Failure of Mechanics: The Hype machine and The Difference Between a Solid Game and a Broken Game

Phew...been a crazy week.  Still, I am doing my damndest to keep up with my promise and update at least once a week.  I have a full article written from a few weeks ago, polished, and ready for your perusal.  Next week, probably another Creator Spotlight.  Enjoy.

 

           Let's talk a bit about the games media hype machine and the general misconceptions of the gaming public.  Now, I know this sounds a bit bland, but...just follow me on this for a second.  I mentioned in my earlier reflections on the previous console generation that the hype machine is a big problem.  It creates unrealistic expectations of a game that will almost always be disappointing to gamers because the reality cannot live up to the hype.  The big problem with this, however, is that it creates misconceptions.  You see, too often gamers don't understand the difference between a solid title that, whether you like it or not, is at least a game that works, as opposed to a title that is broken on a fundamental level but which is still looked upon fondly because of the hype machine.

Yeah, the game's media hype machine promised us this broken pile of excrement would be awesome right up until release...no wonder people were pissed off when it failed so hare.

            Let me start this discussion by talking about Final Fantasy 4: After Years, for the Wii.  This game is REVILED by the gaming public.  Partially, I think, because of the hype machine.  The game was advertised on Kotaku and other gaming media outlets as the next great Final Fantasy game, the sequel to the landmarked Final Fantasy 4.  So...was the game great?  Well, no, not really.  However, that didn't make it an unplayable, unsaveable, or even a bad game.  What was Final Fantasy 4: After Years?  It was a decent little RPG that was originally developed as a cell phone title.  It used the same basic battle system as Final Fantasy 4, the active time battle system, however it added a few new features to the mix.  There was a combo system that allowed different characters to work together to create new attacks that were both unique and allowed for a bit of graphical flair in what was ostensibly a 16-bit throwback, there was a system with phases of the moon which affected combat, and there were extra dungeons unique for each character to play through that relied on their unique abilities to survive.  New characters were added to the roster from the Final Fantasy 4 cast and there was a new take on the story that had begun in Final Fantasy 4.  The game was, by and large, fully functional and had several interesting features.  The story featured the return of Golbez, the son of Cecil and Rosa, expanded on the mythos of the crystals, and added a few easter eggs from previous Final Fantasy games.  However, this game is hated by the Final Fantasy community, by and large.  Declared the worst in the series by many.  Worse than FF13.  Worse than Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.  Worse than Final Fantasy 14 at it's broken launch.  But was it?

The irony is that for all the shit FF4: After Years gets, if it had been released in 1995, it would have been a mega smash hit and remembered as a classic.

             No.  I stand firm and declare that while Final Fantasy 4: After years did have several flaws, namely that it was a bit too nostalgic and loved revisiting locations from Final Fantasy 4, it was originally a cell phone game so was sold piecemeal when first released, and that the story deviated from the basic tone of the original Final Fantasy 4, it was not a bad game.  The game was, from a mechanical standpoint, relatively sound.  There were some issues with the delivery of the game, as it was sold in individual episodes before being collected, but the battle system, the music, the graphics, everything that made the game "a game" worked and it worked well.  So, argue for whether or not this is a good game all you want, but don't decry it as the worst game ever, because like it or not, it is playable.  It certainly isn't Final Fantasy: All the Bravest, which is not only broken on a mechanical level for the purpose of squeezing money out of gamers or Final Fantasy 14 at it's initial launch which was nigh on unplayable.

At least Final Fantasy 4: After Years wasn't THIS.

            This is my problem with the hype machine.  It often overlooks the nuts and bolts of a game and creates misconceptions in the gaming community on what is really important.  No matter how much you hype a game, no matter how great it looks, no matter how awesome it may seem to play, it needs to be solid on a mechanical level.  The hype machine billed Final Fantasy 4: After Years as the return of one of the greatest Final Fantasy games of all time.  Was that unfair?  I'd say so.  However, the game was not ultimately broken or unplayable.  Or even all that bad.  Now, I'd like to examine another game which does not receive nearly as much crap as Final Fantasy 4: After Years, but which I personally was unable to finish specifically because of these mechanical issues.

This screenshot doesn't do it justice, but imagine the text about 3 times smaller for me when I was playing Darksiders 2 and you'll understand my anger with broken game mechanics.

