming. I mean how can you justify having TWO games where your entire goal is to assemble a team and then have the final conflict be against something that isn't perceived as the main enemy? I just don't get it. If Mass Effect 3 is entirely about collecting various characters to do your bidding as the Normandy slave driver Commander Sheppard then I'm going to be pissed! He is a well established mother fucker and there is NO reason he has to do his own casting calls every fucking game. I just don't find that to be compelling use of gameplay, I really don't.

In a good RPG you have your cast of characters early on and you are always in pursuit of your overall goal with your allies in a similar mindset. With Mass Effect the main goal is totally ditched in favor of gathering allies and solving their completely unrelated issues. Hell, basically NONE of the cast on the Normandy could give two shits about the Collectors or stopping them. Grunt just wants a good fight, Mordin wants to study them, Jack owes Sheppard a favor, Tali owes Sheppard a favor, Samara...owes Sheppard a favor, and Thane gets contracted. The two Cerberus members and Legion are the only characters with an honest to god reason to go after the Collectors and the Reapers. It makes me believe more and more that all Bioware does is sit in a room and come up with characters to put in their games and main story be damned.

I will say this though, the ability to kill off or save your squad is greatly improved in this game. The choices you get endgame are FAR greater than anything ME1 gave you and your choices there really do feel like a "Mass Effect" will occur from what you did. I applaud that.

*ME2 is like stepping in dog shit only to discover it was just a clump of mud, so it's not that bad after all*

DMC - Dante Must Cry

Last week or so Capcom announced they are rebooting the famed Devil May Cry series. Without even looking at pictures or videos I was immediately disappointed. I also immediately laughed my ass off. For those unfamiliar Capcom has seemingly been trying to steer away from the events that occurred in Devil May Cry 2 where at the end Dante rides into hell. Every DMC game since has been a prequel, and even focused on a different character entirely. It's just very amusing that Capcom has found a brand new way to avoid DMC2 (the most hated in the series) and where the character Dante went from there. But a reboot? That is going way too far.

Why Capcom NEVER should have done this:

#1. Devil May Cry is a wildly popular series, and while it isn't their #1 seller it still holds its own water pretty well. DMC4 sold extremely well, better than most of the DMC games. It was released on the Xbox for the very first time as well. Firstly, why would they introduce a new audience to Dante and his antics and then just wreck him outright for a reboot? It doesn't make any sense to do this. Now for Xbox fans anyway, all they will know of the Dante of old is what they saw in DMC4 and now this new DMC game. If they weren't already confused about what is going on, they SURE will be now.

#2. The story of DMC was never finished, period. For the most part, Devil May Cry has revolved around Dante and his dysfunctional family for story purposes. We learned of his mother in the first and third game, and see him confront his brother in all three. Throughout most of the first game he's upset with his father Sparda whom he never really got to know. Players of the series eagerly anticipated Dante finally confronting Sparda in the Demon World where Dante presumably goes at the end of the second game. It was assumed that we would then finally get to play DMC in the Demon World in the next game and possibly seeing Sparda. However, Capcom apparently wanted nothing to do with what happened after DMC2 as 3 and 4 were both prequels. And now any hope of ever having a Sparda boss battle is completely gone.

**Edit** Ok there is some conflicting reports that Sparda died and was locked away in the sword of the first game. Makes sense, I didn't pay attention all that well. However, what is conflicting is whether he actually died or not and knowing these stories of Demons and mythological figures it's easy to bring Sparda back whenever they want even if he was confirmed dead. The point is the DMC story was pretty interesting albeit lacking much like Capcom's other series's. I would have liked to see some conclusion to it. **

#3. The look. View any game forum about this subject right now and you will see essentially no one praising the new look of Dante. The consensus is he looks like a crack head, or some sort of junkie. He doesn't appear to retain any of his snarky wise-cracking ways either. While it's way too early to tell for sure, the fact is the look was altered for the worse, and for the wrong reasons. According to the lead director of the game, Dante was altered to appeal to a younger audience and was meant to look like a pop star. Note he also claims they designed the new Dante model after himself (the director)...ugh. In any event, that is just plain stupid to do. Why appeal to a "younger" audience when you have nearly 3 to 4 million current devout followers of the main series? Don't you change something up when shit quits working? I guess not if you're Capcom...

#4. There's no gameplay footage yet, however from the trailer I am already disappointed in the action. It appears slow and lethargic. In a cutscene with Dante I expect to see stupidly over the top action. With this, he shoots his pistols very slowly, there's no ninja like flipping, and his snarkyness is replaced with putting his cigarette out in an enemy...Again it's too early to tell, but I do not like what I'm seeing...and I think I know why.

#5. Ninja Theory, that's why. Ninja Theory is the developer of this reboot, and they suck. Flat out, from history, they suck. Heavenly Sword blew chunks, that's who is making this game. The makers of Heavenly Sword. There's a reason Bayonetta was as flat out amazing as it was and that's because it was behind the guys who did DMC3, the very best DMC game. Knowing who is behind this new game I am astutely aware that it has a very high chance of being terrible.

Conclusion:

I just don't get it. I understood when Capcom rebooted Mega Man in Mega Man X. The main series was losing steam with each new release, so it made sense. This doesn't make sense at all. Capcom is only doing one thing, which is losing the support of people who followed this series. Will they gain that "younger" audience on what is essentially an adult rated game? I somehow doubt it very much. Luckily I know enough about the game industry and who makes what to know that Bayonetta is the new Dante, and I greatly look forward to Bayonetta 2.

*Dante wears high heels now and kills things with his sexy long hair*

Mass Effect - Mass Garbage

Yeah, I am behind. Bite me.

Mass Effect the perennial Western RPG experience of 2007 (or they would have you believe) was supposed to be a game changer. It was supposed to usher in a new breed of "path" choosing or create endless scenarios for the player to experience hence the name Mass Effect. I do not understand the hype that this game pulled, I do not understand its legion of devout followers, I do not understand how this game escapes the endless hate that Final Fantasy 7 receives daily. This game is honestly terrible in nearly every way possible. Let's review.

Battle System:

If I can praise Mass Effect on one thing it would be the battle system...but I won't. Honestly this was the most tolerable aspect of the game, but also the least praised among fans. The battle system is simple run and gun 3rd person perspective action. You get 4 types of guns Pistol, Machine Gun, Sniper, Shotgun and infinite ammo for everything. The pistol is immediately worthless because you have infinite rounds of Machine Gun ammo and it usually does more damage per shot anyway. The shotgun is very situational and there's few instances where it's useful over the machine gun. The sniper rifle is also VERY situational as 90% of the game takes place in tiny hallways. So...effectively you get one weapon, the machine gun.

