Diminutive Diatribes: In Defense of Metroid: Other M. What can we learn from it?

Unlike a large majority of the Metroid fans, I'm one of the few people who actually enjoyed playing through Metroid: Other M on the Wii.  While I think it is remarkably flawed, I also saw flashes of brilliance in the narrative.  And while it failed on a number of levels I did enjoy PLAYING the game...for the most part.  So, with Metroid receiving some new attention due to the recent Kotaku article on thehistory of the series, minus Other M, I think it might be important to examine Other M, both what it did right and what we can learn from it about Metroid and video games in general.

Alright, let's do this.  Let's examine Other M, flaws and all.

            First, let's talk about what Metroid: Other M does very well.  Body language.  While the script and the internal monologues are...flawed at best, the body language of the series is actually done pretty well.  My favorite example of this is the epilogue, which has very little spoken or monologued speech.  However, near the end, our heroine, Samus Aran, finds the helmet of her former comrade, hugs it close and then carries it out with her before setting it on the seat of her gunship and leaving.  This speaks volumes about the respect and meaning this one person had for her.  Likewise, throughout the game, you will see subtle movements by the character, like a bowed head or reaching out in concern that, while different from previous Metroid games, speaks to the spirit of the series of showing rather than telling.  We learn Samus is compassionate or strong through her movements.

That pose and that expression say all we need.  Words at this point would only cheapen the moment.

            The script, while flawed, isn't necessarily as bad as people think.  The real problem with it is the internal monologue.  Throughout the series, Samus has spoken very little, giving her the feeling of a solemn, thoughtful individual.  She has spoken in Metroid Fusion and I don't mind her speaking in Other M, as real humans, especially those who have to interact with others, have to talk.  The real problem is that the internal monologue paints her as a submissive, weak, childish girl rather than a strong, solemn, mature woman.  Now, whether or not Samus has these thoughts in the midst of her hunting, I don't know, but if she does, we don't need to know it.  The dialogue itself is actually not that bad.  It's a bit dry, but it feels very much like the movie Alien, with a crew of people, some very close, exploring an abandoned/infested space station.  It plays to the environment.  Take away the internal monologue and the dialogue here is actually much closer to Metroid Fusion and not nearly as bad as people think.

When we're not listening to the dreadful internal monologues, we've actually got a decent script.  Samus and a group of soldiers exploring a hostile environment full of alien monsters and an unknown agenda...draws heavily from the Aliens series and that's not a bad thing by any means.

            The gameplay is stellar, for the most part.  The 2-d side scrolling uses 3-d models, but still holds very true to the feel of Super Metroid.  It's fast, fun, and very easy to pick up and play.  The controls are fluid and the shifting from 2-d to a 3-d viewpoint, while a bit clunky, makes excellent use of both control modes of the Wii-remote.  It offers a new dimension of gameplay, but still stays true to the spirit of the original.  The graphics are beautiful, with impressive particle effects and stellar designs overall for monsters and characters.  The environments also offer both familiar and unique environments that Metroid fans will eat up.  Music is also competently done, with a re-worked Metroid theme and sound effects as well as nice ambient sound and music throughout.

Dear lord is this game a feast for the eyes and a real treat to actually play.

            So, the game has a passable script, excellent graphics, gameplay, sound, and some blocking(character movement) that feels very close to the original series.  The game is enjoyable to play...but let's not give it too much credit.  The game, in Team Ninja's hands, made several key mistakes. 

No, really, they gave Metroid: Other M to Team Ninja.  The breast physics guys...oh dear...

            First, is the portrayal of Samus.  This includes the script and some specific moments of blocking.  Metroid has never been a series which relied heavily on cut-scenes, however Other M does to an extent...and this isn't necessarily a good thing.  Normally, a Metroid game focuses on organic gameplay for storytelling and character development.  We become closer to Samus by playing her.  However, the organic gameplay runs counter to the constant internal monologues and a few key scenes.  The most egregious of these is when Ridley appears and Samus freezes up, morphing out of her suit in a panic.  Samus has killed Ridley four times.  This runs counter to our knowledge and Samus's experiences.  Likewise, flashbacks showing Samus's past are not really necessary.  They use the internal monologues to try and build a set of traits to make it appear as if Samus has a deep relationship with another character, however, we don't need that.  We know who Samus is by now and trying to shoe horn anything in, after almost six adventures previously, will ring false.  For example, a thumbs down signal introduced in Other M is supposed to be endearing because of Samus's past...but it isn't, because it is shoe horned in and runs counter to what we know about Samus.

Yeah...not endearing, not charming, not relevant.  This character bit was never mentioned in previous Metroid games and is barely relevant here.  Samus has depth...you don't need to needlessly shoe horn any in.

