Friday, August 20, 2010

Those who can't beat, cheat!

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ←→←→ B A START
↓ R ↑ L Y B
A B A C A B B
↓ A R B Y ↓ A Y
(R + ←) (L + ↓) ← ↑ ↓ (R + C⇐) (L + C⇐) (L + R + ←) (L + R + →)
(L + C⇐)

Cheat codes have been a part of console gaming for over 25 years. Some cheat codes have even become a part of video game history. Some games, like Konami's Contra, were nigh impossible to beat without cheat codes. Beating these games without cheating gave players infinite bragging rights.

That all stared to change in the last few generations of games. As games have become easier, longer, and less linear, with more focus on story and exploration, cheats have become decreasingly necessary, and new features are usually unlocked by performing unique tasks, collecting and spending in-game currency, or simply progressing through the game.

Cheat devices, like the Game Genie, GameShark, and Action Replay, combated this trend. These unlicensed add-ons essentially allowed the user to hack and modify the game code to create their own cheats, such as infinite life, special weapons, and even access features that had been switched off in the final product. These cheat devices fell out of favor as online gaming and scoring became more popular, the consensus being that gamers who cheat ruin the game for everyone else. So what if you want to unlock features, but don't have the time, patience, or skills necessary to complete the required tasks? You still paid full price for the game. Shouldn't you have full access to its features?

For example, when Perfect Dark came out, I bought it day one, full price. Over the next few months, and even years, I played the game a lot and got pretty good at it, but never got good enough to play at the Perfect Agent level, let alone complete the required speed runs, which meant I would never unlock certain cheats and features I had been wanting to try. I had the same problem with GoldenEye 007, but in its case, Rare released well hidden cheat codes a few years after the game's release for those of us who could not do it ourselves. Perfect Dark had no such codes. I ended up buying a GameShark and unlocking features "illegally" after years of frustration.

The first Rock Band had a similar problem. In order to unlock all the songs, you had to unlock them in World Tour mode. The problem was, World Tour eventually forced you to play songs on hard to progress, which for me at the time meant a guaranteed fail. It wasn't until Rock Band 2 came out and I was able to export all the RB1 songs that I finally could play some of those songs that to me were unlockable. Rock Band 2 also had an "ALL SONGS" feature, but that came with a concession: online play, score keeping, and certain achievements were deactivated when "ALL SONGS" was on.

That seems to be a common exchange for the option to play the game in a way other than intended. Grand Theft Auto IV does the same thing. Use a cheat during your play session and not only does it deactivate online play and certain achievements, but if you save, it shows on your gameplay stats. This prevents players from cheating for more than personal enjoyment. That seems pretty fair to me.

So why is using cheats still such a taboo? If I am cheating on my own game by myself and not getting any rewards other than fun out of it, what's wrong with that? I would even go so far as to say that if I want to set up an Xbox Live Party using cheats, just for me and my friends, I should be allowed to do just that. There is no reason why I can't activate "NO FAIL MODE" in Rock Band 2 for the sake of my more rhythm or coordination impaired friends, then join a Party with my online friends in Florida. As long as no one minds, who cares? The Party could just post a disclaimer like, "Fear The Claw wants to activate NO FAIL MODE. This will prevent high scores from being recorded, and certain Achievements from being unlocked for the entire party. Is this okay?"

I bought Saints Row 2 several months ago, solely for the purpose of messing around in the open world, and was annoyed to discover that using any of the couple hundred cheat codes at any point during the game deactivates all Achievements, even if the cheat I am using would not affect the requirements for the Achievement I would have unlocked. ( For example, if I use a weapon cheat, it still deactivates Achievements pertaining to vehicle stunts.)  This also does not reset when I turn the cheat off. That seems unfair to me. On the other hand, Burnout Paradise does not have any cheats, but you can pay 800 Microsoft Points, or $10, to unlock all the cars in the game, an option I wish more games had.