            Darksiders 2.  Darksiders 2 had a lot to prove at launch as the original Darksiders, while fun in my opinion, was a bit derivative of the Legend of Zelda.  Darksiders 2 set out to change that.  There was less brawling and more acrobatics, more free roaming, loot based drops...not all of this set well with me, however the mechanics in place still worked.  The game wasn't unplayable or broken or even all that unfun.  However, there is a problem with Darksiders 2.  Namely, that there was a problem with the text size on the screen.  On a decent sized television of say 20-30 inches, the text in the game, from the flavor text on weapons or items, to descriptions of abilities, to text spoken by characters, was so tiny that it was nigh unreadable.  Now, Darksiders 2 received positive hype, after all you are playing as one of the four horsemen, Death, however this aspect was completely overlooked by the games media and by gamers alike.  This is a problem on a fundamental mechanical level.  It makes games for someone like me, who has decent eye sight but a small TV, almost unplayable...I had to fight the game every step of the way to try and enjoy it.  And for a while, I did enjoy it.  However, after about ten hours, I was just fed up with the broken visual mechanics of the game.  I put Darksiders 2 down and never looked back.  In my opinion, while solid for the most part, the game has some broken mechanics.  Apparently, this is only true of the console version, as the PC port works fine.  Nevertheless, it is a flaw for the PS3 version I played and shouldn't have been ignored by the gaming press.  Dead Rising had similarly tiny text and even Dark Souls to an extent has small text, though Dark Souls's text is nowhere near as cripplingly bad as Dead Rising or Darksiders 2.  This is a flaw in the game's mechanics, because it prevents players from actually...well...playing the game.  It is a small flaw, mind, but for me it stuck out in Darksiders 2.  For the most part it is a very fun, mechanically solid game.  However, even fun games, even games we love, need to be recognized for their flaws.  A game's flaws need to be mentioned and held up by the gaming media rather than being brushed under the rug, either intentionally or just because of an innocent mistake.  Let the individual decide whether or not it's something they will enjoy, rather than convincing them the game will be awesome, when it turns out that it might well be unplayable for them.

Dead Rising and Dead Rising 2.  Other fun games with writing two sizes too small.

            This is something I think gets overlooked too often.  In games that are blatantly flawed on a mechanical level, like Guise of the Wolf or Ride to Hell, the flaws will be held up for full scrutiny.  However, in more popular games, like Saint's row 4 or Xcom: Enemy Unknown, they tend to get overlooked.  Even if the issue is small, that doesn't make it any less of a flaw.  People will clamber against Ride to Hell's clunky, broken gameplay, but will not say a thing against Skyrims occasional glitch or bug.

It's easy to dump on Ride to Hell...

 

But no one wants to point their finger at Skyrim for it's broken mechanics.

            This is especially true of high profile games, like Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.  I freely admit that I have issues with this game.  It has some very fun moments, impressive graphics, sound design, and some new takes on the classic Zelda fair.  However, it is what I would call a broken game.  Why?  Because the controls fail on a basic level.  The wiimote waggling works for the most part...however when flying on your bird in the sky sections, the motion controls are nigh on unplayable...and they're all you've got.  On the whole, the motion controls are a major chore.  And in combat, when you are fighting enemies with a shield, the delay in the controls hurt enjoyment immensely.  You see, while the idea of being able to strike from different angles to get around the shield is cool, because of the delay in the motion controls, 99% of the time, you will just hit the shield and waste your time.  This is especially frustrating when dealing with enemies who have shields, which, if you hit them, you take damage.  I have issues with the game, even though it does have a lot of fun moments.  Is it a good game?  Yeah, it is.  However it is also a broken game.  Mechanically, it isn't solid.  It's flawed.

Get used to this image, because with the broken motion controls, you'll be seeing it alot

            Anyway, let me conclude with what I believe to be one of the most unfairly maligned game of the previous console generation.  Bioshock 2.  This game has been held as one of the most disappointing sequels of this generation, if not of all console generations.  And really, that's quite unfair.  Looking at Bioshock 2 from a strictly mechanical perspective, everything works perfectly.  The visual style is similar to, but improved from the previous game.  There are no glitches with it or hang ups that make the mechanics broken or flawed.  The music and sound design likewise works very well, with solid voice acting, a lack of errors on the music or sound effects, and a consistent tone throughout.  The gameplay is easily the best part of the game, as it is greatly improved from the original Bioshock, allowing players to wield weapons and their plasmid powers at the same time, for smoother controls and an overall improved experience.  The game is solid.  It works on a mechanical level and...generally...it didn't have anything about the gameplay that might lessen its value other than it was already done once before.  The hype machine, however, billed this as the return to Bioshock as a big daddy.  And there were some interesting design choices, like the option to turn off Vita chambers for a harder game or an overlay on the screen to make it seem like you are literally in a diver's helmet as big daddies often are.  But what people were expecting, I believe, was to go into Bioshock 2 as a walking tank, like the big daddies they fought, and feel powerful, strong, nigh on unstoppable, etc.  That wasn't what happened.  The gameplay was very similar to Bioshock.  It was improved, to be sure, but it wasn't what the audience was expecting.  In my opinion, this is why the game is so often heralded as a disappointment.  Bioshock 2 is not a bad game by any means.  I'd even go so far as to say it's one of the best shooters of the last generation.  However the audience was expecting something different from Bioshock.  They wanted to be a tank...but instead, they were a man and a father...thus, the disappointment set in.  And no matter how mechanically sound, people still bash it because of that.