            Next, trying to railroad the plot through interactive cut scenes.  Other Metroid games have railroaded the plot organically, by creating areas that cannot be accessed without powers from an area that will be easier to surmount.  However, in Other M, many elements of the plot cannot progress unless you go into first person mode and look at one specific patch of screen.  It's very difficult to actually find the right patch of screen, because there are no indicators and the game doesn't make it clear what you should be looking for.  This is a large problem because it not only breaks the flow of the game, it also can be game breaking, if someone does not find the exact spot the developer programmed to move the plot along.

While First Person Mode seems like a good idea on paper, forcing us to look at a very specific patch of grass to advance the game is...just stupid.  Be honest.  It is.

            Finally, just general laziness when it came to scripting and story development.  There are some interesting ideas in this game.  Making Mother Brain, a largely organic super computer, into a human is an intriguing idea.  The use of cloned Metroids by Samus's employers opens up new ground for emotional development through body language and initiating doubt or concern that could tie into Metroid Fusion, making the transition much smoother.  The inclusion of a character who's goal was to kill the others show shades of Metroid Prime 2 and Metroid Fusion and offered opportunities for inventive boss battles and tension...which were not used and feels completely wasted, as the plot thread is largely forgotten mid way through the game.  This kind of waste...of squandering potential...is rife throughout the game.   

This is what we could have gotten in Other M.  A pitched battle with an intelligent opponent on par with ourselves.

Instead, we got the Eraser...whom you never fight in-game and who only serves to pick off the less developed members of your group.  Huzzah...

         For example, all Metroid games need a reason for Samus, who at the start is very powerful, to be weak so the players can have a feeling of progression.  Some have Samus getting damaged in blasts or radiation, having to get new suits due to infection or what have you...Other M just has Samus deciding not to use her powers because a man she respects, but who has no power over her as she is an independent agent, might not want her to.  This is lazy.  Have her activate an EMP trap, or have the traitor attack her, or have something to make her lose her abilities and regain them.  It's not hard to write them in.  When you are making a Metroid game, you cannot afford to half ass it, as the series depends so much on organic gameplay and a good set up.

Hand to god, Samus has the ability to withstand lava but doesn't use it until her superior gives her permission, right at the start of this boss fight.  Seriously.  That's the best you could come up with, Team Ninja?  Making her get "permission?"

            So, what can we learn from this?  Well, for starters, do not take a character in a radically different direction because you want to "Appeal to a wider audience" or make them "Hip" or try and put your vision over a well established character.  Fans of that character will call bullshit and be very, very angry.  Also, rigorously test the game so that you do not find an area that is game breaking or which is too byzantine to understand.  You need to make a game flow smoothly and trying to force a detective section in an action game is just out of place and will break the flow.  Try and match the gameplay styles together rather than forcing something in where it doesn't belong.  Finally, if you are going to make a game, put your all into it.  Don't settle for a weak script due to deadlines, don't introduce an idea that has potential, then drop it down the line, don't try to reinvent the wheel...if you have a good formula, stick with it.  To that end, learn from your successes as well as from your flaws.  Body language can be used to great effect.  Merging styles can be an effective tool and you shouldn't be afraid to try, just don't implement it if it's going to break the flow.  Take the good parts of your script, such as those featuring Samus acting in character, and use those as building blocks for future scripts with her.

Dialogue in a Metroid game.  Metroid Fusion proved it can be done well.  Take what you learned from Other M and do it RIGHT next time.

            Now, I know all these things can be difficult to implement, but if another Metroid game were made, hell, even if it were put into Team Ninja's hands again, I think that if they learned from their mistakes, it could be a fantastic title.  Metroid: Other M plays very well and if you can get past the flaws, and ignore the internal monologues, then even hardened Metroid fans can still find the game enjoyable.  However, that doesn't excuse its flaws.  I say, Metroid: Other M is a decent and fun game, but it's important to take a game, even one we might enjoy, and hold up the flaws so that they can be learned from.

Don't give up on Metroid because of Other M, Nintendo.  Learn from it's flaws, build on it's successes, and you will have a WiiU game like no other.

For those who can't guess, I probably won't move into reviews in my spare time, because there doesn't seem to be an interest, however I may give certain games special examination if they have something that they can teach.  And, I think Other M can teach through its flaws as well as it's successes.

The Right Tool for the Right Job: The Wii and Wii-U

Okay, the Wii and the Wii-U have gotten a lot of hate.  The Wii from the hardcore crowd over the course of it's lifetime and the Wii-U for a lackluster launch lineup which has yet to improve.  However, what I think people often forget is that while both consoles have used gimmicks and tricks to sell games, their hardware do have specific strengths.  You can scoff all you want at the shoe-horned in bits of gameplay which rely on waggling the Wiimote or meddling with the Wii-U game pad.  I have no issue with that, as gameplay needs to be organic.  However, try and remember that hardware is created with specific things in mind.  Remember that while you shouldn't use a hammer to fix a shattered dinner plate, you should use a hammer to nail down a board.  The right tool for the right job.  Are the Wiimote and Wii-U controller often used for gimmicky gameplay?  Sure.  But the fact is, they do have practical uses that are both fun and engaging.  And I intend to discuss this with the gaming public because, while I think it's fine to demand developers stop using gimmicky controls, that doesn't mean we should declare a new piece of hardware a failure just because it does something different from what we're used to.  We need to encourage developers to use the right tool for the right job.