You get powers to utilize if you go the Bio route but...really almost no one plays the game like this. Literally they did a statistic on this and only 20% of players EVER opted to go anything but the soldier class. Besides your AI partners normally make for better Bio attackers anyway.

What makes the battle system terrible though is how stupidly easy it is. The AI is dumb as a log, sometimes they don't move or do anything and you can just stand there and shoot them all day. Your partners AI is also stupid and often they'll rush into battle without your say and die immediately. But that's ok because the game is so easy you don't need them. Really no normal enemies ever present a challenge. If you find cover they will never pursue you, they rarely deal effective damage, and your machine gun is accurate enough to pick off all offenders in the area with efficiency. On top of that you have skills that make you even stronger with shield boosting and an ability to just keep shooting and never stop.

The only time you can ever die is when the game decides to be an ass monkey and glitch you. I fought a boss battle who had Bio powers and I was winning consistently, but two times in a row she lifted me and tossed me in some unmanageable area where I could not escape. The character cannot jump, or warp out or anything so I had to reset this BOTH times. The last time I just ran away into a more open area just so the game wouldn't glitch me out again. Wonderful programming.

The most laughably easy parts of the game is when you're in your vehicle. That thing is deadly. You get infinite rocket shots and it nearly always kills everything in one hit...Oh and by the way I played this game on PC, so mouse control improves my accuracy 100%.

Item Management:

I figured I would take a moment on how awful the item management in this game is. I must admit for a long time in the game I was pretty lost on how to use the item screen effectively...then I realized there just wasn't a good way to use it effectively at all. When trying to replace weapons you have collected with better ones it becomes a tedious chore. The menu does not organize what you've collected in some sort of manageable order like most attack or most accuracy, so you have to select EVERY weapon you pick up and compare it to the ONE character you have selected. You have to do this for ALL three characters and that's just one of four weapons. And you pick up a fuck ton of weapons in this game. It's rare you actually get a better one though. But it's consistently annoying to see worse weapons all the time.

What I hate most about this is you have a limited inventory. Eventually you have to delete out or (reduce to omni-gel) every shitty item you get. The worst part though is every time you go to pick up a new item all it shows you is the name of it...So how am I supposed to psychically know if the Avenger 6 is better or worse than the Waveblaster 7? Oh, and my inventory is full right? So I have to go to the inventory, delete something, pick the weapon back up and....oops, it's shit... Waste of time! I hate it so hard.

Music:

There is none...that's what's wrong...

Ok to be fair the music flares up now and then during battle, or maybe on the way to battle but it has a Batman Arkham Asylum problem where it basically hardly ever shows up. But unlike Batman even when it does show up it's not even any good. I was physically startled to hear music in the end credits.

Story:

This is what everyone praises...somehow. I do not understand how this aspect of the game gets praise. The story hardly exists, it's barely there and it's full of holes. Alright, so you are a veteran space marine of some kind moving up the ranks. You go out on a mission with this creepy guy named Saren and presumably he dies in the mission (I think it's been a while since I did the first mission). Later it's discovered he's alive and is the cause of a bunch of evil shit, namely searching out these beacons of untold cosmic horror. No really, your main character touches one of these things and he is imparted the wisdom of untold cosmic horror and the entire game is you figuring out what those images mean...

So you're tasked with having to find and kill Saren and discover why he's being all evil...and what the untold horror is. The main game is about 7 missions long and it takes roughly 10 hours to do it all. Not only can I call this the shortest RPG of all time, but I don't think it even qualifies as one. Oh, but you have 30 to 40 meaningless sidequests to partake in...they can shove it!

***Spoilers***

You track down and kill Saren and stop his evil plan of unleashing the evil machine things. Seriously, that's it. There's an evil band of "unstoppable machines" that live on the outer edge of the galaxy who's sole purpose it is to wipe out all living things in that galaxy and then retreat into hibernation waiting to do it all again. Oh and they are called "reapers," lol get it, do ya get it? But you stop them from even coming through the warp gate thing Saren was trying to open in the first place, so the entire story boils down to you killing one dude. Ok, there is ONE Reaper that remains in the galaxy as a sentry of sorts named Sovereign. But he's a pussy bitch and dies in a cutscene.

So WHY are they unstoppable? The game never says why. It makes no sense as we clearly see one of them go down like a pussy bitch. In Halo their alien thing that wipes out all life makes sense. The Flood is just infinite, they never stop coming. Makes sense why they whoop ass. For a cliche' story like this where machines wipe everything out, this has to be the worst one I have ever heard. It never even plays out, you learn nothing. And at the VERY end your main character says "We have to get ready, the Reapers are coming!" HOW are they coming exactly?? I just fucked up their sentry and closed the gate allowing them access in. How pray-tell are they coming? Did the sentry even have a chance to give word to the other reapers to come? I don't think he did. THIS MAKES NO SENSE!

Game over....

Fuck you game.

Characters:

I saved this for last because I wanted to discuss the "choices" aspect of the game too. First the characters. You get two interchangeable speciesist (racist) human characters male and female. The game lets you decide which one to kill off later but it's meaningless as they're both basically the exact same. Then you get an assortment of alien characters. A spock-like female alien who's super intelligent yet socially awkward (you get to bang her). An alien chick out to check out and collect a bunch of alien technology. You literally hear nothing from this bitch after you get her. I honestly forgot she existed after a while. And two other alien guys one who has a dark brand of justice and the other who's way more down to earth.

Ultimately none of them really matter. The spock alien and one of the humans are the only characters the story likes to focus on, but it's terribly rare. So how is there ANY character development in this game at all? Your character likes to play 100 questions, that's how! He will ask literally anything and everything in this game and respond with your brand of neutral, good, or evil responses. What you say means nothing at all in the end. Nothing changes. In quests your wordy options just decides whether you kill everyone or you don't. In either case the missions get solved one way or another.

But for the character development I couldn't be more annoyed playing 100 questions. What's your favorite shoe? Where do alien babies come from? Do you have a story to tell? He literally asks that once I swear to god. "Do you have a story to tell?" I expected the response to be, "Well Bioware decided that I don't...nope just a worthless NPC right here. Sorry to disappoint." HOW is this good character development? I get the same shit reading the manual which gives the summary on the characters in any other RPG.