In spite of how good Bioshock 2 is, both on a mechanical and a storytelling level, people lob hate it at constantly.  This is NOT a broken game...it's actually pretty damn awesome.  But the hype machine promised something that this game isn't, so...

            While I heartily disagree with this idea, I too am guilty of it.  I hate Legend of Grimrock.  I started playing it, enjoyed it, but at some point, around level 5 or 6, I began to despise the game.  Everything from the mechanics to the weak story bugged me.  Now...I don't necessarily think that's a problem.  If a game is not to your taste, it is fine to dislike it and be verbal about it.  I do believe there is too much vitriol in the world, but others may share your view and want to be warned off a game they may not like.  However, using blanket statements like "Biggest disappointment of 2012" or what have you is unfair.  Saying "This disappointed me the most in 2012" is perfectly acceptable, because that just says it's your disappointment.  You own it.  It isn't a blanket statement on the quality of the game, but on your experience of the game.  That's something I can get behind.

I don't like Legend of Grimrock...at all.  However, the mechanics work perfectly.  It is NOT a broken game.  I may not like the mechanics, but for what it is, they work flawlessly.  There's a difference between not liking the mechanics and the mechanics just not working.

            Now, I started this discussion to both hold up games that are mechanically sound, even if I or others don't like them, while bashing games which are heralded as great but which are mechanically broken.  A failure of mechanics is the biggest indicator of a flawed or terrible game and I would like people to recognize it as an issue.  For starters, don't be lured in by the hype machine.  Don't overlook mechanical issues just because you like a game and by that same token, recognize that even if you hate a game, it can still be mechanically sound.  I freely admit to hating Legend of Grimrock.  However, I'm not the desired audience.  While I think the mechanics are clunky at times, they aren't broken.  They still work on all levels.  It is a solid game.  I don't like it, but I recognize that I'm not necessarily the audience.  Skyward Sword, however, I really wanted to enjoy...but I don't feel bad bashing it because it fought me every step of the way with it's broken motion controls

I may not like Xenoblade Chronicles, but I can't say it's a broken game.  The mechanics work as intended, even if I hate them.

            The best thing that gamers can do is be aware of the hype machine and not buy into it.  Not be taken in by all the supposed features or ways the game is supposed to be and instead see it for what it is and whether they like it or not rather than whether it is arbitrarily good or bad, a disappointment or a classic, etc. then I think the game industry and media as a whole will be better for it.  Recognize the game for its mechanics.  Or failure thereof.  A solid game may not necessarily be a good game, but it is still playable, at least.  A broken game, however, no matter how great the graphics, how strong the license, or how nostalgic the subject matter, is going to fight you and hinder your enjoyment every step of the way.  Recognize that.  If you can get over it, great, but still recognize that the problem is there.

            Functional does not make it good, however being good does not excuse a lack of functionality. 

Video Game Growing Pains Awards 2013

Greetings and salutations!  Seeing as it's a brand new  year, I felt it important to, as with last year, totally copy all the other reviewers out there and make a best/worst list.  Yes, I know, I'm a hack.  Moving on, this list will consist of three categories of games that I played in 2013.  Some of these came out in 2013, some just need mentioning...just because.  Also, this list is purely subjective, so if you disagree with me, fine, disagree.  Better yet, comment and explain to me your perspective.  I'm genuinely curious.  Anyway, let's take a look at the best, worst, and most WTF?! games for me of 2013.

Worst

            Which games made me sad, angry, or just plain frustrated?  This list is all about games I wish I hadn't bought, wish I hadn't played, wish...hadn't been, really.

