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.*

3rd Birthday - The Matrix meets Kill Bill

The 3rd Birthday is the third Parasite Eve game. Even though I have never really played the first two games I can safely say the addition of "birthday" in the title makes about as much sense as the game's plot...which is none of course. Luckily Square hasn't lost their touch when coming up with amusing gameplay mechanics that make for a surprisingly fun and fast paced 3rd person shooter on the PSP.

Also, as far as I can tell this game has basically nothing to do with the first 2 Parasite Eve games. Even though I didn't play them I am aware that they dealt with viruses or parasites and the like which caused monsters whereas this game deals with spirits and spontaneous monster evolution.

Graphics:

Square as always manages to make everything pretty. This is one of the best looking PSP games I've ever seen. The character models are highly detailed, as are the monsters. The cutscenes are fantastic and plentiful too. The only minor gripe is the scenery is lacking in scope. It is all long corridors and that's about it. Just not much to look at really.

Gameplay:

Parasite Eve 3 Birthday plays out as a 3rd person shooter which on the PSP is normally a headache no matter how well it's done. Square decided to prove us wrong though and made one that isn't a headache. Instead of being allowed to direct your shots you lock on to everything, which is great actually. Also your guns have specific ranges so you do have to get within arms reach of your nasty foes more often than not. Luckily Square implemented a dodge system and the ability for our hero Aya to spirit swap to other people giving her another escape option.

These dodge options are great and really make the game feel not cheap when you get hit. Aside from a bad camera now and then the game feels very skill based and you have to plan your resources. You get a meter that builds as you play allowing you to go super Aya and deal significant damage. It is best to hold onto this power and unleash it when necessary. Her grenades are also something you have to conserve but always unleash too. Sometimes having that 1 extra grenade can mean the difference in a big boss battle.

The boss battles are also a lot of fun and they sometimes offer different gameplay mechanics to fight them, like one out of a helicopter and one you fight while perpetually falling and body swapping.

The only aspects of the gameplay that were mediocre was the level up systems and equipment. The skill spheres that you can equip in the game never really made any sense to me. I kinda understood that matching colors allowed them to level up...and having them together let them connect but I didn't understand what that meant or how it affected anything at all. Also, it never seemed beneficial to swap out a level 7 skill for instance, for something new that was at level 1. So it felt like once you made your bed with how you were going to format your skill grid that's it, you're stuck with it.

The equipment I nitpick because it felt like there weren't enough choices. Oh, it LOOKED like there were enough choices in weapons, but they never unlocked. I had no idea why or what I was doing wrong but most of the weapons for me never unlocked for use. I literally stuck with the same few weapons through the whole game...(all 5 hours of it).

And that brings me to my final gripe about the game, it is really short. That is ok for me since I just got through two games that were 50 hours each and they both kinda sucked. 5 hours of decent fun is better that slogging through a 50 hour game that makes me want to pluck out my ass hair. But it is still a gripe given that it is only 5 hours long, and that counts the pretty long cut scenes the game has. Just saying it is slightly better that it is a good 5 hours, and 5 levels too.

Story:

The story in this game is a total mess. It's good that it doesn't reference the first two games if you've never played them but really it probably would have made more sense. You play as Aya the sexy memory deprived vixen of the previous games who is locked away in her "cell" for whatever reason even though she is employed by a special defense organization. So as a prisoner...err employee of this group you are tasked with traveling back in time to correct the past and eradicate the monsters that came about 2 years ago for unknown reasons.

Aya has a special ability that allows her to soul jump to other people and this defense group built a machine that lets her travel to the past. And just like the Matrix if you die in the machine you die in real life....oooooooooooh!!! Basically the game plays out from there as you try and destroy the monster's hideouts and major bases.

Throughout the game Aya slowly gets her memories back and this is where the story stops making sense. Aya remembers that she got married and a SWAT team comes in to gun her down and everyone else. They do indeed kill everyone but Aya remembers that for some reason in her dying moments she picked up a gun and shot her sister. I'll get to that later.

Anyway the story falls apart since the onset of the plot revolves around the very moment the SWAT team kills everyone. It falls apart because they never...EVER explain why the SWAT team was there to kill them. I swear the guy who wrote this saw Kill Bill, loved the imagery of a dying bride and went with it without having any real plot ideas. So what happens is they get shot up except for the sister who somehow discovers she has a soul transferring power and in an effort to save Aya transfers into her. This causes the sister's body to collapse and die being without a soul and Aya sees this happen which is why in her memory she thought she shot her. Instead she kills off the SWAT team with the gun and ends up surviving.

What she wasn't aware of is that she was no longer Aya but her sister who died not having a soul, and Aya's soul was destroyed in the process of the transfer. For no reason at all this event also caused the rise of the two major monster types...again...for no reason at all. So the villain through it all was trying to find the starting point to the monsters and replicate the process through him so he could become a higher being even though none of this stacks up scientifically where you could somehow repeat the process.

Still, the soul transfer killed Aya right? So why doesn't it kill any of the military guys you inhabit while playing the game? It SHOULD! What of the SWAT team? And don't get me started with the time travel plot holes. Also if a soul transfer is what birthed the monsters....why does it never spawn any more monsters while playing the game? You soul transfer ALL the time!

Sound:

Good music, good sound effects, decent voice acting. The major issue here is Aya! OMG stop making out of breath noises and gasping! I swear her script read like this during a cutscene: "Ah, ehh, oooh, eeee, heea, aaaaaaahh, urrrr." On and on! She makes these sounds at unnecessary moments too. Like she bends over to pick up a gun "eehh!" Or turns a corner to point a gun at something "gasp!" Shut the fuck up!

Conclusion:

The story didn't make any damn sense but it was an entertaining ride all the same. The characters at least seemed to know what was going on so that was good enough for me I guess. This is probably the best 3rd person shooter I played on the PSP, but thank god I have a Vita now and I won't have to put up with gimped gameplay ideas for lack of a second stick!

*Yeah I bought the game because Aya is hot...sue me.*

Nintendo 3DS vs Playstation Vita

Yes, I am one of those rare people that has both a 3DS and a Vita now...thank you tax returns!

So in my evaluations of the two units we shall go over what makes them great and what makes them suck and then come to an overall winner of sorts. I say of sorts because it is very hard to determine a winner when one has been out just a year and the other barely a month. Software-wise obviously the 3DS would be the clear winner. But what about the other merits? What about the system possibilities? How about the controls? Visuals? Overall design? These are the questions people want answered and I am here to kinda sorta give meager responses concerning most of those topics!

Console Design:

3DS - The 3DS is designed just like a DSi for the most part. It's major differences are the added circle pad, slightly larger top screen, and the obvious differences in the start and select buttons and a wifi switch. Apart from that the design part of the unit will feel very familiar to most of us who have played any of the DS systems.

Improvements could have been made though and there are some heavy design flaws. One is that the top screen being larger than the bottom causes line smudges when the unit is closed since the bottom portions plastic rubs up against it. This is very annoying. The second problem is the circle pad kinda sucks. Playing Street Fighter 4 it becomes apparent very quickly that the input window on the diagonals are very, very small. By that I mean if you want to do a quick up-right motion you have to be VERY precise in order for it to recognize that input. Mario Land on 3DS also has a similar problem with the circle pad in that running around feels strictly directional and not smooth like Mario 64 or Galaxy. It is as if the circle pad doesn't allow for good 3D plane movement. It is hard to describe unless you have used it but it's honestly not very good. Thankfully it doesn't really hinder Mario Land, but if Mario 64 was on this system it wouldn't play quite right on the circle pad.