What irritates me most of all is your character is described as a seasoned veteran who has been on many other worldly missions right? Ok then why is he asking EVERY alien he comes across about their culture, history, backgrounds, what they do at the Citadel, what is the Citadel, on and on and on. He knows dick! Seasoned veteran? No, seasoned retard.

I get it's for the player's benefit but then WHY have the story make him out to be some weathered warrior if that's the case? Just let him be a newbie so we can be a newbie with him. It detracts from the game when I set out on a mission supposed to be Mr. Know-it-all and I don't know a damn thing about anything. I half expected him to ask a few aliens how they breathe...though he does ask the Spock-chick how they breed (seriously) so I guess that's close enough. And you get a long winded explanation of how they fucking breed with any species they come across...in DETAIL. It's so lame it hurts.

Choices:

Didn't know I'd go on that long about characters so I separated this. I'll make this brief. Choices in this game don't mean dick. You get essentially two of them. Which human do you want to kill and if you want the good ending or bad ending. Other choices in the game boil down to you ending conflicts in either violence or peaceful talks. Sometimes the choices you pick don't make any damn sense and I'll use the last one as a prime example.

Somehow, I was good through the WHOLE fucking game and I managed to pick the evil ending! How I managed to do this I can only leave up to the idiot programmers. The choice is either 1. To protect the Citadel Council (politicians that undermine you at every opportunity in the game) at all costs. Or 2. Kill the reaper as fast as humanly possible to, I believed, save more lives. The evil ending was 2? HOW, WHY??? The council are assholes, worthless alien beings who hate the fuck out of you. Why would I risk more lives to save a group of politicians? WHY? So I didn't, and now I'm evil. OK GAME WHATEVER YOU SAY.

But that's it! Where's this "Mass Effect" they spoke of? Where's the branching paths? For a game with ONLY 7 goddamn main missions you'd THINK they could have made 5 more assuming you made rippling choices in earlier missions actually causing a...oh I dunno... a BRANCHING path!? Of course not.

Conclusion:

The whole game reeks of laziness to me. Why call it Mass Effect, tout the ability to branch out and change things when you never honestly change anything meaningful ever? A game with only 7 or so main missions never even gets time to develop itself. I remember when the game began and I was appointed to kill Saren. Seemed simple enough honestly. I really assumed that would be mission one and then I'd learn all about the evil machine things and fight them. But no the ENTIRE game was just me going to kill ONE evil dude, who by the way was never evil in the first place. Nooooo he's just under mind control! *gasp!* So you never even fight anything worthy of being called a villain in the first place. Lovely.

I got Mass Effect 2 sitting on the back burner and I'll get to it...in 3 years or so I imagine.

*going to take a Mass Poop now*

JRPG's vs Western RPG's

A recent article by legendary Mega Man creator Keiji Inafune discusses the current troubles of the Japanese market and its place in the state of the gaming industry today struck a cord with me and inspired this little piece. Keiji expresses his worries about how Japanese game designers go about making games, and he is worried they are making them "too Japanese." His fear is that Japanese developers are being left behind and are not appealing to all markets as Western developers are innovating and captivating the gaming audience at large.

Keiji's worries are well warranted as these days Western developers have pretty much taken over the gaming industry from Japan on a software level. Games like Halo, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Grand Theft Auto are more household names than Mega Man or Final Fantasy. While the Japanese aren't doing terribly, there is reason to worry.

But the question I guess is, what are Western developers doing right to capture this audience? What are Japanese developers doing wrong? Well the answer is more convoluted, long and boring for this article so instead I wanted to focus on Japanese RPG's and Western RPG's. We'll see the innovation and failures of both.

Western RPG Success:

1. Reaping the Rewards

What games like Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Oblivion, and to an extreme degree World of Warcraft do very well is create a slew of "fetch quests" for the player. I call this a success because the human mind loves to be constantly rewarded and quickly. Look no further than the success of Pop Cap games like Bejeweled. These Western RPG's are chalk full of tiny fetch quests and maybe 8 main quests. The idea is to get the player to keep playing and reaping small rewards. And they will too.

While I absolutely hate this fact, that's just how people are. They will praise a game like Mass Effect as such a wonderful game when it only has maybe 6 main quests and 30 to 40 little side quests each being no different than the last. Despite the complete lack of attention to the game's story, oh but those 30 to 40 mini quests were just so damn wonderful...

I used to be one of those people. I would play Diablo 2 at all hours of the night simply killing Mephisto over and over and over, hoping to get some magical awesome item. What's worse is after I collected everything Mephisto could possibly drop...I kept doing it. Why would I do this? The addiction of seeing my rewards is why. I'm glad I asked myself this. I haven't touched the game to this day.

2. "Path" choosing

One thing classic JRPG's never did, or never even attempted was giving the player choices. Western RPG's have pretty much always done this, even back in the days of old point and click games. While I still feel these path options are weak at best, only Western developers are actually trying it. People seem to love it too even if the differences are absolutely negligible like Mass Effect. Fallout 3 and Oblivion do better jobs at this though, and you can actually kill off important characters if you want, and even level entire cities. That's about the best I think this "path" choosing will ever hope to get.

The closest JRPG's ever get to this idea is multiple endings. A lot of JRPG's have multiple endings, but how you acquire them never made any damn sense. Most of the time you had to do random things like find the secret sword, or not pay attention to certain character in the main story, or don't die x amount of times, or DO die x amount of times. Western RPG's multiple paths and endings always made sense. Killed the female lead because of a bad choice? Ok bad ending. JRPG logic was more like, didn't buy the female lead flowers at the beginning of the game? Well she turned evil now and burned down the mana tree, too bad for you.

3. Action

Western developers have taken note, turn based combat isn't fun anymore. Or at the very least, those games don't sell well anymore. I can't name any Western RPG that employs turn based combat. Every one of them now is either first person combat or some hybrid of pausing the game to choose a set of actions which will play out as you watch. Everything happens in real time with these games though and that has been a huge success for Western RPG's. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the complaint of turn based systems and how it ruins the "realism."

Japanese RPG's: What they still do well:

1. Story/Pacing

In most cases, JRPG's still have a better handle on character development and spacing out when to employ story elements in their games. I hear the argument all the time that JRPG's only use cookie cutter characters, long swords, emo heroes, bla bla and so on. And while that is largely true, that isn't where my argument comes from, and that has nothing to do with the technical aspect of how a story is presented. For instance, western games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 spend a lot of time...ignoring the story they set up entirely. Just flat out ignoring it until maybe mid-game and of course the end. But there is usually 10 hour periods where the story doesn't even rear its little head.

