HD Re-releases, Remakes, and Reimaginings: Quick Cash-ins VS Earnest Effort

            The recent slew of HD re-releases has got me a little upset.  Before I get started though, let me say this.  No, I don't have a problem with ports or re-releases.  I'm not a purist who thinks that games were best on the consoles they were released on.  Re-releases serve a valid purpose in exposing a new audience to old properties and in gathering together games spanning many different consoles and putting them in one easy to use package.  However, what I hate is the blatant cash grabbing, the lack of care brought to bear in the games being re-released, and above all else, laziness.

If a game series can be re-released, companies will re-release it.

            Let me try to explain.  I was a big fan of the Final Fantasy compilations on the Playstation.  Each one either improved the graphics of it's previous incarnation or included a game that had never been released outside of Japan.  Even Final Fantasy Chronicles, which was almost a straight port of Final Fantasy 4 and Chrono Trigger, returned Final Fantasy 4 to its original difficulty and gave Chrono Trigger a boatload of extras for players to unlock, including new cut scenes, musical tracks, and a way of keeping score of how many endings had been unlocked.  With each of these re-releases, there was effort put into the package, as new content or whole new games were released.  What made the originals unique was preserved and at times improved.  Now, compare that to recent fare.

A Final Fantasy re-release before Square started handing those out like tissue paper.  It actually offered a more difficult experience and a number of extras for both games.

            The Silent Hill HD collection gathered only two games together.  Two games from the same console generation.  Two games which were originally already backwards compatible with the Playstation 3 before that was removed due to corporate greed.  But, how were the remakes?  Atrocious.  The games worked fine in their original states, but the "HD improvements" introduced a ton of graphical and audio glitches, removed some of the atmosphere that the originals had created, and required patches from day one for decade old games.  My simple question has to be, if I could still find Silent Hill 2-4 in stores as of 2012, why did this even need to exist?  It was far poorer quality and did not gather any of the more wayward games, like Silent Hill: Origins from the PSP or the original Silent Hill from the Playstation.

An HDcollection released in 2012 botched so badly that it looks laughable compared to the original release over a decade earlier.

            Once again, compare that to a good collection.  The Mega Man Anniversary Ccollection on the Playstation 2 gathered over eight Mega Man games together, spanning three console generations, with some that were never released outside of Japan.  The games had no errors, played just as faithfully as they did on their home consoles, and were preserved graphically.  This kind of collection is what I love.  Something like the Devil May Cry Collection which only gathers three games from the same console generation...yeah, I can let that slide since it was an entire series at the time, but my question still remains.  If you won't add anything extra, won't gather together games from far apart, and can, in fact, make the properties poorer for it, why are you even re-releasing these games?  The simple answer is money.  Companies bank on nostalgia and word of mouth from older games to sell these re-releases which are relatively inexpensive to make compared to creating a whole new AAA game, and continually churn them out.  Look, I get it.  Companies need money to survive and I've already said before, use it or lose it when it comes to IP.  I'm still waiting for a Breath of Fire or Suikoden Collection.  But honestly, I think that we give collections a bit too much of a free pass.  Especially compared to remakes or reimaginings.

This is how a collection or re-release should be.  Check the box art.  10 games on 1 disc.

            That brings me to my second point in this discussion.  Remakes and reimaginings.  Often, they requires a thousand times the work of re-releasing a compilation set, but because they deviate from the previous game, they get a lot of flak.  Examples of this are the Wild Arms remake, Wild Arms: Alter Code F, the Lufia 2 remake, Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals, and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, the remake of the original Silent Hill.  Now, the big difference between a remake or a reimagining and an HD re-release is this.  A re-release may touch up the graphics or add extras and Easter eggs , but it doesn't change the game.  Sometimes, this can be for the best, as some games are classic.  However, too often, I think that gamers don't appreciate the sheer audacity and courage it takes to make changes to these properties, which are considered almost sacred by their fans.

Wild Arms, the original

Wild Arms remake.  Can you see the effort?

            The three games I just mentioned drastically altered how their respective games were played while still keeping true to the spirit of the original.  And this, I think, is the whole point.  Trying something new with a property while being faithful to fans in their own way or fixing what was broken with the property to begin with.  Ben "Yahtzee"Croshaw, from Zero Punctuation on the Escapist, put it best when he described Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as, "This is everything a reboot should be.  Something not afraid to fix shit that didn't work."