Playstation Vita - The Vita is just like the PSP in many ways and improved in nearly every way. The only thing that's honestly the same is the L and R buttons, apart from that everything is pretty new. The D-pad is different from any Sony gaming product there has ever been and I haven't decided if that's a bad thing yet. Marvel 3 plays great on it though. There are two analog sticks and they feel great though it seems the sensitivity is a bit high. When trying to play Marvel 3 with the analog sticks moving left to right I often have my character jump when I don't want him to. I really have to play a dedicated 3D game to review it properly though. Oh, and the screen is soooo...soooo....sexy. Also the touch aspects of the Vita are far better than the 3DS, though I do question the feasibility of the Vita's touch screen over the 3DS since if you ask me stylus > fingers for gaming purposes. I can't fathom trying to play Trauma Center or Elite Beat Agents with my finger or many touch games for that matter. Plus who wants to touch this gorgeous screen?

The problems I have with the system's design though are the face buttons. They are like the 3DS buttons being hard and not very squishy. I LOVED the PSP buttons by comparison which felt like SNES buttons. It is a shame that only console controllers have those lovely buttons anymore. Also, the system is a beast! That doesn't bother me personally but it does fly in the face of portability. I also don't like that there isn't a Wifi switch like the 3DS has, especially given the nature of both unit's battery life problem which can be mitigated by turning Wifi off and it's much easier to do that on the 3DS.

Console Design Winner: Playstation Vita.

The system feels better in the hands and isn't inherently flawed like the 3DS top screen smudge issue. The screen is prettier and it has two analog sticks unlike the 3DS which requires an add-on. I find it hilarious and ironic that the system named for its 3D didn't include the basic functionality of a 3D system ie TWO analog sticks.

System Interface:

3DS - The 3DS interface is nearly identical to the Wii where you have a home channel with organizable squares to put your applications and games. It is clean and easy to navigate and adjustable too. Messing with system options during gameplay poses a problem since you have to close the game, but you are allowed to web browse during gameplay. Sadly not all functions act this way. Sometimes you have to close out of something to access something else and sometimes you don't. It really all depends.

Playstation Vita - Sony marketed the Vita like a portable PS3, and it lives up to that accolade in all but one area...the interface. For some odd reason they got rid of the menu bar synonymous with everything Sony's done lately from TV's to their Blu Ray players and of course their game systems. It has been replaced by touch-bubbles...Essentially Sony attempted to copy the way Apple handles its apps like a phone. But to me, it just looks very messy and cluttered and not much actually fits on each page. I do like the way you close out of stuff though ripping it down like a piece of paper. It is satisfying and not as cumbersome as Apple where you have to double tap the button then x out apps you don't want on anymore. Granted they are both cumbersome in their own little way, a marriage of the two ideas would be better. Still, why ditch the menu bar? It was honestly perfect. It was organized and very easy to navigate. It really was the perfect method for navigation in a game system. It didn't have any unnecessary areas and didn't look like garbage on the screen like the Xbox 360, why go for this bubble idea? Well I'll tell you why...the menu bar doesn't play nice with a touch screen and Sony wanted to whore it out as much as possible. The WORST part about the navigation on the Vita is you can't select anything with the controls other than the touch screen. What if the touch feature poops out? Useless system. One of my DS's touch screens has a permanent alignment problem but I still use it as a GBA player and various DS games that don't use the touch screen as a main control option (nearly all of them).

The only real positive here is that you can have anything open at any time even games. Also if the battery dies it saves all the things you had open where they were.

System interface Winner: 3DS

The 3DS stuck with what worked. If only the Vita did the same it would have been a much closer call.

Hardware:

3DS - The 3DS graphically speaking looks on par with or just worse than a Gamecube more often than not. I can't tell if we have seen the limits of what it can do yet but the games look pretty good most of the time. The only glaring issue it has is the games I have seen so far make no effort in applying Anti Ailising. The games look VERY jaggy if you pay too much attention. However, the strength in the 3DS is it's 3D technology which works very well. 3D without glasses looks great, however, I am one of those rare people that can leave it on for long stretches of time and it never bothers me. Most people from what I hear anecdotal or read online either don't like the feature outright or complain that it bothers them. That's all well and good, but the point is it works, and it works really well. People that complain about it baffle me, like, you knew what you were buying right? This is the selling point after all. Does it do much for gaming though? Nope...but it's pretty freaking sweet.

Playstation Vita - This system is a beast and performs nearly on par with a PS3. The visuals haven't been exactly on par with the PS3 though as games like Marvel vs Capcom 3 have noticeably lowered effects and MLB The Show 12 also has some lesser textures and overall worse lighting than its console counterpart, but for a handheld these graphics are matched by nothing. Though the iPad 3 comes out soon with a quad core processor could easily outpace the Vita, but...seriously who wants an all touch screen gaming device? The Vita for its innovation sports a touch screen on the back of the system....what possible use this will have I dare not say but it is there. That's really the only review I can give the back touch screen....it exists. Ultimately, it is difficult to reach properly and I question the feasibility of accuracy.

Hardware Winner: Tie

Yeah, I can't decide here. Each are a technical marvel for different reasons. No glasses 3D is impressive and the powerhouse abilities of the Vita are equally impressive though less inventive.

If I were to rate the potential of each system for software tied to the hardware though....

Software Potential:

3DS - Unlike the Wii, Nintendo's handheld systems are known for having great 3rd party support, quite possibly the best 3rd party support across any system. But we are in a different world these days. A time when iPhones and Androids occupy many developers and less are interested in making large scale handheld efforts. The 3DS has a year under its belt and still only a handful of decent games are available for it. What can we expect going forward? Well, that's not something I can answer, what I can do is speculate on the potential of what the system can do. What it can do is more or less what the DS could do only better online potential and larger games. We have already seen a great Zelda remake on the 3DS so the potential for a new 3D Zelda is certainly there.

Playstation Vita - The potential here as far as history is concerned is a much less bright spot considering most developers abandoned the PSP in the last two years of its existence. Will the same snobbery occur with the Vita? Possibly, but that's not what we're speculating on. The potential for the Vita is almost boundless. From rumors of Bioshock on the system, to ideas of an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game, the Vita can do it! Also, the Vita has great connectivity options with the PS3 but as we have seen with Nintendo anyway that usually ends up being a limited or forgotten feature. But the potential to play PS3 games on the go, or even elsewhere in ones own home is sweet. So far it only works with a few games none of which I own.

Software Potential Winner:
Realistically 3DS

I'd love to give this to the Vita since I feel like developers could really take advantage of that power, the online connectivity support the games have, and those analog sticks makes the Vita a much better candidate for "potential." But when the fan gets struck by reality poop it will all rain down on the Vita most likely. The odds are stacked against it to do well. The teeming history Nintendo has in the handheld market, coupled with developers probably not wanting to develop console caliber games at $40 really hurts the Vita's chances. So odds are we will see more software on the 3DS all the while wishing we could play it on the Vita's hardware. Think of Zelda on this sexy beast....droooool.