It seems unreasonable to me that more games do not include or allow cheats. Whom does it really hurt, other than arguably the player? I paid for the game. Let me enjoy it the way I want. There are some games I probably would never enjoy fully if it weren't for cheats, because they are either too difficult, too long, or have gameplay aspects that I find annoying. Cheats allow me to reduce, or even eliminate, many of these problems, allowing me to complete games that would normally continue collecting dust on my Shelf of Shame. Now, if you don't mind, I am going to go back to my PlatStation Network port of Final Fantasy VII with the hacked game save I downloaded from GameFAQs.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Game Nutz Podcast Episode 44 - E3 Roundup 2010

Check out our take on the news from this year's E3 on the special, hour-long Episode 44 of the Game Nutz Podcast, complete with an epic, game-related orchestral score!

You can also subscribe to us on iTunes by clicking here!

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

In search of the perfect 10

I began to think about this a couple weeks ago, when I recommended Red Dead Redemption to a customer, citing a perfect ten-out-of-ten review as evidence of its quality.  His response was dismissive: "There's no such thing as a perfect ten," he claimed.  Touché, I thought.  Even I can only think of a handful of games I would give a ten-out-of-ten score.  Does that mean those games are perfect?  Are they without flaws, glitches, or frustrating moments?  Do they exceed expectations in everything they attempt to do?  Put simply, no, they do not.  So how do I justify giving a 10/10 to a game that is not absolutely perfect?  Because it really is not that simple.

Looking at a game objectively, it is impossible to make it perfect.  There will always be a pixel or a polygon out of place, AI that behaves questionably, sections of gameplay that take a few too many tries to complete, or any other potential problems you face when dealing with user-controlled media.  The unpredictable nature of video games makes it impossible to prevent every scenario that could detract from the experience.  But video games are not objective, are they?  Unless you are reviewing a puzzle game or a simulated card game, there are very subjective elements that are necessary to game design.  (One could even argue that the aesthetic of a puzzle game can affect the player's enjoyment.)  A video game should be visually pleasing, a factor that cannot be considered objectively.  In addition, most games strive to generate an emotional response in the player — a feeling of joy, fear, excitement, etc.  Certainly emotions cannot be judged objectively.

My point is, there is no such thing as an "objective game review."  You cannot judge a game based solely on its technical aspects any more than any other media.  When you read a movie review, do you want it judged solely on the run time and type of filming equipment used?  Do you want music judged solely on chord progression and time signature?  Do you want literature judged solely on spelling and grammar?  Of course not.  Then why do gamers demand a purely objective review of a video game?

When a reviewer scores a game 10/10, he is not claiming the game is absolutely perfect.  Rather, he is asserting that, from his experience, the game's technical blemishes are so sparse and minute that they do not significantly affect the quality of the overall experience.  A 10/10 can also imply that, despite advancements in technology, years from now the reviewer may still find the same amount of enjoyment in the game.

GameSpot once utilized as part of its scoring process — along with gameplay, graphics, sound, and value — a "Reviewer's Tilt."  This was a score ranging from one to ten that was averaged into the other scores to give the reviewer an influence over the final score.  It allowed the reviewer to account for unquantifiable factors such as aesthetic appeal, emotional response, or in some cases, the cinematic qualities like story and acting.  If a game was average in all of its technical aspects, but had a charming presentation and high replay value, the reviewer can reflect that in his "tilt."  In contrast, if a game had exceptional technical aspects, but an unengaging story and unoriginal gameplay, the "tilt" can be lowered to reflect that.  I think it was a great system and really exemplified the point that gaming is a very personal and subjective experience, and not a purely technical one.

Many movie buffs consider films like The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, and Psycho to be "perfect films," earning the conventional four (out of four) star ratings typically given to films of their caliber, despite long lists of continuity errors and technical goofs.  Heck, even Citizen Kane, universally hailed as "the greatest film of all time," has its own list of flubs to challenge its place at the top of the list.   If film critics are permitted to heap such praise on technically imperfect movies, shouldn't we grant video game critics the same privilege?  After all, a ten-out-of-ten game is like a loved one: you know they have flaws, but you love them so much it doesn't matter.

