I don't think I'll ever get tired of these people.

True Fact: I grew up in the United States of America. I’m not trying to brag or anything, it’s just simple stating of fact. Why this is important to The Simpsons has to do with what The Simpsons is to me: An American Institution. This in no way means that I believe The Simpsons is only for Americans. Oh heavens no, The Simpsons is a show for the entire world. It’s been aired all over, only managing to tick off Australia, Brazil, and a few other countries of the world that I can’t be bothered to remember. The real special aspect of the show is how unimaginable it is to think of a Sunday night at 8 without The Simpsons. It’s into its 21st season now, with the 20th season just released on DVD (and which I just finished watching). The show has been around for 20 years and here’s how I remember it.

It Can’t Just Be My Childhood I’m Remembering

It interests me that for the 20th anniversary of the longest running primetime cartoon in history, a 20th season DVD comes out with pretty much nothing special about it. Granted, I loved every episode more than I figured I would, but I couldn’t help but laugh at the only special feature included in the “Extras” portion of the DVD: A sneak preview of the 20th anniversary special that isn’t included on the special 20th anniversary 20th season DVD. That’s the sort of thing I’d expect to be parodied on The Simpsons. Otherwise seasons 1-12 are available with each having a bevy of special features and the like. I’m just sort of sad that there is an 8-year gap of seasons we have to slowly close.

I bet you had no clue who did it, did you?

My original concept for a Simpsons retrospective was going to be a top ten list of my favorite episodes, but I couldn’t easily identify those from the over 450 choices open to me. If I had to pick, the “Who Shot Mr. Burns” plotline may be my favorite, and any time Sideshow Bob appears I’m quite happy, but I couldn’t choose a conclusive top ten without turning it into a top 20, 30, or just a number one show listing.

Instead we have my ramblings about the series. As a kid my parents were skeptical about The Simpsons. They sat down with me a few times and watched some new episodes with me, laughing the whole time. After that they seemed completely fine with letting me watch, so I made sure to watch the series in syndication religiously. I tried to watch it at my grandparent’s house once, only to have my grandpa tell me he didn’t think it was a good show. “I don’t like how the son backtalks the father,” he says. “That’s disrespectful.” Then we watched an episode anyway and he laughed the whole time, making it welcome in his house as well.

This image was everywhere on merchandise, so much so that the actual show had to make jokes about it constantly.

I never saw Bart Simpson as a model for myself to follow. Rather, I understood he was exemplifying everything I really shouldn’t be, despite how much I’d have enjoyed it. I’m a lot older now and thankfully I never became a Bart Simpson. Now I’m a Homer Simpson and too gleefully S-M-R-T to know that I’m nowhere near my potential as an American.

When Burger King had a Simpsons promotion way, way back in the day, I managed to acquire all five family members in “plush” cuteness. And by “plush,” I mean that their bodies were soft but their plastic heads could crack a child’s skull with enough blunt force applied gradually over time (no I didn’t try this on anyway you know of). What was always weird was how Bart’s shirt was never red on any merchandise I could find. He’s always worn the same red shirt/blue shorts combo on the show for 20 years, but merchandise with his likeness frequently had him wearing a blue shirt. I had no clue why they did this but it always bugged me as a kid.

I actually prefer these little figurines over the main figure series.

By the time the collectable figures were coming out I was too busy playing with Ninja Turtles to spend any money collecting figures from a comedy program. I was still watching the show every single night, but I had no desire to collect the collectables. Regardless of my lack of participation, The Simpsons figurines are a collector’s dream with each new year getting a handful of wonderful additions. By now you’d have to plunk down some hearty cash to be caught up to the current series.

Why the heck hasn't this been turned into an HD remake already?

Instead of the figures, I was busy messing with the video games. The saddest part of all this is that in the 20 years the show has been on, only one Simspons video game has come out that’s been any good: The Simpsons Arcade Game. I played Bart vs The Space Mutants and Bart vs The World on the NES and hated them due to the extremely poor controls, but if you love the Angry Video Game Nerd you already knew that. Something about the arcade game was just magical. I played it into the ground, even managing to beat it, and let me tell you, that’s quite a feat. I still can’t figure out for the life of me why it hasn’t been ported over to Xbox Live by now.

Oh, and I also saw the movie twice in a day. Is that sad?

I keep hearing from people that The Simpsons should end already. I disagree on the basis that we need a Simpsons to exist, even if you don’t find it funny anymore. It’s like the evening news at this point. There’s just something comforting about knowing that every Sunday I’ll see the same family from my childhood waiting for me whenever I feel like visiting. Why would you really want to take that away?

Sure, that's a motorcycle made out of summon goddesses. I can think of nothing weird about that.

I’m fighting with myself regarding the best way to handle this review. It’s probably best that I make a few things abundantly clear right away since anyone that thinks about it and runs the numbers will figure out my chief reservation: Final Fantasy XIII came out today and I have no money. There is no way that I could have written this review after playing the game since, first, the game is well over a literal day’s worth of playing, and secondly, I don’t get advanced copies of games to play in time for reviews to come out. All that said, I looked all over for reviews on the game and I figured the best thing to do would be to give my findings and impressions on the game having never played it but wanting to after playing a handful of older Final Fantasy games.