Conclusions:

The gamer in me would of course recommend both systems, but the practical man in me who knows it's too god damn expensive to own both and supply yourself with their respective libraries is a task only for those who can afford it, or those who can afford to go broke on it. A game system can only be measured by the game library it ends up having and that is often difficult to predict. If you think the Vita will do well, buy that since it is sure to get some amazing portable games. But if you think the 3DS will dominate (it probably will) I'd recommend that especially if you like Nintendo's games anyway like Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, etc.

But purely as a system PURELY as a piece of technology, I would recommend the Vita. It's nicer to look at, nicer to hold, nicer to use, and it just works better as a multimedia device than the 3DS does if that's your thing. Plus if you have a PS3 it is really cool to see the trophy support integrate with your existing account, and see all your PSN friends online on the go. The best part is you can MESSAGE them! The 3DS just lets you see who's on...and that's it. I guess I should have done an online comparison...well...3DS online is terrible apart from playing games online which isn't so bad, but doing anything else with it is god awful. Netflix is slow, browsing is slow, yadda yadda yadda. Vita works much better in this capacity.


*In one hand I play 3DS, in the other I play Vita....yet no progress is had...*

Soul Calibur 5 - Tale of Connection Errors

Soul Calibur has always been a series I loved while playing Soul Calibur 2...and pretty much just 2. It had an expansive single player mode, a large likeable roster of characters, and heck even my friends liked it and weren't even fighting game fans like myself. Soul Calibur 3 I skipped, and Soul Calibur 4 I only played for 2 weeks straight while I was drugged up after a hernia operation so I don't remember it that well.

What I DO remember is Soul Calibur 4 at least had a lot of characters I enjoyed using and single player options that were decent though nothing like SC2. This game, however, seems to be stripped of just about everything the Soul Calibur series has been known for. It has a stripped down arcade mode, a very short and lackluster story mode, and not much else. There's no challenge modes, no AI tower, really nothing else here.

But of course, we are in the online era of gaming now so the question becomes does the online aspect of this game outweigh the lacking single player content and content overall? Well...my title gives it away but isn't it more fun to read my bitching rants anyway?

Gameplay:

They changed quite a bit in the combat system for this game for those familiar with the Soul Calibur games. They added a meter for characters to perform EX moves that cost meter but combo easier and create more damage. The meter also allows you to guard impact which is a change I feel is for the worse. I loved in Soul Calibur 2 how you could get into these little guard impact wars back and forth but now in this game since it costs meter it becomes a limited option. Furthermore it's actually much harder to land a guard impact in this game which makes it all the more risky to try. It honestly doesn't feel like a viable option anymore as defense which becomes a REAL problem playing online! Also, with that meter they added ultra moves which I like for the most part. Every character has an ultra with the exact same input each. This is great except the disparity in usability for each ultra is quite wide. Like, I would argue Cervantes ultra is flat out useless, but Natsu's is amazing and comboable...AND does more damage than Cervantes! Why then are they the same input or require the same meter when one has WAY more usefulness over the other?

The gameplay has also taken changes for the worse as Namco decided to remove a large amount of the cast we have become familiar with over the last 3-4 games. Characters such as Talim, Yun Seong, Kilik, Takki, Amy, and more are all gone. Well, Kilik is in the game but he is a mirror character (ie he uses weapons of other male characters at random). Honestly the worst offense of this game is the needless insertion of mirror characters. There's like...3 of them! Why? It honestly makes no sense and they are wasted slots. I am also very annoyed 2 characters are only unlocked through pre-orders each at a different location. So there's no way that someone can have both of these unique characters on their game yet until Lameco issues DLC allowing us to buy them. If the game weren't already stripped of characters enough, THIS was a huge slap in the face.

As mentioned before the single player mode is bare-bones but thankfully they included a decent training mode. It isn't as robust as other fighters granted, but it gets the job done and hell we could have been without that as well considering the state the game is in as it is.

I even have a beef with the character creation system. While it is as good as ever in the ability to make just about anything you want, the problem with it is unlocking stuff. As far as I can tell there is no way to choose which items unlock for you. You have to play the game a considerable amount of time to see everything and then once all your options are open to you, you can start making decisions on what character to make. I can't remember how SC4 did this exactly but I do know Tekken just let you purchase everything with in game money. That was a much better system! I could look through and pick shit I wanted instead of playing the game for hours on end and then seeing a message saying "You unlocked more pants!" Thanks? Kinda wanted shoulder armor or belts but oooookay.

I saved my largest complaint for last, the online. When I first got the game I could not finish a match online, not one. Literally 20 matches in a row I got a connection error and the match was dropped. Now, as a disclaimer, I am keenly aware I'm in the general minority on this issue but there are others having this problem too. The fact that a "connection error" occurs at all is deplorable all by itself though despite poor connections. I have literally played EVERY fighting game that exists on the PS3 online barring KoF 12 and none of them disconnected me from my opponent outside of a power outage or rage-quit. But SC5 has that lovely distinction of being the ONLY online game I have ever played that disconnects me at a very reliable pace, as in all the time. While floundering with this game I managed to complete roughly 30 matches over the course of 6 hours trying.

I have recently re-tooled my connection and am able to complete 7/10 matches now. It is still awful that even ONE drops in a 100 matches though let alone 7 out of every 10. The worst offense of all though is how often I get screwed by connection errors. I fully admit I am terrible at this game, Street Fighter is my bag and generally I win there 70% of the time online. But this game I am hovering around 35% but what disgusts me is that this is NOT reflective of how good or bad I am either. I will lose legitimately 7 or 8 times out of every 10 matches because I am god awful, I readily admit that, but when I FINALLY get paired up with a guy as bad as me, and am winning what happens? Connection ERROR! I probably have a good 20 wins that have gone unaccounted for because of this bullshit. I should have a 45% win ratio at least, and yet here I am.

To its credit though, while I am in a match the game is relatively lagless. Sure there are a couple matches where there is noticeable input lag, but as a majority it feels quite nice online while you are in a match anyway. I still find SF4's online better in the lag department overall but for a 3D fighter this is by far the best quality barring the constant connection drops.

Graphics:

The Soul Calibur series has been widely known to push the boundaries of fighting game graphics and while Soul Calibur 5 looks great, it doesn't do much more than what SC4 did. I can't fault the game for not improving upon 5 year old hardware though. It still looks great however.

Story:

??? ......... ??? .......... uh..... yeeeeah....

Sound:

Probably the best part of this whole game is the music. Every track in this game is incredible and amazing. Even the Assassin's Creed remix is a joy to listen to and I have a track record of hating remixes. The only real downside to the audio is the lead female character has the most annoying voice of all time.

Conclusion:

Soul Calibur 5 does everything right when it comes to having an offline versus mode...everything else is utter garbage. From removing characters in place of mirrors to the atrocious netcode and lacking single player modes Soul Calibur 5 is rather offensive to every ounce of me that loved SC2. I bought the game already knowing the content was lacking, but I was unaware of the character roster being shitty and the disconnecting online. I had planned to enjoy doing marathons the game online and then the experience is so atrocious I just don't think I can do it. Which is really sad considering that was my plan for the game, and now it has become all but useless. I really thought it would be a worthy $60 purchase but like all Namco fighting games just wait a few months for it to be $30. Oh, and don't expect any netcode patches either....it's Namco we're talking about here.

*I was going to win a battle of SC5 online, but then I took a network error to the knee.*

Dead Island - Fetch me a Slurpy!