            Going in a different direction from the original with a remake is not necessarily a bad thing.  New story bits, a fresh take on game design, or just fixing problems that were in the original allows gamers to experience something more polished as well while giving the game a new coat of paint.  These design choices take effort and courage, as even slight deviations can be seen as betrayals.  One major point of contention in Silent Hill: Shattered Memories was the lack of ability to defend oneself or the fact that enemies only appeared in certain sections of the game.  True, this may have deviated from the atmosphere of dread and constant danger that the original espoused, but it also allowed for a tighter, more focused psychological narrative.

Say what you want about the game changes to Silent Hill Shattered Memories, at least it made the effort to try something new.

            Of course, one doesn't have to rock the boat all that much to make a remake work.  The Dragon Quest games on the Nintendo DS are ports of their NES and SNES counterparts, only with better graphics.  However, a number of nagging issues have been addressed.  There is no longer a need to shut down the system while saving, there was additional content added to the games to help iron out story bits, and there is a better translation of the dialogue.  This is how a faithful remake can be done safely.  Keeping what fans know, I.E. the characters, story, and game design, while ironing out problems in the originals.

Dragon Quest 5 before remake

Dragon Quest 5 after remake.  It's the same game, just prettier and more polished.  As it should be.

            Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrels does the exact opposite.  It greatly alters the aesthetic, gameplay, puzzles, and changes the story somewhat, but manages to keep the characters, the villains and the overall feel of the game consistent with the original.  This allows gamers who have played the original to enjoy something new and fresh, while allowing easier access to the world of Lufia for fans who didn't get a chance to play the original.  It would have been simplicity to keep the same translation, same game design, and even the basic look of the game, making it just a straight port, but Neverland, the developers, decided to take a risk and offer the same familiar characters gamers loved in a fresh new adventure.  That took courage for the decision and a ton of effort, as the entire game was redesigned from scratch.

Lufia 2 in its original form

Lufia 2 remake.  It's like night and day.  A straight up RPG vs an action RPG.  Imagine the risk Neverland took in remaking this game.  That took courage.

            The point I am trying to make here is the difference between the worthwhile and the mundane.  I want gamers to understand the difference between earnest effort and a cheap cash in.  I give plenty of praise to remakes, but honestly, I love collections.  The Sega Genesis Collections on the PS2, PS3, and Xbox 360 have some of my favorite games of all times on them.  I got to play Megaman 5 and 6 for the first time with the Mega Man Anniversary Collection.  And the Capcom Classic Collections included some amazing old gems I'd never get a chance to play anywhere else.  But here's the thing.  Those collections had a large number of full games together at once, with additional functionality, Easter eggs, and secrets to unlock.  The Mega Man collection had about 10 games, some of which were unlockable.  The Capcom Classics Collections had over thirty games a piece, with trivia for each.  Even the Devil May Cry Collection gathered at least all three games in the series up to that point with the added content of Devil May Cry 3's Special Edition.  But look at recent releases.  Zone of the Enders, while great, has only two games on it and a demo of the new Metal Gear Solid.  Ico Collection, two games.  Silent Hill Collection, two games.  There were two God of War Collections, each with only two games.  Infamous collection, two games and a DLC code.  This is lazy.  The Infamous collection in particular offends me since there is no point to it.  Both games are still easy to find in stores and both can be bought online on the PSN.  It's a cash grab and a thinly veiled one at that.  If you're going to re-release, make it worth the player's wild.  The most recent God of War Collection, God of War Saga, includes all five games in the series, remastered.  That's five games from three different consoles.  Game companies KNOW how to re-release games.  They are merely seeing how cheap they can go and still make money.

Did we really need this remake?  The extra episode was released as DLC and doesn't even come on the disc.

            Now, look at the reimaginings or remakes released in recent years.  The most recent as of this date is DMC, which tries to reboot Devil May Cry.  While I don't much care for the tone, the combat is smooth and polished, the controls are acrobatic and make the player feel powerful, and it has multiple options for play.  Yet many fans still cry foul over it, to the point where they petitioned the government to have it banned.  I can understand being offended if a remake betrays the conventions of the original and I'm kind of in the camp that DMC's story does, but...it's a game.  It's meant to be fun.  If the effort was put in to make it enjoyable, then don't just shove it aside for a crappy re-release just because you disagree with minor bits.

Look, I hate the new Dante too, but c'mon...give the game credit.  This looks bad ass.

            Another one is the Final Fantasy 4 collection on the PSP.  This graphically enhances Final Fantasy 4, the somewhat panned Final Fantasy 4: After Years, and adds in a new scenario to bridge the games.  Whatever your opinion is on the near constant re-releasing and porting of Final Fantasy 4, give credit where credit is due.  The game's graphics are painstakingly gorgeous, with better sound, additional scenarios, and all the gameplay features of the original.