As If You Needed A Review

The story for this new game is completely beyond me. I don’t like reading every little detail about a game before I buy it, so all the trailer and cinemas and facts about the game’s story are better left to experience later. I do know that there are two worlds, Cocoon and Pulse, and they’re at war. Lightning, the game’s main protagonist, is vitally important to the world for a reason other than her just being the protagonist (I’m sure of at least that much). The consensus from reviewers out there is that the story is nothing mind shattering and it probably isn’t the best Final Fantasy story, but it is very good. The characters are well done save for one massive annoyance (seriously, every review has dinged the game for her alone) and it seems that if this is your usual sort of game, you’ll be pleased with the story.

"Ever have those days when you just feel and look dead inside? I have those all the time."

That being said, the game is ridiculously linear, especially for a Final Fantasy game. This isn’t a good thing or a bad thing. This is just a thing. I have no real opinion on the thought of the game holding my hand for at least the first 30 hours of the game until finally allowing me to change my party or develop my characters as I see fit. I can see the benefits and I can see the downside, but it obviously comes down to your preference in game styles. If the open world of Final Fantasy VII made that game for you, you’ll probably hate XIII.

Every review I read or see talks about the new combat system and as of now I still can’t wrap my mind around it. No, it’s a good system from what everyone’s saying; I just have no clue how it works until I have a controller in my hands and I’ve been lead about by the game to learn everything in careful detail. At least everything looks extremely cool, so I won’t even bore you with the battle system any more than to say it’s very intimidating from the outside looking in.

I have no clue what's happening here, but I want to try it out.

You’re looking at one of the most well crafted games graphically on either system right now. Square-Enix knows what they’re doing, which makes sense as FFXIII has been in development for…I lose count of years. It’s been a long time coming though, so of course it looks great. And it’s out on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, meaning most gamers can try it out. If you want the clear decision as to which system has the better version, PS3 wins, but it’s on the most minor of graphics so don’t lose sleep over the choice if you only have a 360. You’re still getting the same great game.

And that’s the final say: The game is great. But you already know whether you want to play it or not. Either you like Japanese RPGs or you don’t. You’ve known whether you were going to play FFXIII before they even announced it all those years ago. With all that in mind, I leave the final choice of a purchase up to you, but if you do want to play it, renting just isn’t an option.

Like Army of Two but a whole heck of a lot better and not at all like Army of Two.

Can anything come along and uproot Modern Warfare from its place as the dominant FPS? For a while it didn’t appear so, but just as Halo was ousted by Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare has been outshone by Battlefield: Bad Company 2. How is that possible? Read on and I’ll tell you.

A Paradigm Shift Once Again

What Modern Warfare managed to do a few years ago was decide how online play would shift for what gamers really wanted. It’s had a good run, but now the play-style is shifting once again and Bad Company 2 is better suited for current trends. Namely, you won’t constantly be spawning into instant death and kills aren’t exactly simple.

The main aspect that people are finding most appealing about Bad Company 2 regards the amount of skill and strategy actually needed when playing online. You simply can’t run around with two shotguns and a riot shield mowing down everyone because you shot first. I watched my close friend Other Chris play a few multiplayer matches and really did see the importance of playing your role correctly. A sniper is failing if they’re attempting to defend a base from the inside with a pistol but doing his job when he’s staked on a rock picking off any advancing enemies. Similarly, an assault soldier is supposed to be hunkered in the base with his rifle aimed at the door, not running around shooting everything.

You try that and you'll get a tank shell in your face.

One big draw for me is the amount of destruction you really can inflict upon the environments. Nowhere is safe. Any building you hole up in can be leveled with enough explosives. Walls can be taken out with a tank round, leaving you completely unprotected. I found it fascinating to witness Other Chris run to his favorite rock, aim, realize a tree is in his way, and shoot the tree in half to give himself a proper view. That just seems cool. You can run up to a fence and knife it to create a hole to shoot through. You’ve just got to play this one smart.

In terms of a single-player experience, there’s nothing to expect other than the usual FPS single-player campaign. There are a few hilarious jabs at Modern Warfare’s expense, but not much else to really make it stand out. The characters are relatively forgettable but the main aspect of the campaign is that it isn’t trying to take itself serious, something that’s very welcoming. However, it has an extremely generous aim-assist that the multiplayer doesn’t have, so playing the campaign isn’t going to prepare you to play online like you’d assume.

No building is safe. Ever.

It is sort of sad that no matter what, Bad Company 2 will be compared to Modern Warfare 2 and as a result some people won’t play one or the other and that shouldn’t be the case. Both games are perfectly good titles, each with their individual strengths and weaknesses. At the moment though, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has a fresher and much fairer take on the online front, such as really rewarding skill. You’ll get a lot more points for sniping someone across the map than just a few feet away, for example. Essentially, if you loved Modern Warfare you’ll really love Bad Company 2.

Whoa, that looks pretty tight.