Dead Island offers the promise of exactly its title, dead things on an island. With a premise as simplistic as this it was a little jarring to get the amazingly deep trailers we got for this game before it came out. Our hopes were then heightened to believe this game would now contain some semblance of plot and character development. Sadly the game itself is designed around fetch quest systems that seem to follow me between nearly every game I play these days. With that in mind it must be understood that any game designed this way inherently loses any hope of having a decent plot, developed characters, or anything that could possibly live up to the 40 seconds of artful rewind death we got from the trailer. No, instead we have two meat-head male leads, and two female leads who I swear have two lines each in the whole game....but we'll get to the failures of the plot in its appropriate section later.

Gameplay:

Dead Island plays exactly like Borderlands...that's the game. For those of you who never played Borderlands here's the rub. You select from 4 characters who each have specific abilities that separates themselves from each other to slay hoards of zombies. Hilariously, caught in a Zombie Apocalypse the 4 people who are immune to the disease also are the same 4 people perfectly equipped to handle just such an occasion. Plot devices aside, you gain experience doing missions and slaying zombies and then putting points into a skill tree further customizing your character and enhancing their zombie slaying prowess.

Also, just like Borderlands the enemies scale with you, you collect countless weapons with multicolored titles relating to their strength and rarity, and each character has a special "rage" ability which acts as a sort of limit break allowing your character to briefly be the most efficient zombie slaying bloodthirsty thing on the island. Needless to say, also just like Borderlands the entire game is based around collecting sidequests from countless NPC's. The only real difference between the two games is you mainly use fun and interesting weapons in Borderlands and in Dead Island you use...a baseball bat perpetually and thus magically on fire? So yeah that's really it, one game's combat focuses on guns the other melee weapons.

Ok, well the fetch quest mechanic isn't always bad right? Sometimes they offer interesting quests like Skyrim that has like 4 or 5 quests that make you go "oooh, I'm glad I did that instead of deliver 12 wolf shits to an old lady." But in Dead Island do we get any of those? No. And what's worse is the quests in this game are so mind blisteringly boring you start WISHING for that old lady and begging to fight zombie wolves and playing a mini game where you fish around in their zombie wolf anus to acquire shits for her.

I mean let me set it up for you...you're in a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE right? People are aware you're in a zombie apocalypse and yet their worries that they hire you to solve are not life or death, are not do something of vague importance to survival, no, some of these people ask you to do inanely stupid things like solve my marital dispute, or slay my now zombie husband for me, or find my priceless heirloom in the midst of hoards of the undead...ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING NUTS?

Ok I get I've landed in the middle of Night of the Fetch Quests, so of course I should be expecting this kind of shit but I mean come on! You seriously expect me to risk my life over an ancient wind up pocket watch? In the middle of the end of all things your world will somehow be cohesive and calming if you are reunited with your grandfather's pocket watch! This is one example of why Skyrim is at least better fetch questing as I would have the option in that game to lay waste to these fucktards and feel better.

There's not much else to say about the gameplay other than the very nature of the combat system which is exactly what you'd expect it to be. First person melee combat, the most perfected and greatest form of video game combat...or...you know...not... At the very least I do admire that they focused on melee combat in a zombie game since they are on a beach resort of an island where finding munitions would indeed be a rare thing. Amazingly though this is where the developers decide to use their realism, you know not on the characters, not on the really weird enemies that don't resemble humans or the effects of the virus as explained by the scientists in the game...No they want to play the realism card on the combat system which inherently causes it to be as mundane as humanly possible. I'm sorry, but a ZOMBIE game that makes me play 30 hours before I can use a shotgun is a very poor zombie game indeed. What's worse is one of the 4 characters you choose has a specialty in guns...I didn't pick her but I can't imagine how boring the game must be if you do as you hardly find any weapons or ammo in the entire game. The only use the firearms ever have are on actual people and NOT zombies as they don't provide more ammo when you kill them unlike humans.

And the survival aspects of the game are nullified considering when you DO die you just lose money, like Borderlands, and are respawned a few feet away to try again. Admittedly, though first person melee combat is awful no matter how you do it (and yeah there's no blocking in this game either) the satisfying blows you land on zombies is fun and even addicting at times. You can break their arms, cut off limbs, smash their heads in, huck weapons at them with satisfying sounds. It's honestly the only thing that kept me playing that whole time. It goes without saying that this isn't something that would keep the average gamer involved however...just a masochistic one like myself.

Story:

As mentioned earlier there is no story, not like the trailers lead us to believe. You get drunk at a party, and then wake up to a zombie apocalypse. Now don't even get me started on the zombie apocalypse scenario since it never makes sense in the first place. I mean I can accept the reanimation of the dead and even a fast spreading virus by means of biting of others and such...what I can NEVER grasp however is the widespread nature of the "zombie" disease. The very disease requires that an already infected zombie bites or claws a human to eventually become one too. But how it gets further than a few dozen people blows my mind every time. I mean here we have infected people who's only goal is to fully consume all they come into contact with right? It's a mindless all encompassing consumption of others right? So how are MORE created? It just so happens that hundreds of thousands of people only get minor scratches and get away only to become zombies JUST for the sole purpose of having more zombies? I mean basically what we have here isn't so much a widespread disease, it is instead just a whole fuckton of people who "barely" got away thus creating the apocalypse scenario. And apparently it ALWAYS happens this way. I was honestly looking forward to seeing a zombie story take the idea of the zombie apocalypse in an intelligent way making it somewhat believable...sadly that's not the case.

And yes my rant about the logistics of a zombie apocalypse is a far more involved story than the one we were given. Yeah I already covered the story believe it or not. Oh what happens at the end you ask? You leave the island...

Graphics:

The graphics are half the reason I kept playing. Seeing the smushyness of the zombies was endlessly enjoyable for me. I played on the PC version so the game looked just fine, though I hear the console counterparts have some pretty terrible glitchyness about them. Still my fetch questings looked fine, great lighting effects, varying scenery, and competent character models and textures. Nothing to really complain about but also nothing much to overtly praise either.

Music:

There are some very minor pieces of music here but they serve the mood well enough. Weirdly though there are some heartfelt piano melodies strewn about in the game as if we're to give a damn about any of the characters involved in the game and their zombie plight. We don't...but the music is good either way.

Conclusion:

Dead Island drew me in for 40 odd hours in the exact same way Borderlands did. The constant upgrading of your character, finding better loot, and being led around for hours on end by the little red map marker is really all that kept me playing both games. I can't really admit that I was having fun in either game, more like I was enamored with idea that I was progressing in it and completing things. The quick satisfaction of tallying another notch in your questlog, or getting a new weapon that did 50 more damage only to see how many less hits it took to take down a zombie are just two of many psychological tricks these types of games play on the user to goad them into playing more. It's sad that most games have now adopted this type of gameplay, hell even first person shooters like Modern Warefare are guilty of this formula.

In the end I'm really not sure exactly how, as of late, I have fallen into playing games with endless amounts of meaningless fetch quests whether it be Skyrim, Zelda Skyward Sword, Fallout New Vegas , and now this...but I am starting to believe that I have been cursed by the gaming gods over some offense I committed against them. I can't specifically identify what I have done to disgrace them so...but to hopefully alleviate this in the future I'm going to sacrifice a good game to them. Now with their grace on my side, I shall venture forth and play Rage, ID's latest shooter. A classic style shooter game in no way could possibly hinder me with more fetch quests.....

....

....

GOD DAMMIT!