By the way, in case you are wondering which games I'd give a "perfect 10," they are Super Mario Bros. 3The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the PastSuper Mario 64Metal Gear Solid, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Rock Band 3 teased in Green Day: Rock Band demo

There's not much to tell here, so I'll keep this brief.  I downloaded the Green Day: Rock Band demo today to hold me over until the full game arrives at my door next week.  After playing both available songs, Welcome to Paradise and Boulevard of Broken Dreams (both on bass, of course), I exited the demo and, just before returning to the Dashboard, I was treated to a black screen with the Rock Band instrument logos, and the number "3."  That's all.  I told you there was not much to report.

But wait… What's this…?


There are the four standard logos: bass, drums, guitar, and vocals; but the vocal one has three mics.  Well, no huge surprise there.  Harmonies have been featured in both Beatles: and Green Day: Rock Band…

But there's a fifth logo… Is that…?  YES!  A keyboard!  One of the most requested features for a band game.  Honestly, I'm curious, and a little bit skeptical, about how it is going to work, but this could be a real game changer for the genre.

At the very least, it will make Pete Townsend's minute long keyboard solos more tolerable in the game!

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Nintendo needs a Touchstone

About eighty percent of (the five of) you reading this are probably saying "What's a 'Touchstone'?" So first, a little history lesson: In the late '70s, early '80s, Walt Disney Pictures released a few movies that earned a PG rating from the MPAA. This was unheard of for the typically kid-friendly company. Some of these movies were released under the Disney label, while others were farmed out to other studios for release. In 1984, Disney CEO Ron Miller created Touchstone Pictures, a rebadge of sorts for adult oriented Disney movies. Under the Touchstone label, Disney released hits like Splash, Ernest Goes to Camp, Good Morning, Vietnam, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Nightmare Before Christmas (later rereleased under Walt Disney Pictures), and several of Jerry Bruckheimer's films.

(Disney also founded Hollywood Pictures, and purchased Miramax Films and Dimension Films for similar reasons.)

So what does this have to do with video games? Well, Nintendo has a similar image in the video game industry to Disney's in the film industry: colorful, cartoony, family-friendly, and innovative; and, like Disney, this image has occasionally had a detrimental effect on how they are perceived by "mature" audiences. "Hardcore" gamers don't want to play a game with a doe-eyed boy in a green tunic any more than they want to watch a 90 minute long cartoon about a singing, dancing frog; no matter how good it may be.

While Nintendo has tried in the past decade-and-a-half or so to shed this kiddy image with more mature games, unusual partnerships, and grittier versions of classic stories, their attempts thus far have had meager results. The designs for their systems have not done much to help this, by opting more for simple and functional, rather than stylish and powerful, their systems look and perform less like a Sony PlayStation, and more like a My First Sony Walkman.

This is fine with me. I believe that there is a place in the gaming industry for the simple fun of "casual" games alongside the complex challenges of "hardcore" games. Unfortunately, while Nintendo's systems offer a wide assortment of experiences, it is this casual style that permeates everything they do. No matter how many "hardcore" games like Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars, MadWorld, or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex we may see on a Nintendo platform, they never seem to sell as well as games like Grand Theft Auto IV, Gears of War, or Modern Warfare 2 on Sony and Microsoft platforms; or even as well as Nintendo's own "casual" offerings like Wii Sports, Wii Play, or Brain Age.