Do I love Mega Man? Yes I do. I even wrote about how much I loved Mega Man 2, specifically. Not long ago Capcom decided to bring the Blue Bomber back to his NES roots and copied the style of his original games exactly for Mega Man 9. Everything was just like it was on the NES, graphics, sounds, controls, and even screen-stutter if you really wanted the authentic experience. Mega Man 10 continues this trend, but is it any good?

New Game; Classic Look

In a word: Yes. Mega Man 10 is worth the money you’ll pay since Capcom actually does know a thing or two about making classic Mega Man games when they discover that such an action is rather profitable. Mega Man 9 decided that the best part of the Mega Man games was the difficulty, and Mega Man 10 seems to follow suit. You will die a heck of a lot, even if you’re a seasoned gamer. You’ll probably even have to resort to hoarding energy tanks just to beat the final boss. There just isn’t much sympathy to the non-hardcore gamer.

Except there is this time. Mega Man 10 has an Easy Mode that allows you to play the game with fewer enemies and covers over insta-death pits. The game still won’t be “easy,” but it will be “easier,” and definitely gives you a chance to get better with the controls and the level layouts. It’s nice to see a Mega Man game be a bit friendlier to those of us that enjoy Mega Man but don’t have the same patience our childhood selves had to sit in front of a TV dying all afternoon at a frustrating level.

A baseball-themed Robot Master? Meh, sure, go for it.

What’s actually new this time compared to the Easy Mode is that Proto Man is available to play as from the get-go instead of being downloadable content after release. That’s good to hear since I thought it was kind of lame to have to pay for something that really should have been in the game in the first place. So yes, it’s nice to see it here instantly. You can also download Bass as a playable character at some point though, so there’s something to keep you playing.

The new Robot Masters are the usual fare for the tenth installment with everyone focusing on Sheep Man as the clear standout much like Splash Woman was for Mega Man 9. The boss battles are fun, just as always, and the level design is challenging without being completely unfair, also just as always. This is how a game is designed for the old school fans out there. The story is pitiful, but at least the gameplay is solid.

You can’t do much better than Mega Man 10. It can be downloaded from WiiWare, Xbox Live Arcade, or the Playstation Network for $10, meaning you aren’t really out a whole bunch if you’d really like to play some good Mega Man. The extra Challenge Modes certainly sweeten the deal quite a hefty bit.

I agree Emoglobin, they should have known better.

Yesterday we shared a pleasant time thinking about Resident Evil 4 and how great of a game it is. All that happiness is now gone since it’s time to talk about Resident Evil 5. I just beat it, and while I thought it was terrible compared to RE4, I couldn’t help but think more about whether the game happened to be, oh how was it put, ‘racist’? Is RE5 racist? That was the topic of discussion last year after people saw the first images of the game and then played it. I never got a chance to have a say until now, so it’s time I chastise the game for being guilty of stupid, not racism. Time for the first installment of the new feature, “Shame on the Globins.”

Racism is Bad, But Stupidity is Worse

The issue people took offense to from the trailer was that the game would take place in Africa, meaning that Chris Redfield, one of the whitest white guys ever, would be mowing through black zombies like they were, well, zombies. The overly sensitive cried foul and the gamer population said, “But it’s only a game and they’re zombies!” Capcom, being the ever-brilliant company that it is, heard the reactions and decided to give Chris a partner.

Just one such alternate costume for Sheva. Boy those boys at Capcom are clever.

But not just any partner. No, it would be a female partner. A black female partner. “Ooh,” Capcom seemed to say. “How could we be racist? You’re partnered with an actual African!” Yes, Sheva, the name of your partner, is a black woman. She’s also borderline mentally challenged. No, that’s not fair, even the mentally challenged know basic concepts like, “Do not shoot partner with a rocket launcher,” or, “Help partner when he is dying.” Somehow Capcom managed to swap one stereotype with another. Instead of Capcom looking racist, they look racist and sexist.

Sheva’s character is absolutely vapid. She’s an archetypal video game female. She has a low-cut shirt for no reason, her mouth is always suggesting something involving more than playing video games, and her head is completely empty. She’s usually the first to look confused at any plot point, even when the gamer is able to see right through any “twist” the game may throw.

A twist such as, "Maybe it IS racist."

Here’s an example: Chris is in Africa to find Jill, who he believes to be alive even though he thought she was dead. You are looking for her through most of the game. The new villains are Excella, the archetypal female with an accent that thinks the villain really loves her, Irving, a sniveling waste of space, and a mysterious female wearing a bird-like mask and a cloak. She doesn’t speak, they make a point of never showing her face, and Wesker constantly tells her that she should be interested to see Chris. If you can’t figure out who that character is, I give up on you.

"No don't tell me, I can figure this out..."

Just Resident Evil 4 With Black People and Bad Controls

So if Capcom consciously added Sheva as a means of looking less racist, how could they then make the mistake of including the Wetlands area? “What’s in the Wetlands?” Hold on, let me describe the shantytown of the game’s opening. Poor villagers come out from everywhere to attack you, which isn’t too surprising since the same thing happened in RE4. Yes, they’re black, but this is taking place in Africa, so why wouldn’t the infected population be African? You can say that Capcom is being racist all you want, but they refute the article perfectly fine by saying that the setting is accurate for the plot. I believe that fully.