            Can you see what I am saying?  The game industry banks on nostalgia to make money.  They know it will.  However, if you KNOW something is going to sell, why bother to improve it?  That is the logic I see them working by, especially with re-releases like the Silent Hill collection.  My plea to gamers and the industry is this.  Recognize laziness or ineptitude and refrain from supporting it.  Either the industry will step up its game with these re-releases or they will stop abusing their properties and provide better experiences with their new games.  The truth is, players have the game industry by the short hairs.  If they refuse to buy a game, then they dictate with their money that ineptitude, laziness, and cash grabs will not fly and the industry will have to improve or it will crash again.

Can we not encourage the haphazard re-releasing?  These games weren't even half a decade old when this came out.

And a few years later we get ANOTHER re-release, with all the games on it.  This is what a God of War Collection SHOULD have been to begin with.

            Also, recognize effort.  Gamers, put aside your pride over a series you love and learn to love a remake for what it is.  It's a game and it's meant to have fun.  If it's poorly designed, then don't buy it, don't support it, but if it is good, just different from what you've expected, then don't try to destroy it out of some puritanical loyalty to the original.  The original was already made.  Give credit where credit is due to the new property.

            There is nothing wrong with nostalgia in gaming.  Often, the past is both enjoyable and can educate.  Collections, remakes, and reimaginings are our doorway to the past.  But take off your rose tinted glasses and recognize that sometimes you should demand better.  Just because something claims to be a re-release or an improvement does not automatically make it better.  Be informed and if the product is shoddy, don't support it.  So long as we remember the games we love, companies will continue to try and make money off them.  There will always  be another re-release.

The Lost Art of Fixed Cameras

Well, I'm back after a long and somewhat miserable Christmas and New Year with perhaps one silver lining.  You see, one of my big presents for Christmas in 2012 were some Amazon Gift cards, which I promptly used to get a few older games for my collection.  One of these games was called Koudelka and I've spent the last few weeks playing it.  When I finished, I had two big thoughts about Koudelka.  The first, was how much the fixed cameras annoyed me, having to constantly switch perspectives and being only able to move and see within a specific area.  And the second was how much I enjoyed the atmosphere, because the fixed cameras kept the game very focused, very intense, and with a lot of details for a relatively unknown release at the time.  As such, I wanted to talk a little about fixed cameras.

Sure don't make em like this anymore.  More's the pity...

            Fixed cameras were used in place of free moving cameras for a number of reasons in the early days of 3d gaming.  There were limitations on how the camera could or should be moved without having it dissolve into the scenery or cause graphical distortions, it meant having to create less environments since you could basically show the player exactly what you wanted to and how you wanted them to see it, it was easy to use for puzzle mechanics, etc.  However, once free moving cameras using the second analogue stick of most controllers became the norm, fixed cameras sort of fell out of fashion, associated more with the tank controls of Resident Evil rather than the atmosphere.  I think this is a mistake.  Now, I'm not saying that everything was better with fixed cameras.  They had a number of issues and limitations.  But, they were a specific kind of tool for a specific kind of job.  And I think that, like most tools, there is an art to wielding it effectively that too many people are unaware of.

A fixed camera shot like this is highly atmospheric,  showing the characters as small compared to the monstrous laboratory around them.  Without any words, this shot conveys exactly the emotions we should feel when we first walk into this lab.

            Fixed cameras, to me, are a little like cinematography tricks.  They can be used most effectively for emphasizing mood.  Placing a camera at a low angle can make the main character seem larger than life, either to emphasize power or to deceive them about what is coming.  Placing it at a higher angle can emphasize weakness, useful for chase sequences or introducing elements that could harm players.  It is key in showing rather than telling a player how they ought to feel.  In this same vein of thought, I am reminded of an adage which made me truly appreciate cinematography. 

Putting the monster in the forefront and having it come in after the character de-emphasizes the player, making them seem weaker and unprepared for the larger than life beast coming at them.  Why don't we use these cinematography tricks as much anymore?!

Bob Chipman, also known as Movie Bob on the Escapist, once compared the original John Carpenter's "The Thing" to theremake/prequel in 2011.  While he praised the original's practical effects, as having something to interact with in a movie always seems more natural than CGI, he said something else that caught my interest.  "A lot of the old practical effects only looked good from a certain angle, so they forced film makers to shoot in a very specific way."  Fixed cameras are a lot like that idea.  There are some scenes which will have more meaning or will only make sense if viewed from a specific vantage point.  This is one of the driving ideas behind extended cut scenes in gaming.  However, because fixed cameras no longer limit how a scene can be shot, many developers seem to be getting sloppier with their work, at least in my eyes.  They haven't learned the basics of framing a scene.  If you want to talk cinematic game design, that is, game design that takes cues from cinema, fixed cameras are an important tool.  Because they are basically like looking through a camera in a movie that the audience cannot control.