*"SQUISH" Haha...his head went splat....oooh look another zombie to splat....*

Dota - Acefondu

Ok...so apparently there is someone out there naming themselves "acefondu" in the game of Dota online. I take offense to this only because he is harming my good name of AceFondu. I have long been AceFondu online in various forms and am very surprised to see someone else even use the name for how obscure it is. I also lost the name on Twitter too, I wonder if it is the same guy?

In any case apparently, he has been a naughty Dota player and shows up on a few ban requests. Be that as it may, let it be known that THIS AceFondu has never played a game of Dota in his entire life and never will. I find it to be a boring waste of time and consider myself a much more cultured gamer able to play multiple games rather than use all my time into one...very tedious game like Dota appears to be.

As often as I post and ridicule games like this and WoW for their soul sucking merits it should be clear to my fellow readers (not that there are any) that I am in fact not this person. It is unfortunate my online persona name had to be taken by someone. I do not claim to be the first AceFondu (though I assume I was) since it's really impossible to pinpoint so I'm not here to lay claim over the name. But considering how many places I have it registered one could easily infer that I am also the one playing Dota which I am not, and it offends me as a gamer that my online persona could be tarnished by the likes of a rouge Dota player. It wouldn't be so bad if they played nice and were friendly, as I like to represent myself online, but sadly this is not the case it seems.

I only discovered this person by getting randomly AIMed by his fellow Dota cohort, or rather, another name of his perhaps. This rude person would only repeat what I said to him instead of converse with me in an adult manner.

Still, it is rather amusing to google search AceFondu and see countless posts by me online in various gaming forums and only see a few sparse posts in Dota from this fellow and he claims to be AceFondu over me? Very odd indeed. I only hope the spread of my name does not hinder other gamers online thusly tarnishing my otherwise good name known across other online games like Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, and so on and so on.

Hopefully, though, next time someone searches Dota with AceFondu this article comes up better explaining my situation. Thank you dear readers for supporting me, and to the rouge child-like AceFondu out there...please grow up and live a better standard of the pseudonym of AceFondu.

Zelda Skyward Sword - Worst Zelda Ever?

Before anyone goes crazy and accuses me of giving Zelda the whip (see picture) for baseless reasons please note that Zelda does not deserve a free pass either. Like any game it deserves the critical eye just as much if not more so than any other game. With that, fellow gamers, ask yourself this question: What is the best part about a Zelda game? Is it A. Dungeons; B. Boss Fights; C. Unique Items; D. Story; or E. The random mindless traversing/backtracking between dungeons. If you answered anything but E, then unfortunately Zelda Skyward Sword is not the Zelda you are looking for.

Zelda Skyward Sword probably wants to be known best for its use with the Wii Motion Plus, and while I will be sure to criticize that in a moment too, let it be known that 90% of this game is taken up by running around the land in search of meaningless garble just to get to the next dungeon.

Gameplay:

Admittedly, Zelda has been known to do this since Ocarina of Time but to what extent? A few casual hours of exploring the world, followed by a half hour of focused time on how to get to the next dungeon was the norm for most Zelda games and no complaints there. But Skyward Sword takes that idea to new heights! Between the third and fourth dungeon I shit you not I spent nearly 5 hours roaming around doing fetch quests for various characters until they finally gave me what I wanted...a god damn entrance to a dungeon! I actually fell asleep during this period, and I rarely if ever fall asleep during a game but this was such a mind numbing experience I zonked out like a light.

The worst part of this running around is the severe lack of exploration. Zelda games of the 3D age have been for the most part hilariously enjoyable to roam about in. Searching towns, talking with NPC's, doing side quests, playing mini games, finding boundless amounts of secrets, but this game? This game has practically none of that. The "roaming" consists of ONE town, boring NPC's, boring side quests with little to no payoffs, and a relatively empty sky to fly around in. Also, the game only has 3 areas to go to...THREE! How many years was this game in development? But really, those 3 areas are it, and they aren't very big either. I'd argue the north-east section of Wind Waker is twice the size of each of these areas.

Of course, size is nothing without content and shockingly despite how small these areas are they also have very little to do in them. Sure, you go back to each 3 or 4 times before you're done with the quest but the only thing you do in those areas relates to the main quest. There's nothing really to explore in the areas. You only unlock new parts of the areas with the items you get from the dungeons too. I am very flummoxed by the idea that it took Nintendo this long to make a game smaller than even a Game Boy sized RPG...and yet take just as long if not longer to beat with the insane amount of fetch quests you have to do.

Add insult to injury another part of this game I cannot stand is your "guide," or the "navi" of the game. I hate her so much I forgot her name so there! She is the blue bitch that tells you what to do every step of the way. Despite her constant blathering I still had to use a strategy guide to tell me where to go next once and a while. Still, she becomes a nuisance once you're in a dungeon. I never get lost in a dungeon, I needed the guide for the random bullshit fetchings you have to do to GET to the dungeons in the first place. What annoys me is when she's basically solving the dungeon puzzles for me. That's the BEST part about any Zelda game is how to move through the dungeons and she's sitting there blathering on in every room telling me how to do this or that. SHUT UP backseat gamer!

What I hate most about her though, his her dumbass expositions. Whenever a plot element is to be revealed or explained she has to SKATE around like a fucktard whilst telling you the story. Like...why? Stop it! It's irritating. Coupled with her bullshit noises she makes while she speaks my mental stability really begins to lose the battle for sanity after a couple minutes. Seriously, this character ruined what little fun I was having playing this game.

Not all is bad about Skyward Sword. As I mention in the title, while I feel it's probably the worst Zelda I have ever played that by no means it is the worst game ever. The dungeons are still really good fun, the boss battles are okay, and the items range from neat to this is stupid. Never the less these moments make the game somewhat playable and fun...until you get to the motion controls that is...

The motion controls...work...That's about the highest compliment I can give them. So they work, big deal, does that make it fun? The answer is no, not at all, and no. The game uses the Wiimote as if it was your sword, so while you're resting your hand down playing the game Link is running around with the sword pointed out like a jackass. What makes this 1:1 sword movement stupid though comes down to the enemies you fight. They are all basically exactly the same. They have defense spots and their only weakness is what they're not defending at the time...so you swing at it. Sometimes this works, sometimes the Wiimote doesn't swing exactly how you wanted it, but I'll call that user error and give the game the benefit of the doubt.

My point being is that this isn't any fun. I'm not enthralled by having to swing a certain way against every enemy I come across just to be successful. Eventually, I just started throwing bombs at them. Not even joking. The game suddenly became much more enjoyable hucking bombs at enemies rather than flailing around finding their weak spots. I actually got a good chuckle at some of the enemies reacting to my bomb hucking, like the plants that actually eat them and blow up. Moral of 1:1 ratio sword fighting is:

1:1 ratio sword fighting < blowing shit up.

Another complaint I have is Link's stamina bar. What Link HAS a stamina bar? Why? No seriously, why? As I started playing I began to think, ok, maybe they put in some interesting gameplay element with Link not being able to run for very long...then they didn't! No, unlike, say a good game like Shadow of the Colossus where the stamina gauge was a genius gameplay element Link in this game...just really fucking sucks at being Link. Consider EVERY other Link could infinitely roll across the fields of Hyrule while this one has to take a breath every 3 rolls, or 10 seconds of sprinting, this Link is clearly the worst Hero we have ever had the displeasure of controlling in a Zelda game. PROVE ME WRONG!