Then you go to the Wetlands and African zombies in grass skirts carrying spears rush out from huts to blindly kill you. This would be a perfect moment to facepalm.

*Sigh* Idiots.

What makes matters worse is that RE5 is essentially just a copy of RE4 in terms of location. RE4 might even have slightly more variety since it has a huge castle section. RE5 has the shantytown, cliff sides, the Wetlands, some caves, some underground ruins that are in the caves for some reason, a research facility, another research facility or two, and a frigate. Oh, also a volcano just because, but that doesn’t count. RE4 had a run-down village, caves, a swamp area, research facilities, random ruins, cliff sides, and the castle area. The areas are just too similar. RE5 even has enemies recycled from RE4, such as the chainsaw enemies (they do at least look different) and the gattling gun enemies (they do look exactly the same). The point I’m getting at is that they had no reason to take the game into the Wetlands and even less of a reason to send tribal zombies at us.

What? You're just kidding with me now.

A lot of the mistakes come down to game design. RE5 is just trying to be RE4 except it has no idea what made RE4 great. The new system for carrying everything is just a 9-slot deal per character. It makes things incredibly frustrating since you want to have a pistol, a shotgun, a rifle, ammo for each, a grenade, and maybe a healing item or two. This leaves pretty much no slot open for whatever you’d like, such as body armor (yeah, it takes up a slot for no reason). I always found myself wishing I had the briefcase system from RE4 back, especially when I had to run over to my partner to ask for a grenade that she’s holding and not using, only to get myself destroyed since I have to do all this menu navigating in real time, meaning I’m getting destroyed by the thing I’d like to throw a grenade at.

Disappointment Has No Race

All around I’m really just disappointed with the title. When I first saw the trailer I was excited for the new adventure. I thought, “Yeah, Africa is a good setting for this. Africa has a lot of natural danger such as wildlife. I’d love to see some lions or stampedes threaten me.” Instead I fight a lot of black zombies, some spider creatures, some other insect creatures, some big newts, and worm-like masses. I wanted more variety to the game, but I got a lot of repeating of things they already threw at me. I fight a chainsaw Majini and use up all my ammo. Suddenly another chainsaw Majini shows up and makes me fight it multiple times because my partner keeps getting her head sawed off. After fighting two of these stupid and very unfun enemies, I get treated to wave after wave of regular enemies, followed by yet another chainsaw Majini mixed in. Late in the game I have to fight a gattling gun Majini and then soon after two at once. That isn’t fun to me. Hiding behind walks in order to turn and unload all my ammo is not a fun gameplay style. Even after going through the trouble of upgrading my weapons I’m at a loss for enjoyment. I suppose the fun comes after a few playthroughs to build up my arsenal.

Would you like to know at what point the game officially became ridiculous? I fight a bat-bug-monster on a cliff and empty every single bit of ammo I have. I keep setting proximity mines around and my partner keeps getting caught in them. I beat the boss, triggering a cut scene where Chris shoots the bat-bug-monster in the face with his pistol (which is out of ammo), causing it to suddenly register pain in its previously impervious face and slam into a truck, falling off the cliff. Seconds after that someone skids around the corner with a hummer that has two gattling guns on the back, meaning I could have beat whatever the thing was if I had just waited a few more minutes for the vehicle with guns to show up. I hop into the hummer and shoot Majini on motorcycles before fighting an El Gigante. You know, one of those big enemies from RE4. Yup. Shenanigans.

I'm sorry, you're not finding that many shantytown villagers with motorcycles.

Is Resident Evil 5 racist? No, it isn’t, but it is certainly guilty of being stupid. Sheva is an awful character to add to any game, specifically a game that’s been criticized for possible racism. It just becomes difficult to understand what Capcom was thinking when RE5 was in development. In the end, all I can say is “Shame on the Globins.”

Remember, Leon has proven that Kung Fu is an acceptable defence against zombie-ish villagers.

If you’ve been following me on Twitter (which you should), you may have noticed that I’ve been playing Resident Evil 5. I’ll have a full article on that tomorrow but for now I’m more concerned with its predecessor, Resident Evil 4. RE4 is without question one of the best games of all time and easily within my top 10, if not top 5. Why was that? Well hold on because I’m about to tell you since RE4 is today’s Game You Should Have Played.

A Classic By Any Other Name

The Resident Evil series is regarded by many to have begun the survival horror genre in video games. The games themselves, while being classics, aren’t exactly what you’d consider fantastic. Characters are stiff, the camera is a pain to deal with, and the dialogue can be laughably awful. Despite all this, the series pushed forward as an overwhelming success for years to come with a few sequels, some prequels, and more remakes than I’d care to remember. Problem was, after a while the formula became somewhat tired and dated. Enter Resident Evil 4 to change all that.

And enter this thing to make you hate your life again.

RE4 takes Leon Kennedy, last seen in RE2, and sends him to a rural village in Spain, tasking him with rescuing the President’s daughter, Ashley. It’s simple enough, but within a few minutes Leon has explained the needed backstory of the series and fallen into a heck of a lot of trouble involving the local villagers being possessed by something called Las Plagas. They are not zombies, though you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference from a few feet away.