Crappy CG of the 2011 Thing vs gorgeous practical effects of John Carpenter's version

Not hard to see which took more effort to create shot to shot, is it?

            Another benefit of fixed cameras comes from developers on a limited budget.  Most game designers like to break into the games industry using 3d games based off of existing engines.  However, this leads to a small problem.  You need to model and texture every wall, every floor, every ceiling, and every piece of furniture, plant, npc, etc. in any given area.  If they used a fixed camera, only one vantage point would need to be modeled because that would be the only vantage point seen.  It could save on development time and on costs.  However, because of how easy it is to misuse fixed cameras, they would need some basic skills with cinematography, as outlined above.

Take a good look at this scene.  A free roaming camera would need the whole room to be crafted from all angles.  A fixed camera only requires three walls, a floor, and some ceiling fixtures from only one angle.  Which do you think is cheaper to make?

            Because of that, I actually believe it might be useful for many aspiring developers to start with fixed cameras.  Use them to create more inexpensive 3d games and learn some basic cinematography skills.  One thing in particular I think that not only aspiring developers but even seasoned veterans could learn from fixed cameras is the adage, "Is it necessary?"  In the modern games industry, excess is a major problem.  Everything, from characters to environments are overblown, over designed, and often garish.  Ask the simple question of, "does seeing all this do anything for the player?"  Fixed cameras are all about economy.  What can be in a shot, what developers need to create for that shot, what can be conveyed with that shot, etc.  I think that going back to basics might help with some of the excess, slim down the games industry from the bloated monster needing to churn out cookie cutter AAA hits into a leaner, more experimental beast that is unafraid to try something new.

I love Darksiders, but look at this image.  This is the basic armor.  Do we really need all those lines, details, and polygons on the basic model?  Is it necessary at all?  Why?

          Koudelka was, for it's time, something new.  It was a survival horror tactical RPG, the likes of which were seldom seen after and have all but disappeared in the modern era.  However, it was not alone in using fixed cameras.  Resident Evil, Parasite Eve, even Final Fantasy pioneered using fixed cameras and did so with smaller, more capable teams than what the industry currently requires.  A part of me yearns for the experimental days of game design, with the atmosphere of a survival horror game being punctuated by a fixed camera showcasing just enough space for a window to break and a dog to leap through or an RPG showing you a gorgeous vista from the only angle that it actually can be gorgeous from.

Koudleka wasn't the only game to benefit from the use of fixed cameras.  Parasite Eve, Resident Evil, and countless others were made better through the focus they provided.

            This is not base nostalgia, either.  It is something that has been expressed by other gamers and reviewers in recent years.  Joe Vargas, better known as Angry Joe from Angryjoeshow.com, when reviewing Resident Evil 6 said something to the effect of "if Capcom cannot generate horror without all the overblown, crowdpandering, idiocy that was RE6, then perhaps they should return to the fixedcamera controls, since at least there you can build atmosphere."

Lackluster quicktime events more suited for an action game than Resident Evil 6...you SURE you don't wanna go back to fixed cameras, Capcom?

            I think fixed cameras are an under utilized tool.  Even if they were done out of limited graphics, not every game needs to look as pretty as Halo 4 or Call of Duty 4.  It is okay to have a game with limited, even polygonal graphics if the gameplay and/or story is solid.  After all, look at Minecraft.  It is blocky, it isn't the shiniest or most impressive of graphics, and the monsters are almost laughable, but it stands on its own because it is fun.  Sadly, even indie designers prefer to avoid using fixed cameras by using user controlled cameras or games that cannot make use of it, like 2-d games.

Not every game has to be this sleek to be good

            Closing out this discussion, let me just say two things.  First, I encourage people to try and release more games with fixed cameras, provided they can do it right.  Older Playstation and N64 games with these fixed cameras, and even into the PS2 era, were able to be more experimental, use them in unique ways, or just create a riskier game with them because there was less of a cost investment due to not having to make as many environments.  There's no reason why indie developers or even mainstream developers and publishers, Capcom, Square, Konami, etc. can't use these advantages to take a few risks, test the water with new properties, or just do something new.  If it costs less and it fails, it's less of a risk.  If it costs less and it succeeds, you get a high return on a low investment.  If you put all your money on the big AAA games or the samey numbered reiterations of sports games or what have you, then...you're asking to fail when the industry eventually turns on your "tried and true" game design.