That's what Japanese RPG's do far better, they keep the player involved with the plot. They keep up the pace set from the start and characters are constantly evolving and interacting. And of course there are many JRPG's that don't abide by this, but I can't name a single Western RPG that does this at all.

2. Characters

I still believe this is a reason JRPG's are still purchased today. Generally speaking Japanese characters are simply more interesting. Western RPG's are way too into "creating your own character" so they never end up being interesting...ever. From Mass Effect to Oblivion and Fallout 3 the main character of the game is horribly boring and flat. Chrono Trigger's silent protagonist had more character in his little sprite animations than nearly all Western RPG main characters combined.

But what of side characters? Well this is where the argument just becomes opinionated, but I honestly feel there is no difference between the two. I think Western RPG's tend to do a better job at hiding their archetype characters whereas JRPG's shove them in your face. But either way, both genres employ tried and true character types which always results in a band of unlikely heroes out to save whatever it might be.

3. Music

Ok, this one might be heavily opinionated but I can't hum a tune of any Western RPG I have ever played. Oblivion came the closest to having interesting music but it doesn't hold a candle to any JRPG. I honestly feel Japanese developers care about the music score in their RPG's and I feel that is very important to set the mood of the game. Playing through all of Mass Effect, Fallout 3, and many other Western RPG's I barely remember hearing any music at all. I can't see how JRPG's could lose this category at all.

The only issue with this category is I do not believe sales are affected positively or negatively on a good musical score. I do think it gives a boost to the story and atmosphere though so perhaps on some level that helps. I know I have purchased a few RPG's because Yasunori Mitsuda has done the score or Nobuo Uematsu, but I'm sure I am in a small minority.

Conclusion:

It is painfully clear that the successes of Western RPG's outweigh what JRPG's still do well. What also hurts is JRPG's lack of innovation. For American gamers anyway, JRPG's are all the same. They all have save the world plots with character archetypes, big swords, goofy hair, inane convoluted storytelling, and overly complex battle systems. This is where Keiji is worried, lack of evolution. Western developers have discovered what works and what doesn't whereas Japanese developers are still stuck in believing a good RPG for instance absolutely needs a young spunky annoying female character that doesn't wear much clothing.

This is what Keiji is warning about and he is right. Final Fantasy 13 may still have sold rather well, but not nearly as well as it should have. It did noticeably poor in Japan which is a little startling. But it was a bad game through and through. It didn't even do what JRPG's do well either. What is funny is the game was trying to be progressive and captivate a wider audience, but instead all it did was slap the face of hardcore fans by being dumbed down, and ignored by people who still don't care about the series. It pleased no one ultimately.

Personal Thoughts:

I still prefer JRPG's, and I really want to disagree with Keiji. While I understand JRPG's need to be less Japanese to sell well in the states, that is what I enjoy about them. If they can just be themselves and not force in newfangled ideas that they think will work we won't get FF13 ever again. What came of their experimentation was neither Japanese nor Western, it was just plain awful.

What I hope doesn't happen is for JRPG's to stop being JRPG's all together. I can see it happening too. The last thing I want is for every RPG to make me go on meaningless fetch quests for 30 hours and then tell me why the bad guy is evil at the very end of the game so I can kill him...(Mass Effect)

*Stay tuned for a Mass Effect review...I really want to rip that game a new one*

Porter Perspective - E3 2010

I may as well update the site with my thoughts on E3 2010. We were supposed to do a video update, but my memory is a short one (much like myself) and need to lay out my thoughts before they die in some brain cavern guarded by an evil giant earthworm...

Overall my thoughts on E3 2010 were largely positive as a Nintendo fan. However, as a fan of gaming as a whole I was very, VERY disappointed with the show.I'll begin my review with the worst of E3.

Microsoft:

No shocker here I guess, but Microsoft clearly had the worst conference of E3 2010. Ask any industry analyst or go to any major video game site that discusses Best vs Worst of E3 and they all agree Microsoft dropped a giant turd on us all.

While we knew they would go off the deep end showing us "Kinect" (shudder) what we didn't realize is that they would...GO OFF THE DEEP END showing us "Kinect." By that I mean they literally had nothing new to show other than that. We knew about Gears 3, we knew about Fable 3, we knew about Black Ops, we knew about every game they had before they showed us they had it. It was uneventful to say the least, and comprised maybe 20% of their entire show. So for all us gaming fans we got to be "wowed" by footage we've basically seen before in Gears, Black Ops, and Fable 3. Oh and some gladiator game we only saw live action footage of...*yawn*

And then their show went to "Kinect." This would be the rest of their show, sadly. Here we have a device that is touted to be for the casual gaming crowd and thus we saw many casual games, and only casual games. Games that in my eyes lack the very distinction of being categorized as such and instead I am left to call them...Cagms?

These "Cagms" were no more interesting than what Nintendo showed us years ago with Wii Sports, but Nintendo never hid the fact that those were simply just pieces of tech demo for the Wii itself and we were sold on that. But no, Microsoft wants us to believe what they have is different in some way, you get to do all that but without a controller at all. Nothing stands between you and the game....except that it does make you stand...

A quick rundown of these Cagms you'll find that you can play with animals by waving your arms around, you can paint on the TV by...waving your arms around, you can dance at the TV, you can run in place at the TV and pretend to do all manner of other sports.
Now here's my main issues with this piece of hardware.

#1: There is nothing, and has been nothing that tells me this unit can offer a decent video game.

#2: It's targeted toward the Casual game audience right? Ok, the unit has been speculated to be priced at $150, coupled with a $300 Xbox that casual gamers are sure to not own yet. And of course $60 per game and much more in untold extras. I dare say that "casual" gamers will not be drawn in by these figures when last I checked Bejeweled is still free to play on Facebook.

Casual gamers or Desperate Housewives; you decide.

#3: The lag. Even though all the Camgs on the Kinect sucked on their own merit, watching the live demos proved to me that they also lag ridiculously. I watched as the man playing jumped, then landed. I then observed his avatar begin his jump as the human landed. This is horrible. While I never expected a 1:1 play ratio I certainly didn't expect it to be as bad as it was. How can gaming be played this way? It's as if your playing an online game with someone who has a horrible connection...constantly.