Worst Identity Crisis: Bioshock Infinite(PS3/Xbox360/PC)

            Starting off controversial, huh?  Don't I always?  Let's get this out of the way.  Bioshock Infinite is a critical darling.  And I can't stand it.  Most of this stems from my distaste for the plot, which focuses on the concept of hyper time.  Hyper time basically posits that all decisions made by anyone creates a split parallel universe where the opposite decision was made.  I think this is handled very poorly, especially through the ending, and just frustrated me.  However, even without that thorn in my side, this game still would have made my worst list.  Why?  Because it doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be, really.  

Be Halo or be Biocshock...at least commit to SOMETHING.

            There are a lot of elements of the first two Bioshocks in this game, like scavenging in trash for food and coin, comboing plasmids and weapons for greater effects, moral ambiguity, audio logs, etc.  However, the game plays very much like a Halo clone.  You have a regenerating shield, you have a stock array of military weapons, from pistol, to shot gun, to RPG, to machine gun, and you are only allowed a two gun load out.  Putting aside personal preference, whether you like the two gun load out of Infinite or the carry as many guns as you want of the previous two, the fact that they couldn't decide on how it plays...whether the pace should be interrupted to scavenge or whether you were pressed for time...whether you should become skilled with one weapon or, in case the enemies don't drop ammo for it, just be an all rounder...it says to me the developers didn't want to commit for fear of alienating...well...ANY potential buyer.  And the game is weaker for it.  The tone of the story clashes with the actions taken by the player.  The style of play in down situations clashes with the style of play in fire fights.  Even the gameplay seems torn, as the improvements made to Bioshock's plasmid/weapon system in Bioshock 2 were either forgotten or excised for Infinite.

This was what we were promised...what we got was a game that didn't know what it wanted.

            I just wish Infinite was more consistent...if it were more consistently Bioshock, I'd have liked it more.  If it were more consistently Halo or some other modern military shooter, I'd have stayed away and been happier for it.

 

Most Boring/Pointless Grind: Skyrim Legendary Edition(PS3/Xbox360)

            I started playing Skyrim wanting to love it...and ended up feeling kinda empty and bored by the end.  I played Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion to death.  5 full playthroughs.  It was a colorful game that made me feel like I was on a grand adventure, that each item I got was unique and that some should be kept or stored rather than sold, that each situation was different, special, and fun.  And Skyrim felt like a grind to me.  First, yes, Skyrim is an amazing game.  It greatly improves the combat of Oblivion, adds in some more options, improves graphics with a new engine, and gives the players more freedom and choice.  However, in doing some of this, other changes were made that kind of turned the game into a slow, boring grind.

We're all just slaves to the grind

            The inclusion of a skill points system, with perks, was a positive change from Oblivion, but because armor, potions, and enchanting were tied to it, often times players had to grind out skill points to get the best stuff, unless they wanted to face vastly over powered enemies...and this was boring. 

"Okay, I bought a thousand iron ingots and leather strips and made a few hundred swords!"

"Congratulations!  You gained 10 skill points.  Do another thousand and you can make NEW armor.  Now, let me take those swords and give you money."

"What should I do with the money?"

"Why, buy more materials...to make more SWORDS!"

Yeah, to me it just felt kinda like a pointless slog.  Added onto that, the game has serious loading issues on a console, is very glitchy, and...really, there was no great reward at the end.  At the end of Oblivion, the gates to Oblivion were sealed...you could tell a tangible difference in the game, because you no longer got ganged up on by otherworldly beasts and there were no more red skies.  In this game...you kill a dragon, other dragons still exist for you to grind out materials on...nothing has changed.  The game is also very modern...by that I mean, washed out colors, lots of grey, white, brown, black...Oblivion was colorful and vibrant, a place I wanted to explore and enjoy.  Every mine and every dungeon of Skyrim just made me more and more bored and question why I put so much time into it.  This even extends to the maps and menus.  Oblivion had an old world, parchment like menu theme, for maps, skills, etc.  Skyrim goes for a semi-clear, bland, boring look to the map and menu screens.

This would have made the grind all worth while...cept this was just an awesome mod for PC versions.  Console gamers got left out.

            Let me just say, this ONLY applies to console versions of Skyrim.  PC versions are much better.  The inclusion of mods allows players to experience a fuller, more enjoyable game, such as with the High King of Skyrim mod, which feels like what I should have gotten for beating the game regularly.  You would still have quests to do, but you have the authority of a king to fall back on, to belittle, build up, or just mess with your subjects to your own enjoyment.

            For me, it was a grind...and grinds can be fun, but Skyrim was not.  It gave me no real feeling of changing the world or its people...everything was pretty much the same at the end of the game as the start.  A dragon and a few extra people were dead, but...no real change to the world at large.