Where have all the fixed cameras gone?  As time passes...

            Second, I want to say this.  Don't feel like you HAVE to used fixed cameras.  They are a tool and a useful one, but not for every game.  A game like Contra Rebirth or New Super Mario Brothers Wii U don't need a fixed camera and would actually be hindered by it.  However, understand what you can do with a fixed camera.  The cinematic way of building atmosphere without giving exposition or even having the characters speak at all.  How one shot can say all that it needs to in order to make a character in awe, uneasy, or at peace.  Because those skills will help immensely when the time comes to use the free moving cameras, since you'll know how to frame a shot.

Not every game NEEDS a fixed camera, but the lessons you can learn from them shouldn't be forgotten.

            Fixed cameras are part of the game industry's history.  We shouldn't forget about them.  We should learn from them.  Learn how they were used and to what effect.  It will undoubtedly help game design in the long run. 

Anyway, that's my take on fixed cameras.  Yeah, they can be annoyingly restrictive at times, but sometimes a game NEEDS to be restrictive to convey the right message, mood, or atmosphere...or keep costs down.  Something to remember.

Video Game Growing Pains Awards 2012

            It's the start of 2013 as of this post and since so many others are making awards lists, or something similar, I figured I may as well do the same.  However, top 5 or 10 lists don't necessarily give the attention to games and their faults or merits that I think they deserve.  And, since this blog is meant to be something both for instruction as well as enjoyment, I figured I would try something different.  So, we will have 9 awards.  4 good, 4 bad, and one of a more personal nature.  First, I want to say that this is restricted to games that I have played this year.  Second, I want to add that each game will have a small discussion after it to justify it.  Third, I will try to limit this to games released in 2012, but ultimately, it comes down to games I played in 2012, even if they were released earlier.  And fourth, since this is my blog, the final award will be for something special that many people may disagree upon.  However, I believe it is one that deserves attention even above all the others.  That said, let's get down to it.  Starting with the positive awards.

Most Moving: To The Moon (PC)

To The Moon aims for a look similar to a 16-bit RPG.  However, this is largely a deception.  The game is more akin to a point and click adventure title which takes you through the unique premise of re-writing memories of a dying old man to give him his one last wish.  The game is wonderfully human in it's narrative, throwing in some truly moving character bits with three twists near the end of the game that I won't dare spoil.  There are elements of tragedy and comedy in this piece as the player guides two scientists through the old man's memories, making snarky comments when they can and joking, but also being very somber and serious where appropriate.  This game is about as emotional as anything can get, but sadly, only for the first playthrough.  Still, it is well worth the price of admission and proves that there is still a place for adventure games, provided they can branch out a bit.  DO NOT let this game be spoiled for you.  And also, if you are not crying by the end, you are made of stone.

It's almost like unraveling an emotional mystery.  You know how the story ends.  Now, go backwards to see what was the start of all this...and try to re-write it so that there's a happy ending.

Most Immersive:  Journey Collector's Edition (PS3)

Okay, this is cheating a little, but they all come on one disc, so I count it.  Journey Collector's Edition gathers three games from That Game Company on one disc with a few little mini games they made.  The mini games are fairly unimpressive, but the powerhouse collection of Flow, Flower, and Journey are some of the most immersive game experiences a person can have and ultimately utilize the Playstation 3's unique hardware to astonishing effect.  Flow is a very relaxing evolution based game where you only need to worry about survival.  It is easy to get lost in the sheer simplicity, yet complex growth of eating your way up from small predator to large one.  Flower uses the sixaxis controller's tilt movements to guide wind so that it can cause flowers to bloom.  This game is majestic, creating a feeling of rebirth and returning color to the world, all while using a relatively unusual control scheme.  It is easy to get lost in the world and your quest to restore beauty to it.  And Journey...Journey is a game that should be held up as a hallmark for any number of things.  Co-op gameplay, platformers, adventure titles, etc.  It truly sucks players in with a wordless narrative that somehow resonates with everyone and pairs them, if they are playing online, with a random player.  There is no speech nor ways to emote, yet because of these two character's interaction and how limited, yet universal it is, being able to do nothing but sing to each other, players will grow more attached to their partner in Journey than a real life person.  They become truly immersed in the experience.  This collector's set and any of these three games are well worth buying.

One is the teacher.  One is the student.  Bound together without words, but through solidarity of actions.  Humanity as a whole could learn a great deal from Journey.