It's different certainly, but different isn't necessarily bad.  Both the Wii and the Wii-U have their strengths.  The important thing is recognizing the potential of their hardware and using the right tool for the right job.

            First, I want to look at the Wiimote.  This was the defining feature of the Wii.  Motion controls.  It was a way to attract the casual gaming crowd, but also a new way to experience old classics.  However, what many games did was try to FIND a use for the Wii-mote rather than build a game AROUND it.  Herein lies the problem.  If you have to find a use for a new piece of tech, chances are you're better off making a game in the traditional style.  Sure, it won't be as gimmicky and might not be as memorable...but it will be a lot more fun and will probably sell more.  So, what can the Wiimote's motion sensors do?  Well, the basic actions it seems to be good at are slashing, pointing, dragging, detection of distance and force based on position, and shaking.  Now, if a game is setup properly, it can make use of these features and actually create an engaging product.

One thing no one can deny is that the Wiimote offered a style of gameplay unlike anything we'd ever seen in the past.

            Slashing is pretty self explanatory.  Games like Dragon Quest Swords and Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword focus on using the slashing action to determine speed, angle, and to mimic certain sword motions.  These work well for your typical action game, provided it's set up to recognize the slashes and to have a reason to do more than flail about, like an enemy who can block in one direction, so you need to slash in a different one.  And these two games do that well.

There's something inherently cathartic about slashing something to bits and this is one thing the Wiimote can do very well.

            Pointing actually has a lot of implications.  You can use it for an adventure game or a hidden object game, like Zak and Wiki, where it mimics the movement of a mouse on a PC.  However, they can also be used for light gun games, where if you point at an enemy, you will shoot it.  When done properly and either put on rails or integrated with competent movement controls, this makes shooters much faster, more intense, and more personal.  Games like Sin and Punishment: Star Successor or Metroid Prime 3: Corruption have proven this much.  It can also be used to simply set objective markers or to touch icons, like in Battalion Wars 2 where you can switch units by clicking on their icon or in Overlord: Dark Legend where if you click on something, your minions will either attack it or grab it.

Pointing and clicking isn't just for adventure games.  In terms of how the Wiimote is used, it can also greatly change how a console shooter is played.  That reticle on the screen?  That's where your Wiimote is pointing.  It offers a whole new level of control.

            Dragging was made very useful in the Trauma Center games on the Wii.  If you click on a specific tool, like a scalpel, or antibiotic gel, or sutures, then you can drag them across a surface to perform a specific action.  The brilliance of this type of game is that if done properly it can mimic something that is normally very difficult in real life and make players feel accomplished.  If you can break something down to dragging, you could easily make a slew of popular and fun Wii games out of many mobile titles and frankly, I'm shocked there was never an Angry Birds or a stand alone construction game, like Sim City, focused around dragging something a certain way.

Dragging sutures over a wound may not be how it's done in real life, but it makes for a fast paced and engaging play session in Trauma Center on the Wii.

            Detecting distance and force based on position sounds complicated but it boils down to this.  Sports games.  The Wii-mote detects the movement of your swing and the power based on it's position and how rapidly that changes.  A swing of a golf club, rolling a bowling ball, hitting a tennis racket, etc.  Boxing was also popular using this system and that has been proven to be adaptable.  The game Rage of the Gladiator used this system to take what amounted to a boxing game into a first person fantasy fighter game against mystic monsters.

Rage of the Gladiators showed that sports games weren't the only kind of game you can play with the ability to detect distance and force.  With a little inventiveness, you could do anything.  This game uses controls popularized in boxing to fight monsters in an arena with weapons, magic, and wits.

            Shaking is pretty minor, all things considered, but if you lack buttons or want to use a cathartic action, then it can be useful.  Wario Land: Shake it made you feel good about shaking the Wii-mote because you got money for it, making it very cathartic, or the Kirby: Return to Dreamland title allowed you to shake the controller to suck in things with greater force, eliminating the need for an additional button.  It's minor, but it does have it's uses.

Pretty minor as far as the Wiimote's capabilities, but still enjoyable.  Shaking does have its uses, after all.

            And of course, any of these different skills can be integrated to create a relatively unique and enjoyable game.  Red Steel 2 managed to including pointing and slashing in the same game by making you a gun slinging samurai.  Trauma Team combined dragging and pointing for doctor sessions and adventure game like triage and post-mortem analyses.  Wario Ware on the Wii combined all these actions in various forms in different mini games.  If you use your brain, you can actually get quite a lot out of these simple actions.