Game That Loves to Give Players the Middle Finger:  FTL(PC)

            I hate FTL.  Some friends of mine encouraged me to try this starship simulator and, to their credit, it was pretty fun for a while.  However, FTL is a roguelike game done poorly.  Roguelikes frequently have you die and have to start over from scratch, however one of the cornerstones, in my opinion, of a good roguelike game is incremental progress.  You get better as a player, you get small rewards to make your next playthrough different or more enjoyable, etc.  Spelunky does this with unlockable shortcuts, players, and by slowly teaching you skills needed to survive through trial and error.  Rogue Legacy does this by allowing you to purchase new weapons, classes, or stat upgrades after each death that you keep.  FTL...doesn't really do this at all.  If you are SUPER lucky, you can have an event which may unlock a new starship.  These events are few and far between, though, and most players will be damned lucky to ever see one.  I've dropped at least 30 hours into FTL and only unlocked three of it's twelve ships...yeah...

Get used to seeing this.  FTL screws you.  A lot.

            FTL just wastes my time, largely because it is so random and luck based.  Now, lots of roguelikes are random and luck based, but FTL, regardless of your skill, can and will kill you with random events for no reason.  No matter how skilled you are, it will just end you...and to me, this is bad game design, because it wastes the player's time and isn't fun.  Others may enjoy it, but I don't.  You may as well roll a set of dice and end the game immediately unless you roll anything but snake eyes.  The game gleefully kills you and wastes your time, with no real lessons being learned and no progress being made.

Egregious Backpedaling: Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time(PS3)

            I am a HUGE Sly Cooper fan.  Alongside the Jak and Ratchet and Clank games, it was one of the finest platformers of the PS2 era and I was super sad that it wasn't making the jump to the PS3.  However, when it did, I was psyched.  I grabbed this beauty up and played it right away, and...it wasn't BAD, but...it felt like a huge step back for the series.

Bentley's expression says it all.  WTF, Sly Cooper.

            First, the plot...it is hugely contrived and turns fun characters we loved into enemies for the sake of getting our main cast back together.  This pissed me off, as we saw a series favorite turn evil for...really no reason.  It.  Made.  Me.  Angry.  Putting that aside, though, there was just a general lack of variety in missions, in my opinion.  Granted, there were a few interesting ones based on new outfits Sly Cooper could wear, such as deflecting projectiles with samurai armor or making huge leaps with a sabertooth tiger rug, but...the general play felt lackluster.  We also had the return of clue bottles, which were included in the first Sly game, however with no map, radar, or other way to find them, digging them up in each hub world became a chore...the first 28 are easy.  The last 2 are impossible.  It was just a ton of amateur mistakes and step backs.

            Sly 4 rubbed me the wrong way...it's not a bad game, but it was a huge step back for the franchise...and that makes me sad.

Honorable Mention: Resistance 3(PS3)

            Once again, Resistance 3 isn't REALLY a bad game.  It's got some fun weapons, interesting enemies and gunplay, and while the story is boring, it was a pretty enjoyable ride.  HOWEVER!  Not only did this game have to dump several gigabytes into my PS3 before I could play it, when I tried to erase it to make room for other stuff, the data corrupted and now it's stuck.  This game was glitchy and had issues with pacing, but that was the nail in its coffin for me.  It doesn't deserve a title under my worst list, but I have to bring it up.  First Sly is handed off to a new team, now Insomniac botches it's PS3 shooter...what's happening to game developers these days?

You done me wrong, Resistance 3...you done me wrong.

Best

            Okay, the depressing worst is out of the way, so let's move onto a few games that I absolutely ADORE!  These games made my year bright, fun, and were true reminders of why I play video games at all.

Delicious blend of genres and themes: Sang-Froid(PC)

            Fun fact.  I spent January 2013 in Montreal.  November 2013, after Steam's fall sale, I got this game and gave it a try.  Oh.  My.  God.  Sang-Froid is a wonderful blend of separate elements that come together in a gloriously silly, wholly unique experience.  Sang-Froid is a story about two lumberjack brothers in Canada who have to protect their sister and neighbors from Werewolves, skin changing Inuit, Wendigos, and the Devil himself.  TotalBiscuit calls this the most Canadian game ever and that's not a bad thing at all.  The new twist on a familiar story, the interesting cultural references and differences, and the strange characters and names that could only come from our friends to the north, accents and all, make this a very memorable play.  However, what sold me was the gameplay.

Yes.  You kill ice demons with a magic axe, a musket, and a ballista.  This game is made of Canadian win.