Most Streamlined: The Last Story (Wii)

What can be said about Operation Rainfall and the saga of bringing this game and Xenoblade Chronicles stateside?  It was epic, moving, and ultimately, quite successful.  Last Story is an interesting game for a number of reasons.  First, it mimics conventions of previous JRPGs in terms of story and music, however is far more streamlined in its execution.  Players control the character Zael, on a quest to discover the secret of a strange power he is given and save a princess, but there are more than a few twists and despite the cliche surrounding this game, it proves that Nobuo Uematsu and Hironobu Sakaguchi can still pull at the heart strings.  However, what makes this game most spectacular is the combat and game design.  While players can only control Zael, Zael can really do it all.  He fights by players running into enemies, running into walls triggers a special move, he can snipe with his crossbow, he can draw aggro with his special moves, and he has other tricks for co-op attacks with his AI controlled partners.  And, in a pinch, Zael can instruct his allies on how to fight.  This control scheme is brilliant.  It is easy to pick up and simple to learn, but with the added ability to command allies and perform combination moves, it adds layers of strategy to the game, including bosses weak to specific moves, like a fire enchanted sword or a wall jump attack.  Upgrading weapons and armor is a breeze, there are always areas to power level if players want it, and the pace is very brisk.  This is perhaps the most refreshing JRPG in ages, thanks in great deal to the streamlined game design. 

Look complicated?  It's not.  This was done with a single button press.  No need for complex HUD displays or menus.  Just a health bar for you and your party.  Now, go nuts.

Best Use of Digital Distribution: Y's Origins (PC)

The Y's series is quite popular in Japan, but only has a cult following in the US.  However, Y's retains a lot of its popularity thanks to its both game design and its lead character, Adol Christian.  Bringing Y's Origin, a PC only disc based game in Japan to the States seemed like a gamble, especially since it had less brand recognition here and it was a prequel to all the other games, meaning no Adol.  However, through Steam it arrived and I am so glad it did.  All the game really needed was basic translation, thanks to how well it controls, both with a keyboard and controller.  The story is rather meh, but it does have characters with somewhat interlocking arcs, making replayability a must.  Controls are smooth and responsive, the menus and game design are straight forward and uncomplicated, and the graphics are a beautiful mix of 2-d and 3-d.  But why is this here?  Well, this kind of game receiving a release on a console or even a hand held would be ludicrous.  It's a AAA title in Japan, however in the states, it would barely garner an audience.  Marketing, creating physical copies, and licensing it through Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, before finally retailing at 40-50 dollars would be a hard sell.   But release it on Steam for 15 dollars and the world opens up to it.  The amazing music, fluid gameplay, and jaw dropping graphics make this title an easy sell for that price with the trailer alone.  This is the best way to use digital distribution.  Take a brilliant title that is easily AAA value, but which doesn't want to compete in the overblown console or handheld wars and sell it on Steam or on one of the other digital distribution networks.  Y's Origins is a sign of the future.  And I can't wait.

 Wanna know why Y's Origins makes so much sense being sold on Steam for 15-20 dollars?  Check out the trailer.

Well, that's all the positive awards.  Now, for the more interesting negative awards.  This should be fun.

Most Disappointing:  Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword (Wii)

Before everyone on earth cries foul at me for defacing the Zelda franchise, hear me out.  This game, compared to it's forebearers, is a piece of garbage.  The motion controls are pathetic.  Oh, they work fine, but they aren't finely tuned enough.  Swinging your sword is easy, but enemies are always faster than you and will block it with every turn.  Controlling your bird with the motion controller is a chore and a test of patience, which quickly leads to screaming and frustration.  The instrument Link is given to play and extra items which use the motion controls are poorly implemented and hurt the immersion.  Which is a shame, because the game has gorgeous graphics, expressive and surprisingly fleshed out characters, great music, especially in the harp scenes, and some surprisingly enjoyable twist moments, such as Link suddenly having all his items stolen and having to work without them for a bit.  However, even without the control problems, this game takes all the worst parts of modern RPGs and implements them with no care or concern.  There are dozens of pointless fetch quests, and upgrades to items seem to be only temporary at best.  There are only a few areas in the game and they are repeated ad nauseum, including a boss battle which is repeated three times for no good reason.  In short, the game is padded to hell and controls very poorly.  It is still a decent experience, as only a Zelda game can be, but it hurts from the motion controls and the face palmingly stupid game design.  We expect better from Zelda games...and this title is a major let down.

Like a barren world with atrocious controls, pitiful game design, and that is padded to all hell?  Then Skyward Sword may be just what you are looking for.