Above is what Microsoft's marketing team wants you to think the Kinect can do
What the Kinect will actually do

So how else does Microsoft try and sell this hunk of junk? Why by showing us the immense power that is online video chat....that computers have had since the dawn of webcams...A teenage girl gets up on stage and sells the fact that the Kinect is great for her being able to video chat with her friends as she is not a gamer...though later mentions how easy it is to check her gamerscore *facepalm.* So Ms. Not a gamer wants to shell out $450 + $50 a year for Xbox Live to do what her laptop already does, or what phones probably do now as well.

Now I have a degree in marketing and even I know this is a tough sell. Younger teenage girls, will they want A. Top of the line Cell phone, B. Laptop computer that does schoolwork and built in web-cam, or C. A video game console with a really expensive web-cam....
Microsoft has shown us an item that will fail with casual gamers or "Cagmers" and will fail with actual gamers as there were no decent games to play.

Two positive notes came from Microsoft's show. One was being able to watch various sports games for free through Xbox Live which is amazing when you think about the savings if you have dish or cable and just want sports. And they showed the Xbox slim which cannot get the Red Ring of Death because the system now shuts down like a normal computer if it overheats. It took you guys 5 years to implement this and could have saved you MILLIONS on RRoD hardware? Morons...

Next up was Nintendo, and they pretty much just had to deliver what we all expected the 3DS to outshine Microsoft. They did that and so much more.

Nintendo:
Nintendo's show was something I haven't seen at E3 in years. They brought to the table something gamers every year yearn to see at E3 prior to the downfall of E3 some years back. Their show was quick, concise, and comprised of nothing but an onslaught of upcoming game releases and just how fricking awesome the 3DS is going to be.
Not to drone on, this was Nintendo's show in a nutshell:

New Kirby, new Donkey Kong Country, new Zelda, new Kingdom Hearts, new Kid Icarus, new Star Fox, new Animal Crossing, new Dead or Alive, Street Fighter 4 on 3DS, new Metal Gear, new Resident Evil, new Pilot Wings, new Golden Sun, remade Zelda OoT on 3DS, 3DS has Wii-like graphics, no glasses required for 3D effects, and every company and their mother is making games for the 3DS *shows heart-stoppingly large chart of top game companies.*

Me

While it seems like I mentioned a lot of games up there I'm pretty sure I missed about half of them as I don't care for a lot of games like Ridge Racer and some other stuff they mentioned. But Nintendo's show was literally an hour and a half bombardment of future game releases and gawking at just how amazing the 3DS looked.

If I have one complaint with their show it's that they wouldn't STOP telling us about new awesome games. Hours after their show ended we learned about MORE titles coming to the 3DS. The seemingly endless lineup of quality titles on the 3DS has already out-shined the entire lineup available on the PSP and Nintendo thought it necessary to continue mentioning more games. I was overloaded and just wanted them to stop so I could process this amount of awesome.

There's really nothing else to say about their show. It was perfect, what every gamer loves to see and hear. They did it well too, we saw some clips and snippets of new games a demo of the new Zelda. They didn't drone on, they weren't boring, and the show was constantly shocking at the sheer quantity of titles.

Now on to Sony who needs to learn the definition of "pandering."

Sony:

I was hoping for a lot from Sony, more than I should have been hoping for. The show started with little fanfare as Sony came out, talked, and showed a trailer. They came out and talked again, left and showed another trailer. This went on for a long time and the trailers we were seeing were nothing surprising and about games we already knew about like Killzone 3 and Infamous 2. They went on about their 3D for PS3 that no one in their right mind would try, (glasses cost a fortune and you need a 3D capable HD TV which are upwards of $3,000).

They talked more, finally brought out the Playstation Wii with a lollipop on the end that they call Move. Maybe they took note of how horrible Microsoft's show was because they didn't stick with this for very long. It came out with a few trailers that felt way more like commercials of people pretending their holding the item in-game with the lollipop and they had a few game demos though I only remember the one where the guy is Harry Potter but isn't really.

It sucked, that's really all I can say about it. It's no better than a Wii-mote now with the Plus on the end except Sony didn't really show us any worthwhile games to get with it. Basically the PS3 can now just be a Wii when it wants to now as long as you buy the lollipop and Playstation Eyetoy. They did have Time Crisis and Tiger Woods to show which was at least what I would call video games unlike all the Kinect "Cagms."

At least we can understand what the Move can do (which is exactly the same thing as the Wii) so we know what to expect. We can expect "waggle" games, games that use a pointer to aim, sword slashing stuff...and that's about it.

Then they bring out the PSP and here's where I was hoping we'd see something amazing like Nintendo with the 3DS, a PSP2? Ok, immediately we saw that they were sticking with the PSP. Fine, I'll live with that. Any new awesome games? Well they showed us a brief cinema trailer for a new God of War that we knew they were making anyway. Sweet, I loved Chains of Olympus. But what took up the majority of the PSP's time? What did they do to entice gamers to get a PSP over a 3DS. See below.Who is Marcus Rivers? He's the new spokesman for the PSP. Yeah, because a room full of gamers wanting to see new additions to the PSP will enjoy seeing two straight commercials advertising...NOT the PSP but Marcus Rivers, a young black male who underscores all the stereotypes of the late Gary Coleman because apparently Sony's writers haven't left the late 70's and apparently think these stereotypes are still somehow accurate.

I guess it's still an improvement?

At this point I was beyond bored. I've never honestly seen more commercials in an E3 show before (even though I'm astutely aware it's all one large commercial). Finally, EA comes out and wows the crowd with some Medal of Honor and Dead Space 2. I guess we were all desperate to see some actual gaming going on, but Dead Space 2 looked super sweet. Then we saw some Portal 2 action and to top it off we see the new Twisted Metal. The end of Sony's show was the best part, all those games looked decent to great and didn't involve any droning commentary, lollipops, or Marcus.

In closing:

Let's get one thing straight here about these new "Cagms" that Sony and Microsoft are trying to pull. They missed the boat, period. The Wii was a big hit for one reason, the promise. The promise that we would play games in a new and fun way. Once that reality wore off and Nintendo got all it's money everyone realized something very quickly, that the Wii would not deliver what was promised. Even Nintendo knows this now as they are putting all their efforts into real video games again as evidenced by their E3 show this year.

Sony and Microsoft on the other hand, who once panned Nintendo into oblivion are only here to wow a crowd of casual gamers that have all but left or continue to purchase software for the Wii they already bought.