The problem here is that Nintendo is so ingrained with its own family-friendly image that even third party developers can't break through its connotation. What is needed is a brand that is disassociated with, but still controlled by, Nintendo. Imagine going into a game store, and you see on display the Nintendo Wii, a tall white box with a Remote controller and a cartoony sports package, and the Sora Revolution*, a flat black box with a Classic Controller and a dark fantasy adventure about a young man who gets turned into a wolf (we'll pretend for the sake of this example that you can play Twilight Princess with a Classic Controller). Which of these do you think would appeal to the "hardcore" gamer? How about the Nintendo DS versus the Sora Nitro*?

My point is, a game like Grand Theft Auto might sell better on a system called the Nitro, while a game like Nintendogs is better suited for the DS. The two systems can be identical in hardware and interface, but the Nitro have a more "hardcore" name and design. While the Wii has targeted casual gamers with its simple, unique controller design, the Revolution can attract the hardcore with a more conventional one. Both SKUs would be fully compatible with each other's games and accessories, but cater, at least aesthetically, to different audiences.

Admittedly, this does pose some problems, like what do you put on the game cases? Wii, Revolution, or both? Maybe they could make a decision based on the target demographic. For example, they could have the key buyers' system name on the front, and "also compatible with [other system name]" on back, or in smaller print on the front. Who knows?

These are all my own personal musings, of course.  It will never happen. Nintendo are proud of themselves; and they should be, as they are currently dominating both the console and portable gaming markets. However, their success has come at a price. They have lost many potential sales and licenses due to the perception of their audience. Perhaps a rebrand may be what Nintendo needs to recapture the "hardcore" gamers, many of whom have moved on to the PlayStation 3 and/or Xbox 360.  It worked for Disney. Con Air, Clerks, the Scream trilogy,... These are all Disney movies. Maybe the next answer to Halo or Grand Theft Auto could be a Nintendo game, under a different name.

*"Sora" is taken from Sora Ltd., a Nintendo second party developer founded by Super Smash Bros. creator Masahiro Sakurai.  "Revolution" and "Nitro" were Nintendo's project names for the Wii and DS prototypes, respectively.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Features I'd like to see in Rock Band 3

Ever since I first played Guitar Hero on a demo station in 2005 I've been hooked on the instrument-sim sub-genre of music games.  When I first played Harmonix's next-gen follow-up Rock Band, I fell in love with the aesthetic, diverse playlist, and potential as a party game.  Rock Band 2 remains a frequent activity for friendly get-togethers at our home.  However, while RB2 improved on the original's interface, there's still plenty of room for a more streamlined and varied experience.  The Beatles: Rock Band added harmonies, but aside from that, the formula has remained largely the same across the four main games and several spin-offs in the series.  Harmonix passed on releasing a Rock Band 3 last year, but I'm sure there will still be one, and here is a list of features I'd like to see in order to improve the experience:
  • Harmonies/Duets - The Beatles: RB added this unique feature to make the game more authentic to the Beatles' music, and Green Day: RB will carry it on, but there are several songs in the Rock Band library that could benefit from a multi-vocal option. Songs like Linkin Park's One Step Closer, Gorillaz' Clint Eastwood, and Evanescence's Bring Me to Life, just to name a few, were all recorded with two vocalists, one singing and one rapping. Multiple vocalists could also make artists like The B-52s more accessible to the game.

  • Support for two guitars - Most rock songs feature at least two guitar tracks (not including bass), rhythm and lead. I don't know why this option hasn't been explored yet, especially with The Beatles. The two guitar tracks are usually just swapped between on the single guitar chart, or sometimes the rhythm track is ignored altogether. It would be nice if we were given the option to have one more band mate and to pick the track we prefer, especially since some gamers are better at the "chord changes" and "double strumming" of the rhythm section, while others (like myself) are better with the quick fingering and "single notes" of lead.