Most Overly Complicated: Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii)

Ahhh, Xenoblade Chronicles.  I was so excited to play this, however, it takes all that old JRPGs were fifteen years ago and decides, "Let's throw a billion menus in for good measure."  Xenoblade Chronicles frustrates me.  It is a good game.  The graphics and scale are astounding, the characters are likeable, the story takes some surprising twists, and the setting is something to behold.  The voice actors do a decent enough job and the lack of random encounters and seamless free roaming is quite nice.  However, it's all too complicated.  Characters wear five pieces of armor most of the time, each with slots for power gems which you will have in the hundreds 20 hours in.  Customizing your characters can take hours in and of itself, only to find a new piece of armor five minutes later which requires players to do it all over again.  There are menus for friendship, linking friendship, and skill trees, all of which are far too convoluted and annoying to deal with.  The friendship tracker in particular feels tacked on at best and the events surrounding friendship are so difficult to unlock, players probably won't bother anyway.  Monsters do not drop gold, but items, and there are roughly ten million items in the game, over half of which are only good to sell for money.  Perhaps most egregious is how the game lies to players.  See, players only control one character and get to use his actions.  The others are AI controlled and rock stupid.  However, the game makes it look like distance matters, such as you need to be close enough to hit a monster with your sword or whatever, but that is not the case.  Often player will be a fair distance away, but if the enemy attacks thin air, the player still takes damage.  This is teeth grindingly frustrating, especially since attacks all have cool downs.  This game is meant to look like an MMO, and it shows, but instead of feeling like part of a living world, the game really just holds players back by using an active time battle system implemented so poorly it made me throw the controller on the ground and quit after 40 hours into it.  This game reminds me why JRPGs can be so tiresome.  If they are too over complicated, they cease to be an adventure and becomes an accounting job.

Cluttered screens?  Check.  Poor controls?  Check.  Gameplay so byzantine that a US codebreaker would through down the controller in frustration?  You bet your ass.

Most Poorly Balanced: Growlanser 4 Wayfarer of Time (PSP)

Oh, Growlanswer, how you have fallen.  I got into the Growlanser series on the Playstation 2 and was wowed by the unique approach to real time RPG gameplay, where multiple objectives could occur and players had to react quickly, but strategically to changes in the game.  The characters move and fight in real time like a strategy game, but level up and have waiting and cool downs like an RPG.  It was a novel approach when I tried it in 2005 and by now I am an old hand at this.  And Growlanser 4 kicked my ass.  Every battle in the game required me over leveling my characters and even then I had to use all my healing items every battle to survive.  It got to such a point where I could not afford proper armor.  This game throws far more enemies at players in one battle than they can handle, makes them brutally smart, unrelenting, and cheap, and makes them faster and stronger than regular characters, even common foot soldiers.  I got through twenty hours before rage quitting.  The game was so tiresome and frustrating I could not keep playing.  Which is a shame, because the characters were decent and the relationship and holiday systems were amusing.  But this game is too poorly balanced to play.  Dark Souls may be hard, but it's only as hard as you make it.  You can offset the difficulty with intelligence and skill and that shows balanced game design.  Growlanser is hard because it is poorly balanced.  No amount of skill will help, it requires tons of level grinding, luck, and a walkthrough to know when you're about to walk into an ambush and should buff your characters.  Avoid at all costs.

Four of us against fifteen of them, and they have giants.  Seems fair.  This game is hair pullingly frustrating.

Most Depressing: Dear Esther (PC)

I was conflicted over this, but I think Dear Esther should be here.  Is it a bad game?  Well...yes, but as an experience, I quite enjoyed it.  It is depressing, but the visuals are nice and the story quite well told, with beautiful imagery and the solitary goal of the game to head towards a light in the distance.  It has an atmosphere of loneliness and solitude.  But why I am really depressed is in it's choice of game design.  It's barely even a game.  There is no real interactivity with the world.  It is more like a movie.  Some times, that can be good, but even To The Moon had elements of regular video games to it, such as finding and using items properly, puzzles, etc.  Dear Esther can be watched on Youtube for almost the same experience as buying it.  And that is kind of sad to me.  Telling a good story is important yes, but games are an interactive medium.  They need to interact with the player to draw them in and get them invested.  This may have also been released in 2011, not entirely sure, but again, played it in 2012 so that's why it's on the list.

 Did you see the trailer?  Good.  you no longer have to buy the game cause that's all there is.  Walking and listening to the narrator.  I just saved you fifteen bucks.

Now for my personal recommendation.  This is a game I feel was improperly represented and that will soon be forgotten.  It is a game many SHOULD play but who few will.  And this may be disputed, but I stand by this choice. 