By combining what the Wiimote was good at, crafty game developers could create unique and interesting experiences, rather than trying to do what other controllers already did better.

            The problem with many developers was they either were trying to re-invent the wheel in terms of game design or they did not accept the system's limitations.  The Wii-mote's motion sensing should not be used in a platform game or an action-adventure or fighting game where a d-pad controller and standard jump controls would work better.  A Metal Slug game where you need to waggle the remote to throw a grenade is the opposite of intuitive.  A Wii-mote does not need to be used for games that already have decent control schemes and I think this is what scared off many hard core gamers.  They saw Mario Galaxy having the shoe-horned in star bit collecting when just replacing coins with star bits would have been more fun and accessible and grew fed up.  That aside, you also have to accept the limitations of the Wii-mote.  It can have trouble with path finding or is loopy for a little bit when it goes from off screen to on screen.  Some games allow you to recalibrate it's position and this can help, but...don't try and do something the Wiimote can't do.  If you want it to spin, don't, because more often than not, the motion sensors will just get confused.  Don't try and make it detect movements like reeling back, because if the sensor goes off screen, it will go all loopy.  And if you're making a long game, like an RPG, and want to use motion sensors, then either offer an option for an alternate control scheme through mundane parts so player's arms don't get tired, or make the game best suited for small spurts over a long period, so gamers don't get fed up with all the motion controls.

Collect 50 coins and get a life.  Collect 100 star bits and get a life.  To collect star bits, you have to use a shoe horned in Wiimote control scheme...why not just take out the coins and the motion gimmick and make the game more fluid?  Sometimes you need to know your limits, Wii.

            Now, this information is kind of useless posthumously aside from just making people try to appreciate the Wii when it does it's job right.  However, while the Wii may be done and games aren't really being made for it anymore, you can take these conventions of game design and use them for the Wii-U.  What does the Wii-U have?  It has a big tablet controller with a touch screen.  So, build a game around that.  A game that works intuitively.  In fact, mobile games might be a good place to look.  Get HD ports of games like Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, or Infinite Blade which require touch screen controls and have them work with the Wii-U tablet.  More than that, look to the DS and 3DS for inspiration.  You have a touch screen, so touch things.  Don't try and make the tablet give you information that you could have just as easily gotten off a TV screen, like with ZombiU.  Allow someone to go cooking or crafting on the Wii-U like with Cooking Mama on the DS.  Use the touch screen for path finding, like in the DS Zelda games, like Phantom Hour Glass.  Draw on the screen, like with Okamiden.  And don't forget what was learned with the Wii controls.  You can drag, slash, point, etc. on a touch screen just as easily as you can with a Wii-mote.  Make use of that.

Imagine how fun and intuitive this game would be on a Wii-U game pad in HD.  Mind.  Blown.

            Nintendo land is actually really amazing in this aspect, as, like Wario Ware, it shows a bunch of mini games showcasing the possibility of the game pad, from flicking on it to throw shurikens, to using it to guide a character with path finding, to touching the screen to alter certain parts of a level to keep a character from dying.  However, one thing I adore is that in some games, like the Yoshi mini game, is that they use the tablet in conjunction with the television.  This will be your big seller.  Don't use the tablet to replace information on the TV, but use it in CONJUNCTION with it.  Yoshi's game shows you a path on the TV, then you can look down at the tablet to drag out the path you want Yoshi to take.  Then, he will do it on the TV.  This is a great way to use the touch screen and it allows you to force cooperation with the tablet and the TV because your goals are only visible on the TV, but your path is only visible on the tablet...so you have to work together.

This is how you use the game pad right.  Make it work with the TV rather than fighting against it.

            What else can you use the tablet for?  Well, just some ideas, but...how about using the touch screen without forcing people to look at it.  Create item shortcuts on the tablet that you can just touch without having to look down to make an action game more intuitive.  This would take control and accessibility to a new level for games like Dark Souls.  Or have the screen as a blank canvas that you need to draw on, so you don't need to look at it, you can just draw and what you draw affects the world on the TV.  There are lots of possibilities, however you cannot shoe-horn things in.  Making the Wii-U a scanner seems like a good idea in ZombiU, as it allows you to use it as a sniper scope or scan for threats or see what containers have what items...however, because of the size and the effort involved, it feels really unintuitive and cumbersome, especially since you don't NEED the game pad to do these things...they can be done easier on the TV.  The Wii-U needs to find things that it can do, then build games around it's capabilities.  That's how you'll get hit titles.

Explain to me again why this couldn't be done on the TV instead of the game pad?