Lastly, I'd like to complain more about the motion controls. Why did they feel the need to add it to literally everything you do in the game? I get the sword fighting, shooting arrows with the pointer, and MAYBE even rolling the bombs which is kinda fun. But you have to wiggle the nunchuck to roll? WHY? You have to guide Link with it while swimming? Everything you do is tied somewhere to motion controls. You can't once just relax and play the game, you have to be physically active with it too like some mental patient or those annoying cousins that would move the controller around like a steering wheel in a racing game and make a bunch of obnoxious racing car noises!

Oh...and the items in this game suck too. Look at that PICTURE! A WHIP? FUCK THAT!
So older Zelda games...cool boombarangs, giant hammers, giant ball and chain, a lens that sees through walls....and here we have a Whip and a bug that you guide around areas to hit switches...ugh...

Not to mention how god awful the shields are in this game. They break! They ALL break! And they look stupid too. But seriously, how am I expected to have a realistic combat experience if my god damn shield keeps breaking? I just flat out quit using it, what's the point?

Story:

The game starts off well enough and you get a sense of Zelda being a real person with real feelings...then she goes away and we're left high and dry with that stupid blue bitch I discussed earlier. Honestly, Twilight Princess's Minda was such a HUGE leap forward for the Zelda series in characterization. She was amazing, funny, witty, and heartfelt. She was the best character Nintendo ever made and her replacement? THIS! I couldn't be more appalled. I could try to be more appalled but I would not succeed.

So the story more or less stops right after Zelda gets abducted. You see some gay dude...who pretends to be evil...but he's just a little fucktard. I mean seriously, we go from big giant evil Ganon to this androgynous little punk? Where is the sense of danger here? I'm more threatened by some of James Bond's cheesy villains. That's really the story from here on out. Evil gay dude threatens you now and then mentioning evil things he wants to do and most of those evil things involve making you collect more bullshit to get to the next dungeon.

Music:

Finally a fully orchestrated Zelda game! Too bad the music isn't very good...

Graphics:

Awful. They seriously don't look finished to me. Some of the textures are muddy, I swear there are things missing shadows, and overall the game is pure ugly. Wind Waker for instance, though different, appeared finished and consistent throughout and easily the best looking Zelda there has ever been. This game? Not even close. Probably doesn't help that I play the game without component cables on an HD TV. GET WITH THE TIMES NINTENDO!

Conclusion:

All my bitching aside, if you can tolerate hours and hours and hours and HOURS of bullshit just to get to the admittedly amazing dungeons then go ahead and play this Zelda. Truthfully, your time is much better spent going through any other Zelda game for a better gameplay experience....even if you've already played it before.

*Used Hookshot to escape from this game!*

Mario Kart 7 - Best Mario Kart ever?

I'm glad they called this game Mario Kart 7 to save me the pain of looking up how many there have been up until now, though, at the same time isn't it REALLY weird that this is called Mario Kart 7 when there's never even been a Mario Kart 2? Anyway...every iteration of Mario Kart has added some new value or improvement, but none have really pulled all that value together into one Kart game up until now.

The SNES game gave us our start of wacky Kart racing. The N64 gave us 4 screen local play (which is still amazingly fun to this day). Gamecube gave us character specific items/strategy. The GBA version was the first handheld Mario Kart and had the most tracks of all. The DS gave us our first online play experience (which was terrible). And the Wii gave us online play that worked very well along with...*sigh* Bikes.

But now we finally have a game with great online play, no bikes, no snaking (though I liked that), and the mild addition of gliding and underwater racing. The game is as it's been for years but now it's accessible, portable, and fine tuned with the advancements of years of progress.

Gameplay:

The Mario Kart gameplay hasn't really changed since the N64 games where they added drift boosting. And really that was the last actual innovation to the driving mechanics of the game. Otherwise, new items were added to this game though not nearly as awesome as previous games. The raccoon tail item was added here...and it feels like the worst item in the game. It basically allows you to swing wildly and smack nearby karts. The problem with it is often hard to get that close to others, and it stays in your item block while it's in use. Which means you can't get a standby item while you have it and it stays out pretty long too resulting in missed opportunities for more items.

The other item they added is lucky 7 which gives you 7 items to use. This is pretty cool, but it has some flaws. The star and the mushroom can actually be stolen by opponents that run into those items as they swirl around you. Not as lucky as you'd hope!

The tracks are where the meat of the game lie though, and like previous Mario Kart games all the tracks are fun and interesting. There are a few fresh ideas in here too like the musical note track and the shifting tracks where each lap the track becomes something different. Also, with the addition of the underwater and gliding options some old tracks provide new ways to traverse them.

Speaking of the gliding and underwater stuff it doesn't really add a ton to the gameplay, however it gives a certain freshness to the gameplay. Also, no longer fearing the dreaded water is pretty cool. In some levels the gliding lets you take a different course on the track which is fun, but overall the gliding is kind of unfortunate. In older Karts we were accustomed to getting blindsided by the lightning attack just before a large jump and falling into a ravine. Never before has this been more apparent than in Mario Kart 7 gliding over large pitfalls. What's worse yet is now shells follow you into the sky to ruin your day, especially the blue shell. The gliding soon becomes more of a detriment than anything else.

Kart customization is also enjoyable in this version. In previous games some Karts would be vastly overpowered (tank in DS, Funky Kong Bike Wii) but here there appears to be no apparent Kart juggernaut that is heads and tails above the rest. The game is still early in it's life to be fair so not too many exploits have been found yet, but it really seems like the balance is solid. I've played a good 50 matches online so far with the very first Kart available and normally get either 1st or 2nd place, if not bungling entirely and getting near to last on rare occasions. But that's Mario Kart, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

The only downside is the lack of characters in this game. No Waluigi or Diddy Kong, but that's not really that big of a deal. The core of the game was rarely measured by how many characters the game had, but it also doesn't feel like Nintendo couldn't have added more characters without much effort either.

Graphics:

Probably the best looking game on the 3DS thus far. The 3D works very well as expected and everything modeled nicely. I guess the water effects could look better though. I would have liked to see water effects akin to Mario Golf on the Gamecube. i know that's an obscure reference, but that game had some of the best looking water ever!

Sound:

Classic Mario Kart tunes and some new ones. They are great as always and I guess that could be a complaint too. The music at times feels so familiar that often I forget I'm hearing a new track as opposed to some I've heard for years in previous games.

Story:

This section shouldn't even be allowed here for this game. So I'm ignoring it now...

Go away!

Multiplayer:

I rarely do a section on multiplayer but I'll make an exception with this game. On the Nintendo DS gamers were for the very first time introduced to what a Nintendo experience online could be like. Boy were we disappointed! Sure the game ran alright, not much lag, and the game was fun enough but the way it was handled was so atrocious. You could only have 4 people at a time, finding games took forever, and you were forced to race in 4 straight races like a cup from single player. The problem there is when other racers were mathematically going to lose, they would drop out. It was NIGH impossible to actually finish a 4 game set.

Thankfully, Nintendo has learned a lot since then and now each race is it's own race and you are given points for your placements. There is no tournaments or cups, just one race after another. I guess the addition of a "cup" mode would have been fun though. I haven't tried out the battle mode online yet but I imagine it's as good as the Wii one. Though from forum posts I've read the battle mode in this game is not very good...Not sure how they could mess it up.

Conclusion:

If you have a 3DS there is little choice but to get this game. Considering the severe lack of games on the system at the moment there aren't many other titles to give you the kind of extensive amount of fun that this game can give. With endless online enjoyment and two sets of 4 cups to compete in, there is a lot of Karting to be had here.