You don’t Need Much Backstory For a Game Like This

The story itself is nice since it takes the series and decides it doesn’t have to be in a mansion or Raccoon City at all. In fact, it doesn’t have to be anywhere near any of those things, nor anything relating to the Raccoon City Incident or the T-Virus. Wonderful. I went in to RE4 having no clue to the series’ story and that has made all the difference.

Sure it's cheap to use a rocket launcher against zombie-ish monks, but hey, they started it.

Also gone are the series’ rigid controls and camera. No more pre-rendered background to deal with, breaking way to allow Leon full roam of his space. The camera stays over his shoulder, a style used all over after RE4, and allows you to aim with a surprising amount of accuracy. This is where the series becomes less about survival horror and more about action horror, but I’m all in favor of such a shift. Let Silent Hill deal with the actual scary things; I’m fine with a gun that can do some damage if I need.

One of the other big contributors to the shift is the inclusion of Quicktime Events within actual Cut Scenes. You’ve heard me complain about Quicktime Events in numerous articles at this point, but RE4 was still early on in the use of such a game mechanic, especially in a Cut Scene. They were smooth and original for the time, and the knife fight scene is still one of the game’s highlights, but they never overstayed their welcome. They just ensured you were paying attention even when characters were talking.

No other game has completely reenergized a series the same way RE4 has. It was such a hit with critics and gamers, Capcom decided to break their promise with Nintendo to keep it a GameCube exclusive and ported it right over to the PS2. Naturally, as soon as the Wii showed up, RE4 found its way over to the new platform with updated controls and extras. There are even versions for the iPhone and the PC. Essentially, I’m telling you that you have no good excuse for not having played Resident Evil 4 unless you’re a kid since, yes, it is very gory. I had a heck of a time finding screenshots that didn’t contain extremely graphic violence, so thank me for that.

"Yes Ashley, please, step in that bear trap. That's real helpful."

Everything about RE4 is near perfect with everything it does. Sure, having to take care of Ashley is rather frustrating, especially when you get through a tough section only to accidentally knife her and get a Game Over. But otherwise the characters are enjoyable, the setting is eerie enough without getting too bogged down in itself, and you never feel cheated by the game at any point. Bosses are still fun and the difficulty is high but fair, plus there is heavy replay value due to unlockable weapons and such. Also, the Mercenaries mode just ate hours of my time.

I just can’t recommend RE4 enough. RE5 on the other hand…well that’s an article left for tomorrow.

I still place this above most other games. Can anything change my mind?

I love video games. I play them frequently (and sometimes write about them, as you may have noticed). I always get excited with every new Mario and Zelda game, or anything that seems to interest me beyond a simple, “Oh, that looks like a fun game to rent.” But when I get down to it I always inevitably say to myself, “Yeah, this is good, but it’s no Mario Bros 3/Ocarina of Time/Final Fantasy 6.” Why is that? I know I’m not the only one to think this way. We’ve got to a point where we’re demanding games replicate our favorites from the past, but when they can’t we throw a fit. Can we ever make a new “Perfect Game?” Let’s Think Deep.

The Problem With Perfection

A good recent game to use as a jumping point here is New Super Mario Bros Wii, a game that borrows heavily from the classic Mario games, specifically Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World. It seems almost like a “greatest hits” from the 2-D Mario platformers. I loved it. I wrote about this on more than one occasion. I stand by my statements. But I didn’t like it as much as Mario Bros 3. Why? Because it wasn’t Mario Bros 3. That’s not a very fair thing to say, but it just didn’t wow me like Mario Bros 3 did when I was a wee child. Perhaps the nostalgic aspect got in the way and forced me to find a qualifier somewhere, so that when I said, “This game is amazing!” it didn’t somehow, in some way, obliterate the memories of my childhood past. I simply can’t allow myself to like a Mario game more than 3, purely because I remember childhood as something wonderful and the world today as something bleak. How can something from a place that’s bleak outshine something from a world that was wonderful?

Can I ever separate this moment from my mind when playing new Zelda titles?

The same problem presented itself when I played through Twilight Princess. I thought Twilight Princess was one of the best Zelda games, let alone best games, I’d ever played. I’d rank it somewhere within my top 15 games of all time. But I couldn’t bring myself to like it more than Ocarina of Time. “Oh wow, this is so cool! Uh, but, Ocarina was better.” Was it really? It’s impossible to tell since at the time of its release, Ocarina of Time was the absolute peak of adventure-style video gaming. It was, to me (and many others), the perfect game. If you’ve never played it before and try playing it now, you might not really agree with that statement. In fact, you may think I’m crazy for ever liking the game in the first place. It just holds so much of my childhood in it that it becomes hard to separate it from what it is and how I remember it.