They won't be fooled twice into believing this new gadgetry will allow them to accurately pretend to bowl or hit a baseball. No, they can see that the hardware just isn't up to par yet. They saw as Sony demoed the Tiger Woods game with beyond noticeable lag and wonder to themselves why not just actually go golfing. They saw how absurd people looked playing Kinect. And I'm giving the casual crowd a lot of credit here really. The very idea that they "saw" any of this is also absurd. How many casual gamers are even aware E3 exists? Nintendo spawned the Wii from E3 but got the word out through many daytime TV shows and internet blogs. Practically everyone was messing around with the Wii from Ellen to any "Early News Show" you can think of. Nintendo couldn't buy the amount of publicity it actually got and essentially steamrolled the world.

This won't happen again, this was Tickle Me Elmo, this was Pogs, this was Beanie Babies, the Wii now is what Nintendo makes it which is a video game console once again. And once again Nintendo is one step ahead of its competition as they try in vain to play catchup making "Cagms."

*E3 2010 out*

Final Fantasy 13 - Battle System

While my opinion of Final Fantasy 13 overall is not entirely a favorable one, I also do not think it to be a bad game or bad by Final Fantasy standards in general. With that said, I do think it has the worst battle system of any Final Fantasy game in the main series (yes worse than 12).

For the uninitiated, Final Fantasy 13 utilizes what is called the Paradigm system. This means nothing without explanation of course. What it means though, is that each character has set actions under a specific title given to it, or easier explained they are temporary job classes that can be changed on the fly. Those jobs are, Commando, Medic, Ravenger, Sabatour, Synergist and Sentinel. The goal of the system is to continually keep your party in check using the appropriate skill-set needed at a specific time to either keep your party alive, or ensure the enemies stagger meter keeps going. The main goal of every fight is to raise the enemy's stagger meter to the max, break it, and then kill the enemy quickly.

While on the surface this system seems interesting, it falls apart in various ways. The first major issue I have with the system is what it actually stands for. In this game you can only control one character, that being your leader. The remainder of your team is controlled by the AI and does actions assigned to the paradigm they have set currently. So the paradigm system in the end has one and only one major function, and that is to give the AI only a very specific set of options to use and hope it does what you want. While the AI is limited, you are also unfortunately very limited to your own role and what you decide to do as the leader. To make this easier to understand why this system is not only horrible and tediously restrictive, but also to show how poorly it was implemented I will break up the issues I have found by class.

Commando: I'll start out with the game's least offender of problems. The commando class is essentially the Warrior class allowing the computer to use basically attack and blitz, blitz being an attack that affects many enemies. It is entirely straightforward and keeps the enemies stagger meter up, but does not increase it. How does the AI screw this up you ask? That answer is simple. If I want a team with two warriors, com/com/doesn't matter, the AI will attack whatever enemy I am not attacking, which is fine in some cases I may indeed want that. But I have NO choice in the matter. I can't further edit the Commando class to have the AI combo attack the same thing I am for some swift justice. Only if it is the ONLY enemy left on the field will the AI agree that it should also attack the same enemy I am.

This is just the first phase of the battle system telling me I am not allowed to decide how I want to play the game.

Ravenger: My issues with the Ravenger class stem less from the class itself and more from how the battle system is designed overall. But don't get me wrong the AI still manages to screw this up anyway. This class is the Mage essentially, and only casts offensive magic. Every enemy in the game has some weakness or immunity to one magic or another, however, the AI in all it's wisdom has no fucking clue what that weakness is unless you cast Libra. The game forces you to cast Libra JUST so the AI knows how not to be a retarded mess. Once Libra is cast the AI now knows the weakness, but it's a waste of a turn if you ask me. I KNOW the enemy's weakness 90% of the time without Libra, I've played RPG's since I was a wee lad so these games tend to make it obvious. The mere fact that because I cannot control my party means I have to play teacher for every new enemy just so the AI does what I want it to do pisses me off to no end.

So after Libra, how does the AI still manage to be a dumbass? Well it does manage this, oh yes it does. After an enemy becomes staggered you are given the ability to launch the enemy in the air preventing it from doing any damage at all. Now, I don't know about you but I want this to happen ALL the time. Here's the rub, Ravenger's only ability to launch an enemy is Aeroga (or however it's spelled) point is the AI will tend to not use this spell when I want him to, you know all the damn time after stagger. If I COULD control him that's what I would have him do. Even if the enemy is not weak to Wind, I don't care, I want that beast floating around till it's dead.

But I don't get what I want do I, no I'm playing Final Fantasy 13, the game on rails.

Sentinel: The Sentinel class is a defensive class that allows the user to literally just not die. It provokes surrounding enemies to attack only the sentinel in which next to no damage occurs. Oddly, this is the only class the AI does not manage to screw up, but I still hate it. I hate the idea that I need it (and yes you actually have to use this class). I've played countless RPG's and never was it my strategic prerogative to defend, ever. There was no need for it, even if my mage ran out of magic I'd still prefer it to attack for the measly 15 damage it could do or throw out some items. But again, I'm playing FF13 so I don't get to play the way I want to play.

The enemies in this game after a while literally force you to put up a Sentinel and either heal, or buff with the other two classes just to survive long enough to cast offensive spells. Now this is great for bosses, it actually makes you think you're outsmarting them, but when you have long 7 hour stretches of fighting enemies and waiting for the retarded AI to cast the CORRECT defensive buff (read Synergist section) on every fucking encounter, you start to want to kill yourself. Seriously, it annoyed me that much.

Sabatour: Sabatour is the class that casts debuff effects on enemies, ie slow, pain, etc. This one is funny to me. My annoyance with this class comes from my very own need to develop my own strategy in a game I've come to realize simply won't let me. The Sabatour class is the only class other than Commando that also keeps the stagger meter going without dropping briskly while having the added benefit of causing debuffs on the enemy. I love this, and hate this, here's why....the STUPID FUCKING AI.

So often I'll find myself in a tight bind in this game, nearly dead after some super attack the AI did. I want to heal, but I don't want to lose my stagger meter, and I wouldn't mind debuffing the enemy in the process. Simple solution, medic/medic/sabatour. This works great, fabulous even...until...until the enemy IS actually debuffed. I'm not fully healed yet, and the AI decides to stop doing ANYTHING because it figures the enemy is debuffed enough.

Actual conversation with the TV

"NO NO NO AI, I want you to keep casting slow before I lose my stagger meter! What are you fucking doing???"