*Gets hit by blue shell*

Video Game Collection x 2

Ever look back on your game collection and ask yourself, "Why do I own 2 of these?" Well, I asked myself that a few weeks ago and still don't really know the answer. My game collection has many duplicate games, games I own more than once and in some cases three or more times. Whether my reasoning is I like it more on this system, or it's only $x amount for a backup copy no matter how it's ultimately justified...it's never really justified.

Momentarily I shall list off my multiple games just to show how absurd it really is. But before you see my travesty of a money hole, reflect on your own. Are you as crazy as I am? Are you intelligent enough to say 1 copy is enough and so what if I have to plug the NES back in to play it? Or are you like me and even though you didn't even really LIKE Far Cry 2 that much you bought it again on Steam for $7 because PC controls > PS3 controller?

Well friends that's the sort of thing I will reflect on below. I will do my very best to list all the duplicate games I have, but honestly, there's a good chance I will miss a few.

In absolutely no particular order:

Zelda Ocarina of Time: N64/3DS/Gamecube/Gamecube (yes twice on Gamecube)
Mario 64: N64/DS
Mario 1, 2, 3: NES/Wii
Super Mario World: SNES/GBA
Mario Kart 64: N64/Wii
Ninja Gaiden 2: NES/Wii
Kirby's Adventure: NES/Wii
Metroid Prime: Gamecube/Wii
Metroid Prime 2: Gamecube/Wii
Metroid Prime 3: Wii/Wii
God of War 2: PS2/PS3
Zen Pinball: PS3/iOS
Max Payne: PC/PC (steam)
Max Payne 2: PC/PC (steam)
Dead Space: PS3/PC (steam)
Final Fantasy 7: PC/PSP
Final Fantasy 8: PC/PSP
Vagrant Story: PS1/PSP
Xenogears: PS1/PSP
Chrono Cross: PS1/PS1 (bought it twice)
Super Mario RPG: SNES/Wii
Street Fighter 2: SNES/PS2/PS3/GBA
Mega Man X: SNES/Gamecube
Mega Man 6: NES/Gamecube
Mega Man 7: SNES/Gamecube
Mega Man Zero 3: GBA/NDS
Mega Man Zero 4: GBA/NDS
Mario Kart Super Circuit: GBA/3DS
Donkey Kong Country: GB/SNES
Donkey Kong Country 2: GB/SNES/GBA
Far Cry 2: PS3/PC (steam)
FEAR 2: PS3/PC (steam)
STALKER: PC/PC (steam)
STALKER Call of Prypit: PC (still wrapped)/PC (steam)
Street Fighter 3: PS2/PS3
Street Fighter 4: PS3/PS3
Need For Speed Hot Pursuit: PS3/PC (steam)
Zelda: 3DS/Gamecube
Zelda II: NES/3DS/Gamecube
Metroid: GBA/3DS
Assassin's Creed: PC/PC (steam)
Fallout New Vegas: PS3/PC (steam)
Borderlands: PS3/PC (steam)
Shank: PS3/PC (steam)
Killer Instinct: SNES/GB
Tekken 6: PSP/PS3
LittleBigPlanet: PS3/PSP


I am fairly confident that isn't all of them but I am away from my game center at the moment so this is all memory. The one that bothers me most of all though is STALKER Call of Prypit. I bought that game brand new for $40 when it came out assuming it would be hard to find later on, and Steam wasn't carrying it at the time. A year went by and I never played the game, then Steam had a sale on it for $3...I bought it without thinking claiming convenience of not putting a disc in the tray was worth the $3. And don't get me wrong, it is worth that...but to this day I haven't played the game even ONCE. I bought it TWICE and haven't played it once! How sick is that? DEMENTED I say.

What's even WORSE is I found out later my CD key for my box copy probably would have activated through Steam for free...But really I haven't played it yet because I didn't beat the other two Stalker games I have. And yeah, I own the first Stalker TWICE too!

Another sick anecdote about this list is the Metroid Prime games. I paid the FULL $50 for each game, that's $150 total. Then they made the Prime collection disc! I refused to buy it but then I found a sale on it for $20 PLUS Nintendo said they were stopping production of the game so I had to get it. $170 later I own the Metroid Prime series TWICE.

I guess the worst part about this list of mine is how few of these games I've managed to play the copy of. In other words, I'd buy the game again but not actually play it. The prime series is a prime example...lol...where I played all the gamecube games and MP3 on Wii, but the collection disc I played Metroid Prime 1 and that was it. Final Fantasay 8 on PSP...not beat. Actually, let me make a separate list:

Copies of games I own and have not played/beat. If I list it in both (or all forms) that means I never beat the game at all.

Metroid Prime 2: Wii
Metroid Prime 3: Wii
Assassin's Creed: PC (steam)
STALKER: PC/PC (steam)
STALKER Call of Prypit: PC (still wrapped)/PC (steam)
LittleBigPlanet: PS3/PSP
Fallout New Vegas: PS3/PC (steam)
FEAR 2: PC (steam)
Far Cry 2: PC (steam)
Final Fantasy 8: PSP
Super Mario RPG: Wii
Zelda Ocarina of Time: 3DS/Gamecube/Gamecube
Mega Man Zero 4: NDS
Shank: PC
Dead Space: PC (steam)
Max Payne: PC (steam)
Max Payne 2: PC (steam)

Ok so you get the picture? SICKNESS! I have it I'm sure. But, I'm doing better. I decided not to buy Assassin's Creed 2 on steam for $5 yesterday since I already own it on PS3 and KNEW it would end up on the second list! What would be the point!

So I guess my point is you don't really own a game until you own it twice! ...or more!

*Hi my name is Acefondu...and I'm addicted to buying games for no goddamn reason.*

Why Mainstream Media Sucks at Video Games

Every day I read the regular news from aol, Huffington Post, New York Times, ABC news, yahoo, and when I come across articles related to video gaming I always cringe. I don't believe I have ever read an article from mainstream media about video games that had anything remotely accurate to say. From games make our kids violent to very simple when does the game release, mainstream media gets it wrong and gets it wrong all the time.

Just this morning I saw an article in Huffington Post, Top 5 Video Games and of course I come across an immediate error in which the author believes Mario Kart 7 comes out 04/12/11...Now I get that he is doing that stupid thing where he puts the day first then the month so he's technically correct, however, he also lists Saints Row 3, Dance Central 2, and Lego Potter all of which say "Out Now." So...what Mario Kart 7 isn't "out now?" I don't get it? Why be so inconsistent. This was written TODAY, it's not like he wrote the article weeks ago and then posted it.

Still, that is a minor gripe...the real travesty is the games he listed. Like, seriously Dance Central 2? Lego Pottter? Heck, I wouldn't even put Mario Kart 7 up there. Not ONE game he put there deserves a top 5 spot as a universally acclaimed top 5 of the year game. It's not that it's just an opinion, it's that he's SO off base with his picks that he is clearly just plain wrong. It would be like picking Batman and Robin as a top 5 best picture of the year or something. Now, I absolutely hate the Modern Warefare games but even I would put it in a top 5 for games of the year, or at least not bat an eye at someone else doing it. That pick makes sense, it's the most sold game of the year clearly it's not utter trash like...Dance Central...