Retro Is In

There has been a big push from major developers as of late to search back through their “classic” games and find some gold to resell, either in a remake of the classic or in a straight port to one of the online networks. Nintendo hit on a great concept with the Virtual Console, an online marketplace devoted almost entirely to selling us out treasured memories back for a reasonable price. Both the Xbox Live Arcade and the Playstation Network have gotten into this, even offering games from more recent past. One of my best friends is playing Final Fantasy VII for the first time now that he’s downloaded it from the Playstation Network. He’s so devoted to playing it that he’s selling me his other new purchase, Fable II, for $15. Is he liking it? Well, he’s found numerous gripes, of which I can agree with, but he’s still playing it for some reason. It just isn’t as amazing for him as it was for me.

You can download this right now on the Virtual Console for $10. Why haven't you?

Why is that? Final Fantasy VII is regarded as one of the greats, so how can anyone dislike it now? It all has to do with timing. I played it first when I was still relatively new to RPG’s. It was also the first game I played on my Playstation. I fell in love with the characters and really cared about what would happen in the story. The only commitments I had while playing it were to school (which was unimportant to me), and nothing else. I didn’t need sleep so long as I had a mission to do and a Sephiroth to defeat. I was able to look past all the flaws and see nothing but a fantastic game. When I try and play it now I can’t even get myself past the first disc, let alone finish the game.

So back to New Super Mario Bros Wii: People have a gripe with it for failing to be as good as its predecessors. I don’t think that’s quite fair. I especially hate hearing that it’s just a rehash of previous games since it’s a new freaking game with new levels and new power-ups and all that jazz. It’s a new game, just with references back to other games in the franchise. It knows where it’s coming from, but it’s willing to at least try to do something new within the established old. Why? Because fans love this sort of thing. That game has sold millions of copies –MILLIONS- and I have a feeling it wasn’t because people were just settling for whatever they could get their hands on. No, fans snatched it up by the mustache-loads because it was a good game that reminded them of something they loved from their past.

Is this the best selection of bosses you'll ever find? Hard to tell.

Capcom has been perfecting this for a while now, what with their final definitive release of Street Fighter II, a game that pretty much everyone who wanted to buy it already had. Still, it was a big success. They did the same thing with Marvel Vs. Capcom 2. They also tried bringing Bionic Commando into the new age with a big-budget new entry in the series, which ultimately flopped. However, their HD remake of said game was a huge success. A while ago they released a new Mega Man game with 8-bit graphics and an 8-bit soundtrack. And people downloaded it like…well I’ll tell you what that analogy is when you’re older, kids. It did so well that Mega Man 10 has just been announced and will follow suit with the same style and everything. Retro is in. But why?

You Can’t Change The Past

As I said, people can’t let go of their childhoods. A lot of really good games have come out in the past year (Arkham Asylum, Uncharted 2, Mario & Luigi 3, just to name a few), yet none of those will be on any “Best Games Ever” lists. The most recent “new” game to start appearing on those lists is Resident Evil 4, a game that Capcom ported from the GameCube to the PS2 and then the Wii since it had done so well. Final Fantasy XIII comes out in mere days, but will fans place it above all the others? Very doubtful. They’ll find something to gripe about, purely because it isn’t the game they first played and it isn’t the game they first loved. I want to say that Super Smash Bros Brawl is better than Melee, because it is, but I can’t force myself to say it. Something about admitting that the game I spent so much time and energy loving is now inferior is just something I can’t do.

I would gladly be forced to play this game for the rest of my life and only this game. I loved it that much.

And there may lie the problem of creating the perfect game. Companies will never be able to top their most successful games. Mario Bros 3 will still be Mario’s best side-scrolling adventure whereas Mario 64 will be the best 3D platformer period. Ocarina of Time trumps just about every adventure game out there. Final Fantasy 6 or 7 will always be favored over the new titles coming out. Even games that are similar to games in other series will always seem inferior. Shadow of the Colossus was and is one of the best game experiences I’ve ever had. Oops, someone at one point called it the “Zelda Killer.” Silly them, now no Zelda fan will ever love it more than their favorite Zelda title. I went out of my way to hate the game even before it was released on the grounds that it was blaspheming my beloved series. First Person Shooters keep getting touted as “Halo Killers” and so far there have been few to even come close to the mighty throne, with only Modern Warfare being the apparent rightful heir. It seems a surefire way to prevent your game from ever being considered one of the greats is to proudly proclaim that it already is. No one will allow that.

So can we create the perfect game? No, no such game exists. Even the mighty Ocarina of Time has major flaws. No matter what someone makes, someone else will always find a reason to dislike it. It seems to me that the best way to make something near a “perfect game” is to make something unlike anything that’s come before it. Sure, borrow attributes if you need to, but don’t do it so much that people are forced to compare it straight-paralleled to another game. If you can make something without any constraints then it might just excel to new heights. The task of doing that, though, is nigh impossible. You have better luck just staying with what works. Why is it you think Nintendo is so reluctant to create new IP’s in favor of new Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon games? Because people will buy the new games in the franchise no matter what, even if they don’t think it’ll be better than the games they remember. But they’ll always hope.

What do you consider the perfect game? I think Super Mario Bros 3 is as close as one can come to perfection. Ocarina of Time is clearly a favorite of mine as well, but I understand when someone isn’t interested there. But what are your favorites? Do you have a game that you’re certain is perfect? Do you feel that Mega Man 2 got it right and all the games afterward just couldn’t live up to it? Do you think that Modern Warfare 2 perfected the multiplayer standard in a game? Do you believe that World of Warcraft is the end-all for MMORPG’s from now until forever? I bet you know what comes next: Leave a comment. I can’t find out any insight if you don’t give me some. The button’s right there, so use it to enlighten me further. I implore you.