Most Fun:  Splatterhouse (Xbox 360 and PS3)

I know it wasn't released in 2012, but that was the earliest I could play it and from moment one I was blown away.  Not so much by anything in particular, but rather by...how fun it was.  After dealing with games that just slogged along, Like Final Fantasy 13 or Xenoblade Chronicles, or even games like God of War 3 which seemed bogged down with too much pathos and melodrama, Splatterhouse was refreshing.  It was fun to take on the role of a big bruiser who actually FELT strong, rather than just being strong in cut scenes.  Fighting monsters and undead to save your girlfriend was really a nice change of pace.  Cliche, but it kept in mind what was important.  Now, Splatterhouse had a troubled development and it shows.  There are graphical glitches, an entire part of the ending is without sound, and there are a number of bugs, one of which randomly killed me during a survival mode.  However, if you can get past that, there is a lot to love here. 

Come at me, bro!

The music is beautiful in places.  The graphics while not the slickest, have some nice touches.  A personal favorite effect of mine is Rick, the main character, having his arm torn off, then watching as his body regenerated it.  The controls are straightforward brawler style games where combos are strung together and more powerful moves are bought through in game currency.  However, even with a basic setup like this, players can bash enemies against the tv screen or send them flat against the walls in cheesy over the top ways and all the monster designs have some classic horror roots, like a Leatherface villain, a mutant King Kong, a corpse monsters, and a poltergeist creature.  Possibly the best part of the game are the characters though.  Jenni, the damsel in distress and Doctor West, the main villain, get little screen time, but put in amusingly cheesy performances.  The show is stolen, however, by Rick and the Terror Mask, which has possessed him and given him the power to save Jenni.  It both encourages Rick, while taunting and teasing him, making him question his own humanity.  However, the mask is not only snarky and wicked, but also shockingly insightful at times, and very human.  This is thanks to the excellent voice work of Jim Cummings who makes the terror mask despicable, but still likeable.  And pitted with Rick, they play well off each other. 

Look at that.  That happens every time you lose a limb in game.  How awesome is that?!

The game has some genuinely brilliant moments, such as when players compare what they have just gone through with unlocked bits of Doctor West's diary, hearing a striking similarity to the deranged West, trying to kill Jenni to revive his lost love, and Rick, who tears through West's minions to save Jenni.  There are some immature bits, like nude photos of Jenni that are unlockable, but this game is Rated M and uses it to decent enough effect, trying to build a connection between Rick and Jenni through scenes of trust, humiliation, and titillation as outlined in these photos.  If you can look past the sexism and pandering, it does have a purpose.  While it can be a bit bipolar, switching from heavy metal-esque schlocky action to genuine horror, the tone and atmosphere contribute to the fun factor.

Gory Schlock and subtle horror.  Not always in the same proportions, but it still makes for an interesting experience.

Best reason to buy Splatterhouse though?  The inclusion of the original Splatterhouse trilogy from arcades and the Sega Genesis as unlockables.  These are classic horror game throwbacks and use a style of gameplay not seen anymore, which is a 2-d brawler.  There is only one path, not going up or down on the screen to dodge hits, and the player has to fight their way through.  The Splatterhouse trilogy has jaw dropping music in places, fun and easy to understand gameplay, and some of the most chilling and horrific monster designs I've ever seen, from the ghostly demon who waits for Rick in Hell, to a cthullian monster chasing you on a boat, to a swarm of undead fetuses trying to eat you, there is something to be awed and disgusted by at every turn.

Ultimately, Splatterhouse is not a great or even a good game.  It has a number of flaws and a troubled history.  But should you check it out?  Hell yes, you should.  The game captures the kind of old school arcade fun that gamers have been missing in brawlers of late, while still telling a decent story with very likeable characters.  Every line of dialogue the terror mask gives is awe inspiringly hilarious or surprisingly moving.  A personal favorite of mine is "You said you'd love her till the end of the world, Rick.  Well, the end of the world's here.  Time to show that you're a man of your word."

This game is for mature audiences, don't misunderstand me.  Kids SHOULD NOT play this game.  But it is fun...and when games have become too complex, disappointing, or gimmicky and feel like a chore, sometimes a little fun is all we can ask for.

So, those were my awards for 2012.  You're free to dispute them if you'd like, I'd love to hear comments about this list, but try to remember that this is just my personal experience.  From one gamer who has watched the industry grow, change, and stagnate.

Hope to have something new for 2013 soon, but I've discovered the joys of Perling Video Game characters, so that might take up a fair chunk of my time.  We'll see.  One thing's for sure.  I'm not going anywhere soon.

                          Thanks to all my readers up to this point.  You guys rock.         

Also, if anyone feels I've used their videos or screen caps inappropriately, please just contact me and I'll take them down.  Don't have capture tech of my own, sadly, so I make do.