            Rayman Legends actually offers an interesting compromise between looking at the TV and looking at the tablet.  You can do either and still play the game, however in many sections, you can alter the environment with a quick swipe or touch on the tablet, opening up new paths for your character, however, often, you're timed or being chased, so you'll want to see all the action on the big screen.  This creates a choice.  You can sacrifice control for a short cut or a power up and risk taking a hit or miss the secret to survive.  It creates a dilemma where either path can finish the level, but where one may be more fun or more challenging than the other, opening up venues for replayability.  And it does this by mimicking a concept from DS games and their touch screen controls.  And that kind of experience will be unique to the Wii-U.  It's not necessarily a gimmick, but a different kind of choice.

Go for a straight run through, or use the game pad to speed things up and open up short cuts?  In Rayman Legends, the choice is yours.

            The Wii-U's biggest benefit is that it is not shackled to the TV, because the tablet does not require the TV to function...so, you could synchronize the Nintendo E-shop from the DSi or the 3DS with the Wii-U to play those games on the tablet in HD.  Or you could release games in a similar style to mobile or DS games, relying on a touch screen, that can only be played on the tablet.  The biggest problem, however, is that no one wants to invest in the Wii-U unless it has a proven concept which works, like the Wii did with some of it's early titles, like Punch Out or Dragon Quest Swords.  No one seems to know what to do and in the bloated AAA industry, few want to risk anything on the Wii-U's novelty and unique capabilities.

            The trick is to use the right tool for the right job.  Look at the Wii-U and what it can do...and build a game around that.  It doesn't matter how simple or ugly it is, so long as it uses the tablet and is fun.  If you create a game that uses it but looks like crap, release it as an E-shop game and take what you've learned to make a more complete game.  Just don't try and re-invent the wheel or mistake the Wii-U's novelty for limitless potential.  Embrace the limits of the tablet alongside it's strengths and work in conjunction with them.  And this goes for all new tech.  You don't need to create a survival horror game or a shooter for the Kinect.  What can the Kinect do?  Recognize movements.  Where would this be useful?  Dance games.  If Microsoft or it's partners don't realize the Kinect's strengths and instead keep trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then...it'll flop with the Xbox One just like it did for the Xbox 360.  Same for the Playstation 3's sixaxis...it had a set of strengths to be exploited, but like the Kinect, it wasn't used to it's fullest.  A few good ideas were thrown out there, but...it was just too limited and the demand to use it died down.

Last I checked, no one was clambering for another Kinect horror game.  Why?  Wrong tool for the wrong job.  Use your hardware for what it's good at and you'll have better luck.

            Now, this little lecture on capabilities has two purposes.  The first is, of course, to defend the Wii and Wii-U.  Were they perfect?  No.  Could they be annoying?  Most definitely.  However, did they have some experiences that were almost completely unique?  I'd say so.  Trauma Team, Sin and Punishment, Dragon Quest Swords, and Metroid Prime 3 all used unorthodox control systems that actually worked and were more memorable and unique because of it.  And the Wii-U has the potential to do the same.  If people will give it a chance.  Secondly, whenever new tech comes out, be it a physics engine, a level designer, or a new motion control scheme, I have to encourage a developer to remember what the tool was designed for an to use it accordingly.  Does your game really need physics?  No?  Then don't build it around Havok.  Does your game make good use of the Unreal engine or would it be better with a made from scratch engine?  Remember.  Right tool for the right job.

Question to any readers I have. Would you like to see game reviews here?

Okay, fans...all...five of them, yes I'm kidding, relax, I've been thinking alot about games lately.  And not in the brain hurtey editorial meat grinder way where all I do is grouse about the video game industry and how much it was so much better when I was a kid.  More specifically, I've been thinking about individual games.  Games I'd love to spotlight, for good or for ill, and remembering my days of freelance review work.

No doubt fans of my blog have had it made clear that, while I recognize Splatterhouse's flaws, I love the game itself.  I'd love to get a chance to explain that and to actually show the audience that, even if it is shite, you can still enjoy it more than say, Fuse which I am thunderstruck was made by the sacred studio that Spyro and Ratchet built.  More than just defending games though, I'd kinda like to sit down and explain why a game may not work for some, but might work for others.  I did not like Bioshock Infinite.  However, I recognize that it's a damn fine game.  There are problems, certainly, but a lot of people enjoyed it and I do understand why.

Now, here's the kicker.  I want feedback.  Anyone who thinks that might be cool or who might want to hear my opinions, god help you, I'd like to hear a yay or nay in the comments.  I mean, I've got a full plate already, but I can bust out a review pretty easily if it's not as polished as my other posts.  But I didn't envision this blog as doing that.  It's a commentary on the good, the bad, and the future of the games industry.  So...if you want reviews, let out a shout, otherwise I may just squelch the urge to start writing them up again.

Please, leave a message in the comments if you'd like to see some written reviews or not.