So once an enemy is debuffed the sabatour class is actually completely useless and you may as well forget you have one paradigm setting. Oh yes, did I mention you only have 6 different settings to choose from? *sigh*

Synergist: I've saved my most hated two classes for last. Synergist is the opposite of Sabatour, it buffs your party. There are many problems with this class, I'm not sure where to begin. I'll discuss how the AI is programmed I guess. I've played this game for 40 hours now, and routinely see how the AI operates, and I just don't fucking understand its reasoning. My party is Lighting (leader), Hope, and Fang. Hope is the Synergist if you didn't know, and the rules of this game state that if your leader dies, you lose, got it? Good.

So the AI when it first casts buffs casts them on who first? Take a wild guess. NOPE not the Leader! Well what about the Synergist himself? Fuck NO! The order of buff, and this never changes, is to cast it on the third useless character FIRST for no god damn reason. I don't CARE if the third character dies, the game ends if I fucking die! I wouldn't even mind if the Synergist buffed himself so he survives and buffs my leader. But NO he buffs himself last, which makes even LESS sense considering he has the lowest HP and can die very quickly. Again, if I were in control this would never happen. You want to know the shittiest part? Say I have Com/Syn/Sent up, guess who he casts protect on first? The FUCKING SENTINEL!! What sense does this make?

There is more...

You literally get no control in this game, have I mentioned this before? The only control you get is to tell the AI what set of spells or attacks he is allowed to use at a given time. Keyword, SET of spells or attacks. Here we have the Synergist, whom has...how do I put this...an ASSFUCK set of spells that you do NOT get to decide the order in which they are cast.

Actual conversation to the TV

"Hope...Hope! Cast protect on Lighting Hope...Anytime would be great...No I didn't want shell on Fang...I don't want shell at all. Nope didn't want Veil either. What the fuck does that even do (I found out later, and really don't give a shit about Veil). Waste more time please..."

That was a normal encounter folks, one of many...This happened through all of Chapter 10 I'd say.

So here's the deal, instead of allowing the user to further customize the Synergist (or any) class telling it specifically what order you want what, or to exclude this or that, you get NO choices at all and are simply subject to the AI's whims at all times. They will literally go through the order of buffing you with every god damn spell they have. It is a waste of time!

Medic: This is my most hated class for the AI to control. It encompasses everything about how the AI and battle system functions that makes it completely atrocious and every time I see the AI use it I ask myself this, "Why can't I control what my party does?"

Oh boy here we go.

So the healing class, probably the most important class in any RPG in the hands of an AI I can't tell what to do. In Final Fantasy 12 you could tell it what to do. You could specifically set its program to revive, to heal at a certain % of health or whatever, it was your call. The Medic however, is designed thus, to heal whatever character has the lowest hit points at the time. This is a detrimental design flaw, and really the only one that actually breaks the game sometimes. Bosses and some powerful enemies have devastating attacks that will send the whole team to red. You have to HOPE and PRAY that the character in your party with the LEAST HP is your Leader. Yeah that's right, you want your leader to be on the verge of death so the AI will heal it and you'll survive. That's a perfect world though, as I've had countless battles where the AI will decide to heal another character with lower hit points all for the sake of who the fuck cares. So my leader sits there dying, and often does with the next blow while the AI thought it to be a wonderful idea to heal the THIRD character whom means NOTHING at this juncture.

Why is it programmed this way? Wouldn't you ALWAYS want the leader to be alive? Wouldn't you always want it to have top priority? Hell at LEAST heal the leader if it is blinking RED, but fuck that, the third character has less HP, heal that instead. Stupid....stupid....stupid!

Here's another fun flaw in the Medic. The raise spell. What does it do? Brings back a ko'ed character. Fucking useless in a game where if your leader dies you lose the game. So the raise spell doesn't work on one of three characters. OH WAIT! It doesn't work on TWO of three characters either. That's right, the Medic himself also has no fucking use for the raise spell....cause he'd be dead.

It gets better. The raise spell is further useless to the AI because it will never fucking cast it unless BOTH remaining characters have near full HP. I have seen it go through 4 turns making sure both he and I were literally at MAX HP until it used raise to bring the third character back. WHAT....THE.....FUCK?

Conclusion: The sad thing is all of this could have been easily avoided if you were allowed to further customize how the AI operated in their respective class. While my personal preference would be to never ever let the AI control my party anyway, I would have liked more options, more choices. The way FF13 plays now I feel like I have no control, and I'm just paradigm shifting simply to stay alive and allow the battle to play out all by itself. There is no sense of accomplishment, no sense of actual strategy either. The AI just comes out and spams all its debuffs and all its buffs because it was programmed that way. Instead of having strategic uses for any of these classes you are locked in to simply just watching shit happen, oh and casting Libra to make sure the AI doesn't fuck up more.

The intentions of this battle system are clear, it was built for noobs, 5 year olds, people who like games on auto-pilot. This was not built for gamers, not built for RPG players used to setting up sound strategic options against tough foes. There is no sense of accomplishment with this system. There is never a critical moment where you saved yourself or your party because of a decision you made. There are no decisions to make in this game, there's only what the AI chooses to do. Oh, and did I mention you also have an option called "auto battle." Prove to me this game wasn't made for noobs and I'll mail you a cookie.

*lamest battle system ever*

Don't Stop at Gamestop

*sigh* The last straw has been broken. I will officially never shop at Gamestop again. They are either the single worst organization I have ever seen, or they simply want ME specifically to bend over (see picture).

So let's begin with the very first issue I've had with them.

Story #1: Used Games pt.1

Used games. They guarantee them to work right? Yeah I thought corporate policy was the truth once...once. The year was 2001 (I think), I had never in my life owned a Playstation, but had recently acquired a Playstation 2 via Christmas and awesome parents. The PS2 game lineup at the time was less than impressive and so I went on a hunt for Playstation games I missed out on.

Topping my list was Chrono Cross, it would also be the last game I found. I of course found it at a Gamestop, used, and not in its original case. But so what I think, no biggie it'll work. Half a year passes before I actually start playing Chrono Cross because I was playing various Gamecube, and other PS1 titles I got. I made it through the first disk of Chrono Chross, no problem. Keep in mind though, it took me about two months to get through the first disk, (I work, had school, life). I start the second disk, it freezes on the very first cinema you come across. Of course I worked diligently to remedy this shocking problem. To no avail, not even the prestigious toothpaste trick worked. I was thusly screwed having owned the game longer than Gamestop's return policy allows.