I see this all the time though. Yahoo will post articles like best games of the 90's and have games from 2000's in it, or they'll go on to exclaim the death of Nintendo during their peak years of the Wii. Annalists will declare gaming overall to be a failure opposed to the onset of iphone gaming and farmville... Wild claims, inaccurate information, and overall poorly written articles from people who clearly know nothing about video games.

So why doesn't mainstream media carry video game industry experts? I mean really, it's a billion dollar industry and growing. It surpassed gross revenue's of the movie industry a couple years ago and still mainstream media knows more about what George Cloony had for breakfast than what caused the infamous Red Ring of Death in Xbox consoles...which was akin to reporting on a big box office bomb, or the death of a famous actor. Everyone knew about it...except mainstream media still touting Microsoft's unwavering dominance.

I wish I knew why they sucked so hard at covering the video game industry. It isn't difficult, they are an open book of nerds and polygons. But it is clear they don't take it seriously. Probably because of a lack of an audience is my only guess. Us gamers are growing up though, reading the real news and interested in the business end of our hobbyist interests, and they can't get it right! Why report on it at all then? Just stay out and let the gaming media handle it.

On my way to work in the morning I have to endure talk radio as my only means of entertainment since I really hate pop music and commercials. Why is there no video game radio? Maybe it's on satellite radio, I'm not sure. I would love to start up my own video game radio if I knew it'd be a success. Plus it would help to have a co-host...meh.

Point of the story is mainstream media needs to either hire ME or quit reporting news on games all-together. Thank you!

*Go Squirtle, attack NBC with watergun!*

Skyrim - Aimless Journey

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is a lot of things; it's a large open world game, the fifth in a long standing highly respected series of games, a game of the year contender, and a marvel in technological achievement in video gaming.

Like most of Bethesda's games, their strength lies in the journey you take to complete them. The tasks you are given on the other hand aren't the most interesting, aren't the most challenging, and are really glorified fetch questing giving the player a carrot on a stick guiding them through what would otherwise be a game too big to be played but more enjoyable without the carrot to begin with. Skyrim is no exception to the Bethesda rule, build a large, detailed, gorgeous world rife with characters, scenery, ambiance, and history and fill it with missions that a common courier would naturally accept and complete with ease. Within the first 45 minutes of playing this game my quest list had grown to no more than 15 quests all of which were go find this, deliver these, or collect x number of whatever. I was so compelled to complete these quests that I immediately struck down the hag that walked up to me on the street telling me to gather wolf pelts, robbed her corpse and stole the nearest horse in town. That was the best quest I did up until that point, and it wasn't on my quest list.

Gameplay:

Which leads me to my main point about these kinds of games Bethesda is known to make, they are at their most fun when you aren't doing what you're supposed to do. The main quest lines or side quests never really amount to anything grand or even all that interesting. But going off the path, traversing a mountain or discovering a cave that wasn't marked on your map previously, finding a wild unicorn, or swimming under the ocean into the unknown provides the most memories and excitement that no amount of "deliver this" quests could ever offer.

For the uninitiated, the Elder Scrolls games are large sandbox role playing games where you are usually the character to save the world from some random threat. The game is played largely in first person view in the magic and swords vein and handles like a clumsy hack n' slash game. I say clumsy because the battles you encounter throughout the game all play out exactly the same way. In a good hack n' slash game normally you develop different tactics against different enemies, but in Skyrim one size fits all and that's partially the fault of the AI and partially the fault of the upgrade system.

Still, if you pick a heavy melee character you will always encounter every resistance by rushing up to the enemy and slashing away. If you have a magic using character you will stay at a medium distance casting spells. There's also the sneaky assassin character you can make, but in my experience the AI doesn't really make this type a feasible or practical build. You certainly can TRY to get through the game doing critical strikes in sneak mode against everything in the game, but it quickly becomes a nuisance getting the AI to look the other way. Further adding to the AI issue is the dungeons or castles you explore are ALL hallways and long corridors with very few open spaces outside of the over-world. Because of this fact sneaking up on enemies is nigh impossible when you can't actually flank them.

So the battles quickly become very repetitive, but admittedly an improvement over the previous game Oblivion. In Oblivion the AI wouldn't even react to being hit which was irritating. At least in Skyrim when you slash something you get some satisfaction out of it. Also there are death scenes against enemies reminiscent of Fallout 3 and New Vegas which are VERY satisfying no matter how many times you see your character lob a head off a guy. It's probably always satisfying just because it breaks away from the monotony of the battles you have throughout the game.

The level up system is vastly superior to Oblivion also. Here you level up and gain perks for your most often used attributes and the perks themselves are very satisfying to acquire and add noticeable improvements to your character. My personal favorite is probably the speech perk that lets you sell anything to any vendor nullifying my constant headaches of finding the correct merchants to offload my shit unto. It's the kind of thing that makes me not ever want to go back to Oblivion.

Story:

The story in Skyrim is you are the Dragonborn, a human with the ability to speak the Dragon language who is foretold to save the world from the dragons. The rise of the dragons is something of legend as in the Elder Scrolls games they have always been extinct. Their return should have been something amazing and interesting, but the writing here makes the whole experience dull and uninteresting.

There's really nothing to get excited about, no obvious villain to hate, and no one to really cheer for. You don't really care whether the dragons dust the world or not since there's no one in it to care about. Every character in the game teeters so gently on the line of good and evil that you can't honestly decide to sympathize with them or begrudge them, not that there's much to go on in the first place.

The stories that are good and interesting come in the guild quests. These quest lines have interesting characters, funny quests, and downright offensive quests too. It amazes me that in these games the guild quests are always longer and more enjoyable than the main quest line. Oblivion is no different, and to some extent the same can be said for Fallout 3.

Graphics:

The environments are beautiful, some of the best landscapes I've ever seen in a video game...as long as there are no character models to get in the way. That's not to say Skyrim has the worst character models I've ever seen, but they are pretty awful. Still, as long as you're not looking directly at them and instead gaping at the sprawling landscapes this will be one of the best looking games you'll ever see.

Music:

The music in Skyrim is another huge improvement over Oblivion. While Oblivion did have one really awesome overwolrd theme it didn't really have anything else of note. But every piece in Skyrim was epic and made even boring moments of the game somewhat exhilarating.

Conclusion:

Skyrim is a big beautiful place filled with many things to do. Even though the most interesting thing to do is simply to explore the world, that in and of itself is worth the price of admission. Gamers of yore (like myself) oft dreamed of games like this, nearly borderless exploration with intrigue around every corner and that's what Skyrim offers. Fighting Dragons becomes stale after a while though...and sometimes they die on their own falling out of the sky...they really become non-threatening 20 hours into the game. It's odd they made the Dragons powerless compared to a roaming Giant arguably the strongest enemy in the game.

One thing I would like to see this series do is add large scale enemies, or big one shot bosses. Playing Dark Souls and running across a huge Hydra, or fighting a Dragon that actually is threatening made me long for an epic fight like that in Skyrim. I just like having my RPG's offer an Emerald or Ruby weapon if you will to test the limits of my character, or overcome the fight in a strategic way of sorts. Swimming in the deep oceans of Skyrim I always wanted to see a Kraken just come out and eat me, or do battle with one. Just something awesome like that, something memorable to the journey instead of trees, rocks, rivers, cliffs....mountains and fetch quests.

Alas it is not to be in this game, but it's still worth playing since it's the best open world game available these days.

*I had something for this part of the review, but then I took an arrow to the knee*