Sell Now, Fix Later: The Growing Problem of Unfinished Games

Okay, before I get started with this entry, I want to apologize for the infrequency I have been posting lately.  I recently lost my old job and have returned to school, so needless to say, it's been an adjustment period.  I've also had my hands in other projects, like my book or a sexism project in regards to video games for the sake of a friend of mine.  Anyway, enough apologies.  I may be a bit more infrequent for the next few months, but I do have some more posts in the pipeline so...please be patient with me.  Now, on with the post and your inevitable hate mail.

Sell Now, Fix Later: The Growing Problem of Unfinished Games

I'm going to say something that will probably earn me a good deal of flak.  I don't like Skyrim.  Before anyone throws hate mail my way or "You just haven't played it enough" or what have you, let me retort with, I spent sixty hours playing the game.  It's addicting, certainly, but...I can't really say I had FUN while playing it, just that I couldn't exactly stop.  I went from the start of the game to the end of the story missions, finished the civil war, and by the end was greatly disillusioned with it because Skyrim is an unfinished game, shoved out into the market because the developers thought it was "Good enough."

"Good enough" is not good enough when it comes to a $60 game.  Make.  It.  Better.

            What do I mean by that?  Well, in the modern game industry, the advent of consoles which regularly connect to the internet has spoiled video game developers somewhat.  You see, thanks to the ability to patch a game online, many developers feel it is alright to skip some of the crucial stages of QA testing in their games, shove it out into the world at large, and if there are problems down the road they can just release a patch for it.  While I know that releasing a patch is a huge hassle much of the time and does require a fair amount of manpower, this kind of nonsense would not fly ten years ago.  Ten years ago, a game with as many bugs and glitches as Skyrim would be laughed off the cutting room floor, not lauded with 9/10 and 10/10 scores from reviewers and given countless game of the year awards.  See, as consoles have grown closer and closer to PCs, an unsettling number of them have started to treat their games like PC games.

It's a good game, but...no.  Glitchiness should not get a free pass.  9/10 for a game with an insane amount of glitches is unacceptable, even for an Elder Scrolls game.

            There was a time when console video games could not be that glitchy.  One or two glitches might be acceptable if the developers missed them and they didn't obstruct gameplay, like the famous Final Fantasy 6 reviving General Leo glitch or the duplicating items glitch in Dark Cloud 2.  However, if a video game had noticeable problems just running normally then it would receive a lot of flak from reviewers and gamers alike.  For me, personally, Skyrim on the PS3 froze to the point where I had to manually restart my console about 6 times during my play through.  Many monsters would one shot me at full health, even if they were tiny.  I had, on two separate occasions, Dragon corpses draped over different houses in different cities that refused to disappear and which ragdolled and got trapped in the scenery.  Characters who could get trapped, both by scenery and IN scenery.  And overall just poor design on certain sections of the game.  Yet, despite all these problems, and these were in the most recently patched version, Skyrim's perfect "legendary edition," people still threw around awards of 10/10 for the game.  When the game was released in 2011, there were dozens if not hundreds more glitches, some of which made the game unplayable after sixty hours or more.  This kind of glitchy, unfinished console game would never even find release, save for the most unscrupulous of developers pre-2006.  The fact that it's a port of a PC game is little excuse, especially considering how high profile it is.  Be more critical, game journalists!  Skyrim did not deserve all those 10/10 scores it got.  I personally didn't like it, but that's personal preference.  I could see it being a solid 8/10 or a 7/10 because of all the options and the capacity for fun through organic gameplay...but with all the glitches, it did not deserve all the praise it got.  Just because a game has a massive amount of content does not forgive the fact that the game is unfinished in places.  In fact, "You can overlook a few glitches due to the amount of content"  should not be an excuse.  If anything, the amount of content raises the bar higher because if you can give us this much content, we expect it to all work.

You laugh, but this is kind of distracting...immersion breaking...and just unacceptable in a "game of the year" title.

            Here's the thing.  PC games have had this issue for a while where even seminal games can be plagued by glitches.  System Shock 2, I have no Mouth and I must Scream, Deus Ex, etc. have all had glitches that needed patching or which were just left in game, some of which were game breaking.  However, PC games are a different breed than console games.  PC games allow free modding, so that even if a developer abandons a game to glitchiness, the fans could program in a work around.  This is not possible with console games.  If you're going to release a console game, you have to recognize that internet access 24/7 is not all that likely, so patches will be harder to send out, and that there will not be a modding community, so you can't simply throw up your hands when an error comes in and say, "It's good enough.  Ship it with the glitches, we'll sort it out later."  Even for PC games, I think this is giving a bit too much leeway.  When you have to pay sixty dollars for a game, brand new, then it should work for you without fail.  It should be a finished game.  No one pays ten grand for a car that's missing wheels or missing an engine when it's been advertised as complete and no gamer should pay full price for a game that clearly is not finished.  "Good enough" is not an excuse.

I love Splatterhouse, but...get ready to rage as it glitches up over and over.  A game like this should not have been released, at least not for full price, even if it's dirt cheap now.