I wish I'd been the one to think up this image first, but I'm not.

Happy Saturday everyone! February is ending in the next day or so and that means the beginning of the newest feature here at Toy-TMA: The Too Much Awesome Podcast!

It had been my hope to someday start doing a podcast here. The plan was for last month to be the first episode, but issues with cars (my car specifically) delayed production for a week. After some technical difficulties with the mic, the podcast was recorded and uploaded without any futher troubles (save for a cat scratching in the background).

The link for the podcast can be found here. Once you click the link, you’ll be taken to Mega Upload, a site for files too large to post anywhere else. Type in the code shown to download the file and then wait for it to be cued up for download. Once it’s ready, download the file and listen when and where ever you’d like!

The goal is to have at least one new episode a month, usually falling on the last weekend of the month. It ended up being over 90 minutes, but we’ve got a lot to talk about, so it works. We’ll do our best to improve the sound quality as right now you have to turn the sound up fairly high to hear us clearly, but for now, please enjoy the premiere episode of the Too Much Awesome Podcast!

Stare into the face of the Uncanny Valley.

I am not a fan of hype. Any time I hear too much on a title I start to dislike the game on principle alone, so Heavy Rain was big on my skeptical radar. I had been hearing all sorts of things about the PS3 exclusive regarding the detail of graphics and the amount of engrossing story, but all this did was make me hope the game would be terrible. Finally, Heavy Rain is out, so are my instincts correct? Is Heavy Rain a flop? Absolutely not.

Original Concept; Tough Sell

Heavy Rain is very much unlike any game you’ve played before unless you’ve played Indigo Prophecy. The style of game is something I can’t quite pin down as everything is based off Quicktime Events and dialogue trees. The plot revolves around the murders of the Origami Killer, a serial killer known for his trademark origami mementos left on the victims. You’ll play through the story as four different characters all related to the murders in some way, such as the dull FBI agent, the father whose son has gone missing, the mother who’s already lost her child, and the really developed detective character that I’d prefer was the only character I needed to control.

The FBI agent on the left is not who I'd prefer to play since he's, well, boring.

Where Heavy Rain sets itself apart from other games is the structure of the game itself. There are no Game Over screens or checkpoints to get to. You’ll go through the story doing the best you can to make the right decisions and what have you with each action you do having consequences at some point. If your character takes a particularly bad beating early on, they will look pretty damaged for the rest of the story. It’s even possible to have a character die. The game won’t end, but it could result in you not seeing the end if that particular character is crucial for resolution to the game’s plot.

I do like the “Choose Your Own Adventure” framework in Heavy Rain. The whole game takes maybe under 10 hours to complete once through, but you could play it again and see a completely different result, assuming you’ve changed your decisions slightly. For example, the game’s demo has a scene where the detective is pressing an individual for information about the Origami Killer. You are given the option to be nice and not really force a response, or you can push for the character’s story. It is quite possible to learn something new in each playthrough.

In this scene, the father loses his son in a crowded mall. To some people that's straight-up terrifying.

However, the controls frustrate me to no end. This is a game only since it uses a controller. You are constantly asked to perform some random button press that represents an action in the game. Some of these make sense, like a flick of the control stick to the left to dodge a punch, but then there are times that you have to flick the stick to reach in your pocket. I don’t care about that amount of detail in my motions. Every minute action is required. Even walking, a task that should be a simple as “push stick forward,” is complicated by the need to hold down a shoulder button and then steer your character. Heavy Rain is a game I much prefer to watch rather than play.

Should you purchase Heavy Rain? It depends. If you would like to replay the story over and over, then yes, certainly buy the game. For most of us, a rental weekend will suffice.

Is the Wii a bad system? Let's Think Deep.

At this moment in time, the Nintendo Wii is set up to be known as the “winner” of the current console cycle due to the unexpected amount of sales and complete reversal from the previous console cycle. I for one couldn’t be happier for reasons I’ll get to eventually. Regardless of sales numbers, the Wii is nearly universally panned by gamers due to the high amount of shovelware populating the system. But does that make it a bad system? It got me thinking. What exactly makes a system good? Sounds to me like this would be a good opportunity for us to Think Deep. So Let’s, hmm?

“But The System Has So Many Bad Games”

The complaint I hear most often regarding the Wii has to do with the controls. Specifically, they don’t work. Publishers constantly release games that force the player to use either the Wiimote motion controls or even worse the Balance Board from Wii Fit that “works” about 25% of the time. This results in games that would otherwise end up being decent games turned into broken messes. It was a Godsend when Nintendo decided that Smash Bros Brawl would support GameCube controllers in addition to just about every other controller type they had. The complaint about controls is a valid one, but that doesn’t instantly mean the system is bad.