  • iTunes-style stat keeping for songs - I can't tell you how many times I've bought a song and completely forgot about it, or played a song once and had it get lost in a field of far more familiar songs. Yes, you can sort songs by alphabet (band or song title), rating (how well you performed on a song, not how much you like it), source (RB1, RB2, DLC, etc.), decade, and genre; but these don't make it much easier to find those rare gems that may have drifted into obscurity as you played Aqualung for the twenty-seventh time. Finding music in iTunes is so quick and intuitive, Harmonix could learn a lesson from Apple. The following criteria should be added to the music sort list:
    • Date added
    • Play count
    • Last played
    • Player rating (taste, not skill)
    • Suggestions

  • Music search feature - Rather than spending 2-3 minutes searching your library for that one song, just press one button, bring up the virtual keyboard, and type the title or artist in. How difficult can it be to add USB keyboard and ChatPad support as well?

  • Optional vocal cadenzas - I don't know about you, but I get annoyed when the game requires me to sing every "ooh," "ah," and "yeah" exactly the same as the original recording, or else lose my note streak. If they're not explicitly written into the sheet music, they should be optional, maybe for extra points, or as an alternate way to activate Overdrive.

  • Button-activated Overdrive - Speaking of Overdrive, there needs to be a more user-friendly way to activate it while on vocals or drums. On guitar or bass, all you need to do is tilt the controller, or hit the Back button. Guitar Hero allows you to activate Star Power on drums whenever you want by hitting the kick bass and both cymbals simultaneously. This can be a little overly complicated, but it's better than waiting half-a-minute for the next drum fill because you missed the crash prompt the first time. As for vocals, my throat hurts enough from singing tenor all night (I'm naturally a bass-baritone, and very few pop/rock songs are in that range), now you want me to scream into the mic at a precise time? Either put an Overdrive button on the Mic controller, or map it to any button on the 360 controller.

  • Adaptive difficulty - Over the years, I've progressed from struggling with the Medium difficulty, to challenging myself with Hard, and in some cases going with Expert because I've already mastered all others. There are some songs, however, that start out deceptively simple, then throw a string of rapid-fire "hammer-ons" or "double-strum" chords at you later on that cause me to instantly fail out. If I step down a level, I could play the song in my sleep with the drop in difficulty. An option should be added, perhaps in place of No Fail Mode, which automatically adjusts the difficulty level based on your current performance. Achieve a 50 note streak or fill the performance bar all the way and the game will take it up a notch. Drop into the red, and the game will automatically bring the level down on the fly. This will make party nights a lot easier for groups of varying skill.

  • Quick-swapping instruments - I almost always play bass, but there are some songs that make me want to drop my Fender P and pick up a mic. Other times I get stuck on drums until my arms hurt and I just need some less physically taxing relief. What do I need to do? Back up to the band member selection screen, log out of my controller, swap controllers with someone (who also had to log out), log into my new instrument of choice (while the person I swapped with does the same), and re-enter the song selection screen. Sometimes the game makes this even more complicated, forbidding me from logging my Gamertag out while the game is playing, and forcing me to either return to the Dashboard, swap my GT to another controller, and reload the game, or worse, shut the system off and start all over again. This is absolutely ridiculous. There needs to be a way I can switch to a different instrument and take my GT and RB avatar with me without spending 5 minutes reconfiguring the entire system.

So there's my Rock Band 3 list of suggestions. Now all I need to do is find out how to share this with Harmonix's development team, and hopefully some or all of these will be addressed in the final product.

Are there any other features or fixes you'd like to see in future Rock Band entries? Please share them in the comments section!

Monday, March 29, 2010

Perfect Dark (XBLA) - Full Review



Last May, I included Perfect Dark in Part III of my list of classic Nintendo games that haven't been remade, but should be. Less than a month later at E3, Microsoft announced Perfect Dark for the Xbox Live Arcade. At the time it sounded like the game would just be a port of the N64 game running in 1080p with online multiplayer, but a few months later Rare released screenshots showing new high resolution textures replacing the originals. On March 17th, Microsoft Game Studios released their version of the N64 classic, ported by 4J Studios.