            Yet, in the current generation, this happens more and more, even with games that aren't patched.  I could definitely keep kicking Bethesda, since Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion also had glitches and Fall Out 3 and New Vegas were prone to freezing a fair bit, but let's look at some games that aren't PC ports.  Splatterhouse for the PS3 and Xbox 360.  I love Splatterhouse.  For all its flaws, it's very fun.  But even I raised an eyebrow and sighed when I saw the ending.  There was a massive sound glitch where the entire audio track, music, sound effects, voices, the works, just stopped working during a cinematic.  This happened several times, where audio would fail, video would get choppy, or where I would die just because of a game glitch.  I love Splatterhouse, but it should not have been released as it was.  The developers had to have known about this issue and they should have fixed it.  There's no excuse for it.  Or Pandora's Tower.  I've already gushed about how much I adore Elena and Pandora's Tower for the Wii.  But even I yelled at my game when it started to glitch out.  You see, at one point in the game, the player can through one of two towers, which are connected.  One tower, randomly chosen, causes the game to freeze.  If you reload the game and choose the other tower, you're usually fine.  But every other time I tried to go into these towers, the game would freeze and I would have to reload.  And judging from forums about the game, this kind of glitch is just one of many. This is hard to miss, given the nature of the glitch and the game's pacing.  How could QA have screwed up so badly?

See that chain?  That's the glitch gateway.  After running down it to enter the last tower, prepare for a game freeze.

            Now, I'm not an idiot here.  I know that glitchy, unplayable console games have been released in the past, such as the LJN licensed games on the NES, however look back on those games.  They typically saw very poor sales and were reviled by the gaming community.  Compare that to Skyrim or even Pandora's Tower.  Skyrim has sold millions of copies and even been named game of the year, while Pandora's Tower has been ported to the US after the massive fan campaign, Operation Rainfall.  These are high profile titles in the gaming community.  And their mistakes are just getting overlooked.  This is something I cannot stand.  We paid full price, so we should get a finished game.

            I can be sympathetic up to a point.  Sometimes, developers think they've caught all the mistakes possible.  They think they've fixed their game to the point where it's not "Good Enough" but that it's actually "Complete."  Then it ships, a player does something the developers weren't prepared for, and a glitch is discovered.  This is a real possibility, especially with older PC games like Deus Ex or even newer games, like Aquaria or FEZ.  And it's not restricted to AAA developers, as the previous two games were indie titles.  When that happens, I understand that it was probably unforeseeable.  However, in a game like Skyrim, which released with a huge number of bugs, then was re-released as a "Legendary" or "Complete" or "Game of the Year" edition...I have no sympathy.  You sold us a broken game you thought was good, okay, we understand, just do what you can to patch it.  You sold us a game you KNEW was broken and just went ahead with it because of the money?  Screw you.

Legendary Edition, my ass.  These games may have the latest patches, but still have a plethora of glitches.  Try, plebian edition.

            This seems almost like a parody of video game business models.  A parody of Skyrim was featured in an independentfilm by Doug Walker called "Dragonbored."  In this film, a Bethesda stand in released a game called Skyguard, which had a glitch that released the in-game character into the real world.  Impossible?  Certainly.  Funny?  At times.  But then, the film ends with a stinger showing the developer's coder talking to the boss.  They talk about a glitch which sent someone back in time.  The developer's response?  "Go ahead and release it.  We can patch it later."  This may have been a parody, but think about that mentality.  About a developer or publisher caring nothing for your satisfaction as a customer, because they can do something about issues "later" so long as they get your money "now."  This kind of short sighted business decision is scummy beyond compare.  Now, for EA.  We all knew this was coming.  The Sim City 2013 release.  EA released a game that suffered disastrous launch failures, which despite being online only and patched regularly still had numerous glitches, several of which were server glitches directly under EA's supervision, and was ultimately reviled as one of the most botched launches in gaming history.  However, months after the fact, EA called it a success.  Why?  Because they sold several million units and got them working "eventually."  They thought that selling their users a broken game was fine, so long as they got their money now and the users got their finished game "At some point."

Don't worry...we'll fix it eventually.  Unacceptable, EA.  Unacceptable anyone.  Stop selling unfinished games!

            Truthfully, the internet isn't the only thing that has led us to this current embarrassment in game design.  It's the bloated AAA industry.  Lately, the AAA video game industry has become like scummy, short sighted politicians or Wall Street businessmen.  They follow the mantra of "Profits now, who cares later."  They shove their games, broken or not, into our face and expect us to buy them up like good little sheep.  The prices rise, but the quality drops and we continue to purchase their games, regardless.  Longer, more expensive development times means they can afford to do no less.  They don't have time or money for "polish."  The fact that they can get away with it means they don't hesitate to release an incomplete game.