Right now we have the luxury of living in an age where there are three perfectly excellent systems to choose from. Even better is the effect the Internet has had on everything since reviews can come out before a game is even released, meaning that you know whether a game will be good or not. Think back to the time of the NES when the only system you could choose from was the NES. It wasn’t very simple to get reviews or news about specific games, so when you went to buy or rent a game, you did so almost entirely on the artwork and the description on the back of the box. How many NES games do you think were great? The NES was full of shovelware titles, as someone like the Angry Video Game Nerd can attest to, but I doubt anyone would ever call it a “bad system.”

Are you going to be the one to say the NES sucked? I don't think so.

Now we have the ability to know everything about a game before we even play it, plus there is an excess of reviewers out there contributing to the overall rating of a game (thankfully my silly little summaries aren’t counted in a game’s Metascore). The bad games get more press than they used to and the numbers we’re dealing with are heavily skewed. Simply put, the rating system isn’t perfect right now, but it does give us the ability to know more about our games in a way we didn’t have 20 years ago.

The Hardships of Luxury

So what does this mean for our friend the Wii? It means that everyone knows when a bad game comes out and gives the gaming community an opportunity to see the system’s shortcomings. The question remains though, “What makes a system good or bad?” Do bad games make a system bad? No, otherwise every system would be considered awful. As of now, all systems are roughly within the same general average game rating area between 65 and 75%, and that number is constantly shifting as new games come out. While the Wii may not be at the top of the list, it doesn’t mean it’s a crummy system.

The is the counter-argument for any Xbot speaking ill of the Wii.

Here’s the thing: People believe their favorite system is the best because it’s their favorite. What are your favorite games? If you love God of War and Metal Gear Solid, you probably believe that the PS3 is the best system and the other two are inferior. Huge on Halo and Gears of War? The 360 is clearly the best. Are you like me and love Mario and Zelda? How could the Wii not be the best system out right now? It’s all relative to what you like playing most.

To answer why I’m happy to see the Wii in first place right now, it all has to do with my favorite games. No, I don’t think the Wii is the best system out there, but I do consistently prefer it’s biggest and best games, such as Super Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, and especially Smash Bros Brawl. I’m ecstatic to hear that Nintendo’s doing so well because it means my favorite franchises will be around for a long time to come.

This is very much like the Console Wars of the early 90’s where it was either SNES or Genesis for the win. It didn’t matter what people said one way or the other about graphics or sound; it came down to whether you liked Sonic or Mario better and that was the decider. After the Genesis, Sega sort of lost its mind and ran everything that’s considered good about it into the ground. Sure, the Dreamcast was a nice glimmer, but it still failed due to Sega’s poor tactics in regards to marketing and just plain doing their fanbase justice. It’s only just now that they’ve announced Sonic 4, a game that fans have been telling them to make for over 10 years. I just can’t imagine the amount of agony a Sonic fan must have endured for over a decade, watching Mario fans get more or less exactly what they want while Sonic turns into a Werehog (which would mean “Man-hog” by the way).

Like him or not, this guy has ridiculous staying power.

The Year of The Usual Promises

2010 is promising to be a big one once again as Microsoft is releasing Project Natal and Sony is releasing whatever the heck its motion controller is called. If the Wii’s controls make it a bad system, why are its competitors, companies run by intelligent people, rushing to match the same “gimmick” that defines the system? Money, of course. The Wii has managed to bring in a share of the market that was previously untapped and created new gamers from the casual sector. If this means I have to deal with a few dozen shovelware titles so that I get a new Metroid this year, so be it.

It’s becoming very tiresome to hear every company or analyst decide that “2010 is the Year of the PS3” or the “Age of the Xbox” or whatever. Do systems ever have a year that is undeniably its year? Other than the Atari or the NES? And even if it has a good year, does it instantly make up for the previous years or any years to come? No, it’s just a gage for fans to based judgment off so that they can argue that their system is winning or losing or what have you. I love the Wii, but I’m currently playing tons of great games on the 360, and in a month I plan to spend an epic weekend with one of my best friends beating God of War III on the PS3. In the meantime, I still spend my nights playing my DS before bed.

So which system do I think is best? I couldn’t tell you. I can’t even decide which I enjoy playing the most. It comes down to my tastes at the time. I am plowing through game after game on the 360 because I missed out on a lot at the beginning of the console cycle, but I keep going back to my Wii to play Brawl every so often. Both systems have a valued place in my home, but I couldn’t tell you which is the better system. I think both have too many faults for me to consider either of them “the best,” but they’re nowhere close to “the worst.”

When Project Natal is released and has the typical smattering of titles built to demonstrate its capabilities and titles built to get money, will it ultimately decide the 360’s fate? No way. Fans will stick around and haters will claim the system is falling apart. It’s a cycle that will never end.

Has there ever been a system that you feel is perfect? For me, I was always happy with my GameCube. It was one of my favorite systems despite its lack of first-placeness. But what are your favorite systems and why? I loved my GameCube because I was addicted to the games and felt its titles were best suited for the sort of games I play. Still, that’s just me. I don’t think we’ll ever have a perfect system, but we can have systems that do what their fans need them to. Now it’s time to hear from the fans, so leave a comment about what makes a system good for you. Represent!