            The gameplay is divided between a strategy section and an action section.  In the strategy section, you can set traps, some automatic, some you need to activate, you can chop lumber for money, you can buy items or check the movement paths of the waves of wolves, etc.  In the action section, you take those traps and information you gained during the strategy section and try to defend your home.  Not only can players rely on their traps, but they can also fight with axe and musket, making this an interesting blend of action/hacknslash/strategy/rpg/canadian game.  It's great fun.  The voice acting and story can be a bit off or cheesy or stilted, but it kind of lends to the game's charm.  It's dark and serious, but also a bit silly, like an old B movie.  And I love it, for blending a fun story, Canadian culture, and rock solid, super fun gameplay together.

Valentine's Came Early: Pandora's Tower(Wii)

            The last game of Operation Rainfall came out in 2013 and...it was a bit of a Zelda clone.  But my god, what a fun clone it was.  This game features our hero, Aeron traversing several dungeons, killing enemies, and getting new items for the sake of a cursed girl named Elena...yeah, sounds familiar.  However, it really is a fun play.  The chain you are given at the beginning is both weapon and tool and it's just as fun to swing around or grab distant items with as it is to tear chunks of your enemy off with it.

How can I love a monster?  Pretty easy, when she's as wonderful as Elena.

            While the combat is fun, what really sold me on this was the relationship dynamic.  You have Aeron killing monsters and giving meat to Elena, who is a vegetarian, but has to eat or she will turn into a monster.  It's an interesting, subtle bit of character study, between these two friends who slowly grow closer, but also more distant due to Elena's curse.  The game reflects this with a stock relationship meter, but Elena really is an endearing character who works with Aeron rather than being his reward or his burden.  The game does have a few glitches and is at times a but frustrating, but for the characters and for how fun it is living in their world, I have to put it on my best list.

Fantastic, in Spite of Abysmal Publicity: Dragon's Crown(PS3)

            Dragon's Crown has had an unfortunate series of public shamings.  The flame war between producer George Kamitani and Jason Schrier of Kotaku, the examination of character art by Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit, the decrying by both reviewers and gamers for how the art style or depictions of women interferes with the game...it's been a bad time to be Dragon's Crown.  In spite of all that, it has managed to do very well.  Selling a good amount is one thing, but Dragon's Crown is also a fantastic game.

Not your proudest moment, Mr. Kamitani -_-u

            Make no mistake, some of the complaints made by the above personalities are valid.  Hell, I've made similar complaints here.  The Sorceresses design is sexist and frustrating, the Amazon has some unfortunate animation choices, and oversexualized women of the fantasy genre are front and center.  However, it's still a great game.  Six characters, each with a different style of play, in a world that is full of strange beasts, myriad treasures, and awe inspiring sights.  It's a joy to play and I've sunk at least 80 hours into it, completing all 6 character campaigns and beating the final secret boss.  It's been a fun ride and in spite of all the negative publicity that Dragon's Crown has...well...rightfully received, it is still a great game.

In spite of the controversy, the game is still beautiful and plays like a dream.

            Some people may not be able to get over the art style, and that's fine, but it is still something I heartily enjoyed.  I wasn't bothered by the art because I was too busy trying to stay alive fighting cyclopian monstrosities, wicked demons, and the fearsome fire dragon.

Best Bang For the Buck: Rage of the Gladiator(Wii)

            Welp, this was a surprise.  I'd heard about Rage of the Gladiator on the Wii for a while, but only recently got a chance to play it.  It's...pretty awesome, if I do say so myself.  The game plays a lot like Punch Out on the Wii, with various enemies appearing and attacking with specific patterns that you need to block, dodge, attack against, or what have you.  The kicker here is that the enemies are all monsters, like goblins, beholders, magicians, minotaurs, etc. and it's super fun getting to fight them all.

You take on dragons and demons Punch Out style...need I say more?

            There are two modes of play, basic and challenge, and they both scale up the difficulty very well.  There is a skill tree that requires some sacrifices to get what you want.  There is also one of the best things to ever exist in a Wii game.  The option not to use the Wiimote.  It's a game that very much uses Wii motion controls, however you can select a classic controller or just the Wiimote held side ways if you want.    These options allow the game to be played by both the hardcore and the casual alike and really feels like it should have been a full on retail release rather than a 15 dollar downloadable title.

            Rage of the Gladiators is what all Wii downloadable games should be.  It's fun, it's got a lot of content, it's got a lot of options, and it may just be the best Wii game that no one has ever played.