            And really, who is to blame for this?  Well, the companies, obviously, but also, us, the gamers.  We put up with this nonsense.  Every time we buy a Skyrim and give it a 10/10 despite it's numerous frustrating glitches, every time we buy into another EA pyramid scheme, every time we shrug and say, "Oh well, it's good enough" while playing a game, every time we buy a broken game just because of brand loyalty or without looking into it, like good little sheep, we are contributing to the problem.  Developers have gotten spoiled thanks to the idea of a console having free access to the internet.  But then again, so have gamers.  It's why so many people put up with on-disc DLC or why online passes were overlooked for a time.  Because we were spoiled by the internet and forgot a time when consoles didn't have the net.  They only had their games, to stand or fall on their merits alone.  And we need to remember.  I personally connect my PS3 to the internet maybe once a year.  Thousands if not hundreds of thousands never connect their systems at all.  We need to go back to a time, such as when the PS2 launched, where connecting to the internet was the exception, not the norm.  Where games had to stand on their own merits, rather than on what they maybe, possibly, could be once they were fixed.

Still don't believe my warnings?  Well brand loyalty and buying up games like good little sheep gave us Final Fantasy 13-2.  And Lightning returns.  Yeah.  Be afraid.

            The games industry is and has always been a business.  But Jim Sterling put it best.  No longer are game companies trying to create a title that will polarize and attract new gamers.  They are now trying to squeeze as much money out of what dwindling fan bases they have as fast as possible.  Gearbox shoving Aliens: Colonial Marines while advertising with a demo that was a blatant lie is proof of that.  A broken game, shoved out with promises of tweaks, which seem really unlikely, for the masses to lap up.  There was a time when a developer didn't need to release a broken game to squeeze money from a fan base.  There was a time when releasing a game dead on arrival was just that, dead, not dead until fixed.  But as the AAA industry becomes more bloated and ridiculous, I imagine we will see a good deal more releases that are functionally unfinished and which need to be patched.  Patches may be a great thing, allowing a developer to fix their mistakes post mortem, however, I also expect to see games released which are functionally unfinished even AFTER patches or which receive no patches at all.  If they haven't already been released by the time of this posting.

This is the game Gearbox sold to us as finished.  Yeah...remember what happened?  Oh, right.  Fan outrage.

            So, what can be done?  Well, compromise for one.  If you're going to release a game that has bugs or glitches that you know about, scummy as that may sound, give gamers a price drop.  A decent price drop.  A $20-$30 price drop.  That way, they at least know what they're getting into.  Value for less than stellar efforts.  Or, on the flip side, if you think it's good but bugs crop up anyway?  Well, how about some special content for people free of charge?  Some developers do this and while it's not a perfect solution, especially for gamers who play offline, it's at least something.  Hell, some game companies like Nintendo have multi-media sites that can give rewards or game credit as an apology if they so chose to do so.  However, there is one thing we can do beyond simply compromise.  We can stop settling for less.

            Angry Joe and Kotaku both played Saint's Row 4 when it came out and I have been flabbergasted by the excuses they make for the game's many glitches.  When a car clips into scenery?  "It's fine!  It's funny and I can just get out of the car."  No.  A game doesn't function the way it should, you need to raise a little more hell.  "The game froze on me, but it's still fun, so I'll excuse it."  Ummm...doesn't a game freezing make you repeat a section, thus killing some of the fun?  Own up to it!  "The game's so outrageous these glitches almost seem like they were built into it."  Really?  Are you really that desperate to defend what you love?  I love Splatterhouse.  I think it's an underrated game that's really fun.  But I would not pay full price for it.  I waited to buy it on the cheap because I knew it was flawed.  And even though it's fun, I can admit the glitches hurt my appreciation of the game.  Reviewers, gamers, and yes, even developers...stop settling for less.  Stop making excuses for your games.  I know you love them, but part of love is honesty...don't sweep their failings under the rug.  Be fair.

Yeah, these glitches were intentional...it's parody!  Keeeeeeep telling yourself that.  Whatever lets you sleep easy at night.  Seriously, give games a fair shake, both for good or for ill.  If they screw up, bash them, even if you love them.

            What game companies and even gamers forget is that we have the power.  We have the money.  And if game companies want it, they need to do a better job.  My final suggestion is to stop buying games on release day, honestly.  Let the lifetime sales of a game speak for its merit, not just a million over the weekend.  Wait until you know a game is actually finished or worth playing before dropping your money down on it.  Don't follow a brand or a series or a developer like sheep just because they've released hits in the past.  Gearbox, Square Enix, EA, Bethesda, even Nintendo have all released major smash hits in the past but they've also all released unfinished games as well.  Don't settle for "Good enough."  Don't settle for the excuse of, "Oh we'll fix it later, we'll patch it."  Don't defend it just because it's "fun."  If the game is unfinished, own up to it and demand a game that is worth the money you're plopping down for it.