Furthermore, it wasn't my fault. I'd like to reference the time it took me to get through disk 1! Considering normal people do not whiz through games JUST to see if they work to know if they have to return them or not, I blame Gamestop for not checking disk 2!

Story #2: Used Games pt.2

So from the first incident I learned never to buy used games that are disc based. Problem solved right? Wrong! I attempted to hunt down a copy of Metriod Zero Mission for the GBA since I somehow missed it previously. It was only like a year but seriously, you couldn't find a single new copy of this game anywhere for some reason. So I resorted to using Gamestop's used games guarantee thinking Nintendo's game cartridges would defeat their so called guarantee regardless. WRONG AGAIN! The cartridge I received would not save my game, and had clearly been inflicted with an action replay device as the game stored on it was beyond human playing possibility. Never the less, it was relatively clear the battery was dead....

Ahem... HOW DID THIS HAPPEN??? I can only blame Gamestop for this, not Nintendo. Why do you ask? This is why. I own something in the neighborhood of 400 battery based games dating back to Nintendo's very first battery based game that actually required you to hold "reset" and push "power" otherwise the save didn't work! Weird, I know. But that game folks, still works, and still saves my game files. Gamestop fails again.

Story #3: The Mouse and the Trap

Okay, this is less a personal incident rather a store policy of Gamestop's that makes me hate going there period. I can't just walk in and buy a game from Gamestop. No, I can't, and you probably can't either. Nope, you have to listen to their 20 minute long lecture about how you should reserve games, trade in your used games, sign up for their reward program and online store, BECOME A F$*@ING TOOL! Admittedly this is normally a 3 minute affair at best. But I ran into one manager that would literally not let me leave. I paid him for the game, he had it in the bag, and did not hand it to me before his lecture.

The first five minutes I was polite. The next 3 minutes I found myself arguing why I do not reserve games, (simple answer: because I can get them ANYWHERE I WANT). The next 7 minutes he spends convincing me that I should reserve games, telling me fables of misfortune gamers who didn't reserve a game, (and *gasp* if I had met that poor fellow I bet he drove across the street to Wal-Mart, bought the game and played it that night!). The last 3 minutes I was asking for my game which he was still holding (if you're wondering it was Mega Man ZX Advent). But no, I wasn't yet convinced that he was right. So instead of like saying 'no you can't have the game yet' like a normal ass, he instead just ignored me entirely and continued his rant. He was absolutely positive he could get $5 from me on some random game. I of course stood my ground, and he eventually relinquished the game without any bloodshed. But of course, I never went back there ever again. 20 minutes I'll never get back.

*interesting note, this Gamestop was located in a mall that got torn down the following summer, revenge!*

A tidbit side story: Once when buying Street Fighter 4 (Best buy didn't have them in yet) I was asked if I wanted to reserve a copy of God of War III. Really Gamestop? Really? That game isn't due out until 2010 or more. I respectfully declined holding back a snicker. Then he suggested that I should reserve Final Fantasy XIII. I couldn't contain my laughter....that is the end of that story.

Story #4: The FINAL STRAW

So here it is, what will permanently keep me away from every Gamestop ever. Three weeks ago I tried my hand at getting the Madcatz TE Fightstick ($160 purchase, nothing to sneeze at). The Wiialert told me Gamestop had them in stock on their website. I acquire one with wizard-like speed and am very pleased with myself as this is about as rare an item as one can actually buy in the game world right now. Days pass, my order remains "pending" instead of "shipped." I email and ask wtf???? only nicer. They respond with "we are currently out of stock on this item and will ship it when we get more in." NO NO NO! I bought it! Why would you let me buy it if you have none!?? That's like if I sold you, the viewer a calculator, you hand me the money, and I say "nope, we're out of stock, fu!"

So ok, whatever, it's a rare item I'll just squat on it. One mere day later a friend of mine tells me I can order them through Best Buy, not online mind you but through their warehouse at their store and do an in-store pickup. Wonderful news, and I do just that! Immediately I cancel my order with Gamestop and receive a confirmation email. Read at your pleasure:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting us.

In response to your request we have cancelled your order.

As a reminder, your payment method was never charged for the canceled items. Any related authorization hold on your credit or debit card account will be released in accordance with your financial institution holds policy. Please contact your financial institution for more information. For Barnes & Noble orders, refunds are processed within 3-5 business days. If your order was placed with a GameStop gift card or Edge Card, please note that any related authorization hold on the card should fall off within 3-5 business days.

Also, please feel free to check out our new website features for your future cancellation needs as we are now offering customer self-service options, like canceling your own order/items.

We value your business and hope to see you again soon!

Best regards,

Tim Customer Service Agent

Original Message Follows: ------------------------
I would like to cancel this order.
PS3 Street Fighter IV Tournament Edition Fight Stick

Thank you!

Ryan Porter
Order Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxx (as this is still an ongoing matter the order number has been blacked out)

----------

Ok, so I'm good right? WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG! Today, I got an email telling me they have shipped the item! WTF?? I already have it because Best Buy is a retail demi-god and you suck dildo. So what do I do? I don't want it. So I tell them just that, and even copy paste the original cancellation email thinking this is their problem not mine. Here's the response:

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for contacting GameStop.com.

Upon review of your order, there are no records of any attempt to cancel this order either from our customer service department or by our Gamestop.com website. We do apologize for the confirmation that you received as it was in error on our part.

You will receive an email from UPS with a printable shipping label. When you use this label, you will not be charged for shipping. Instructions on how to complete the return are also in the email. Please use this label to return your package to us. Once received you will be issued a refund for the item, as we have also requested a refund on the shipping to be processed as well.

No record? I have a record and I'm no retail giant! I sent you the record! So ok, they send me a UPS label and junk so I can send it back when I get it, no skin off my back. Except the projected HOUR it will take me to gather this together and send it back, not to mention they won't release my credit card payment on the item UNTIL they get it! IT WAS THEIR FAULT 100%. Not to mention I use FedEx and have no clue where a UPS store is in my area, this whole process is foreign to me since I KEEP WHAT I BUY.

I am beyond frustrated with this company, its practices, and it's current domination in my favorite industry as a retailer. I urge all of you reading this today to not support them if you can avoid it. Send your used games to Amazon, they are a reputable business. Buy new games from Best Buy. Don't stand for Gamestop's crap!

*I am too angry to post something here*