Honorable Mention: Dark Souls(PS3/Xbox360/PC) & Ni No Kuni(PS3)

            Yep, two honorable mentions for Best.  While I am getting more and more jaded with the games industry, this has been a pretty great year.  I played Dark Souls the most last year, but because it frustrated me, I kept it off my best/worst list...and that was unfair, because I've easily sunk over 200 hours into it.  Dark Souls is a fantastic game, mixing moody old school challenge with brilliant graphics that make even the dark or dreary beautiful and well honed design placing control almost completely in the player's hands.  I love this game...almost as much as I hate it.  But...I felt others deserved the mention...especially since I'm now waiting for Dark Souls 2 to come out.

Intimidating, frustrating, but oh so satisfying to conquer...Dark Souls in a nutshell.

            And Ni No Kuni...this would have been my game of the year if not for the crappy control scheme in combat.  It should have been a regular turn based RPG.  That's basically what it is, only you can only control one character, the others have crummy AI, and it goes in real time, so the game doesn't give you a lot of room to rest/mess up/think.  Which is frustrating, since Ni No Kuni is amazing in all other respects.  The villain is amazing...well, except for the White Witch.  Shadaar is amazing.  Let's say that.  Ahem.  Anyway, the graphics are fantastic, with cut scenes by Studio Ghibli.  The dialogue is actually worthy of mention, since it's tame enough for kids, but not painful for adults.  The creature raising mechanic is fun, if in need of a bit more polish/speeding up, and the quest and crafting systems, as well as the wizard hand book you get near the start of the game are great for immersion, world building, and overall fun.  The combat rubbed me the wrong way and that's why it's not on my best list, but Ni No Kuni is a damn fine game.  I just wish it were better, so I could heap more praise on it.

So close to perfect!  If only the combat had been fixed TT_TT

WTF?

            Some games are just...weird.  Or deserving of more than just an arbitrary good or bad rating.  They deserve a new perspective.  So, let's look at these WTF titles and see what craziness was heaped onto use this year.  Also, confession time, these are all great games...I just wanted to talk about them and couldn't fit them into my other lists.  They are certainly strange though.  Trust me.

Game You Love to Hate to Love: Hearthstone

            I hate Hearthstone.  I love Hearthstone.  I...have an odd relationship with Hearthstone.  It's basically a free to play version of the World of Warcraft card game.  It's not perfect by any means, as it's still in beta and still being balanced, but it is a ton of fun.  However, it's probably the only game besides Dark Souls that I scream at, at the top of my lungs, and yet still want to go back to.  It's frustrating, but there are moments of supreme bliss, like when you pull that one card you need in a match.

Yu-gi-oh: Warcraft edition.  Insanely frustrating.  Insanely fun.

            The real reason Hearthstone makes it on my list though is because it's...the way a free to play game should be.  It basically gives you a Yu-gi-oh starter deck and tells you to go unlock the others by playing with the one you have.  Then it tells you to play more and unlock the structure deck cards.  Then it tells you to earn gold and buy booster packs for all the rest of the cards.  If you don't want to earn gold through daily quests, you can buy with real money...but you don't have to.  You can play the game, make good strategies, meet friends or tough opponents, all without spending a penny.  In fact, the shop is just a tiny icon near the bigger play ones and the game only tells you it's there once.  It never badgers you for money and if you are actually about to spend real money, Hearthstone says "Wait a minute...are you SURE?!  You know you'll be spending real money, right?"  It's very honest for a free to play game.  And yet, supremely well polished.  It has a few glitches here and there but it's a balanced game that works well.  With the promise of more to come, I have to say it's probably my game of the year for 2013.  It made me fall in love with collectible card games again, but isn't being a huge drain on my wallet like Yu-gi-oh or Magic the Gathering were.  It's a fantastic title and once it goes open beta, I heartily recommend it to any card gamers in the world.  You won't be sorry.

Come and play a game or two beside the hearth, friend.

THE WIIMOTE ACTUALLY WORKS: Trauma Team

            I've been an apologist for motion controls in the past.  however, the truth is, they don't really work as well as a regular controller or mouse and keyboard in terms of input and probably never will.  However, Trauma Team...Trauma Team makes me question that truth.  It's a fantastic little Wii title that uses only motion controls and uses them well.  Part of the well established Trauma Center series, it focuses on surgeons who have to save patients from everything from regular transplants or lacerations to a brand new super virus.  However, this one focuses on a team of doctors at a specific hospital.  One is early response and can only use certain tools due to having to be on the go, while another performs bone cutting, setting, and makes braces.  Another uses an endoscope to look through a person's body from the viewpoint of a snake while another does triage to determine the malady a patient has.  Each of these doctors uses tools that the Wii mote substitutes as or in the case of triage or mortician, acts like a mouse pointer in a point-and-click game.  And it works.  It works amazingly well.  The wiimote is very accurate, but more than that, it also feels natural doing all the things that the doctor's do.

Even diagnosing an illness feels natural...on the WII!  That is amazing.

            The game isn't perfect, mind.  It can get quite hard in places and the triage and mortician sections are much longer than the surgeries, since they follow the same rules of point-and-click titles, namely, "What the hell do I do now?!"  There are also some odd story bits, like the bone surgeon having a side job as a super hero or the endoscope user having a butler who she regularly shoots arrows at and who can wield a samurai sword.  Hell, the head surgeon is a prisoner sentenced to serve 120 years in a biological freezer.  Yeah, it's a weird title, but the story is surprisingly heartfelt and compelling and the gameplay is just plain fun.  I highly recommend.  If more games like Trauma Team came out, we'd probably be heaping praise on motion controls rather than wishing for their death.

From right to left.  Biker chick, best friend is a robot, talks to ghosts, 120 year sentence prisoner, samurai endoscope doctor, costumed superhero.  So...yeah...the cast is a bit strange.

Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandson: Rogue Legacy

            What does one even say about Rogue Legacy?  Fantastic roguelike?  Check.  Enjoyable little Metroidvania-esque game?  Check.  Most likely to make you go WTF IS UP WITH THIS CHARACTER?!  Ehehe...check.  This is a fun, interesting little roguelike game where you build up stats and unlock new classes by gaining money inside a castle and then try and kill the four main bosses to unlock the final one.  The story is okay, but really, what people came to this game for were the wacky, insane descendents system.  See, each time you die in this game, your son/daughter takes your place.  You get the choice of three, each with a random job, power, and...handicap?  Players have different unique traits about them, like the ability to only see the world in sepia tone because they are "nostalgic" or they fart every few seconds because they have irritable bowl syndrome.  Some are actually quite useful, like the inability to set off spike traps because they are "Light on their feet" or more amusingly, excitable, meaning that each hit they take claims to be thousands of points more damage than it really is.  This game truly does offer an interesting and unique look at roguelikes and Castlevania-esque games with this mechanic.  It's weird, but oh so fun and silly.  What other game can you have an amnesiac, gay, daughter?  Or a short sighted, dyslexic, old man for a son?

Even the greatest of Knights can have irritable bowel syndrome

2013's Shortest Game: Tiny Barbarian DX

            First game I ever kickstarted.  Tiny Barbarian DX is a super fun throwback to the NES era of games.  It's got arcade gameplay and while challenging, doesn't use a lives system that arbitrarily throws you back or ends your game after a certain number of deaths.  It's wonderful at showing with actions and expressions rather than dumping exposition and it's all around a very fun title.  It's also less than an hour long.  For a $10 game on steam.  Usually, I wouldn't even pay half that much for such a game.  But Tiny Barbarian DX won me over.  Its music, its aesthetic, its gameplay...it's a strange little title, for being so short, but it's surprisingly enjoyable.  I have to recommend this to any old school fans of chip tunes, Conan the Barbarian, and NES gameplay.  While short, it's worth it...though I have to wonder how this game gets a digital for profit release and Maldita Castilla is free.  Then again, different strokes for different folks.

Conan would be proud, even if the game is short...or rather...tiny...

Honorable Mention: Dragon Quest 9: Sentinels of the Starry Night Sky

            I played this game to death all the way back in 2011.  And then I bought it again this year to play it again.  Yes, really.  So, now I own 2 copies of DQ9.  Why?  Cause there's only one save slot and with the DQ9 wi-fi store being shut down I didn't want to wipe my old game or my old items.  I'd rather keep those and all the quests I beat and just buy a new DQ9 to play through for fun.  And I did.  And it was fun.  But...yeah, looking back...wtf was I thinking?  Either way, still just as fun now as when I first played it.

Yes.  Yes I am DQ9.  So nice, I bought you twice.

             Welp, that rounds out 2013.  Thanks again to any and all fans for sticking with me and I can only hope I will be able to enrage you further in 2014.  I have about 2-4 articles I'm sitting on for one reason or another and really do want to get out, but my time is seldom my own, so that's why I've not had much output.  This list was just plain fun for me, though, so that's why it's out before anything else.

            Anyway, give the good games a try and the bad games the middle finger.  And remember to enjoy 2014.  Life is short...so game on.

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.