As I had said I would in my previous post on this topic, I bought this on day one. The first thing I noticed was, aside from the higher resolution, and the replacement of old RareWare and Nintendo logos with new Rare and Microsoft ones, was that the opening was basically identical as the original's. Same sound, same presentation, and the 4J logo very cleverly replaces the N64 logo before becoming the background for the title… but you aren't reading this to find out about the logos, are you?

I started playing the game right away, and was amazed at how crisp and clear the graphics were — Perfect Dark looks as good as you remember it looking, and better than it actually looked — but what really caught my attention was how detailed the faces were. While most of the graphical updates are simply brand new hi-res textures to replace the originals, character models were completely rebuilt with higher polygon counts. Even Jo's hand and gun in first-person are remodeled. You can actually make out the details on the faces, and features such as lips and eyes are well defined. This unfortunately makes cinemas a little annoying because, like the original, the faces are all static and there is no lip sync.


screenshots from teamxbox.com













Surprisingly, the game controls well using dual-analog, although I still prefer my C-buttons for strafing. AI is exactly the same as it was in 2000, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Enemies are smart enough to chase you, take cover behind walls, surrender or go kung-fu and fisticuffs when disarmed, and investigate curious sounds and objects; but they're not so smart that you can't still toy with them and set up fairly obvious ambushes. In fact, aside from the graphics and controller itself, nearly everything in the XBLA release is identical to the N64 original.

The biggest change is in the Combat Simulator, PD's multiplayer mode. While all the features of the original are still here (and unlocked from the get-go), the obvious new addition is online matchmaking. Thus far, most of the matches have been pretty even (with me in the usual bottom half of the standings), though there is always the typical unfair match with some FPS expert/cheater. Hopefully matchmaking will smooth out over time, as more people participate and player levels start to balance out. Unfortunately, the only options for online matchmaking are 4 player and 8 player matches, and there is no option for Simulants, meaning you can't set up a humans versus Sims match for random people. This would be a nice feature to add. The most fun we had at my house was humans vs. Sims, with a random Perfect Sim thrown in to keep things interesting. Still, local mulitplayer is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago, Sims and all, only clearer and smoother.

My biggest gripes are what they did not include. I was really hoping they would restore the face-mapping feature that was planned for the original release, but removed due to post-Columbine pressure (Rare claims "technical issues," but I stand by my previous statement). The pieces of cheese hidden throughout the levels, originally meant as an alternate method for unlocking cheats, still do nothing. The N64 version of Perfect Dark (as well as GoldenEye 007) allowed you to change the aspect ratio of the game from a standard 4:3 (1.33:1), all the way to an anamorphic 23:9 (2.55:1, similar to CinemaScope's aspect ratio) on widescreen TVs. The XBLA version only allows full-screen mode, in either 4:3 or 16:9 depending on your system settings.

Overall, the biggest change is the framerate. After years of stuttering single-player, choppy deathmatches, and unplayable co-op, we can finally see Perfect Dark the way it was meant to be seen. This is what Perfect Dark might have looked and played like had Rare held the game over to the GameCube. If you were ever a fan of the original, or even of GoldenEye, and are looking for a solid, old-school FPS on the 360, I'd say you can't go wrong with this. The fact that it's only $10 (800 MP) gives you even less reason not to buy it.

9
Yea: feels and sounds just like the original; looks a lot better than the original; great classic FPS; nearly unlimited multiplayer options
Nay: short campaign; not much new aside from online multiplayer; needs more GoldenEye multiplayer maps (DLC maybe?)

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Does length equal value?

I hear and read the comments all the time: "great campaign, but too short;" "hundreds of hours to complete;" "padded with repetitive tasks;" "not long tnough to warrant a $60 purchase..." It seems people equate hours of gameplay with a dollar amount as if there were a mathematical formula to determine a game's monetary value. But when the dollar to hour ratio is different for everyone, how do you determine the ideal game length?

About 10 years ago, when gamers spent fifty to sixty dollars on a game, they were generally looking at between 5-10 hours of single player gameplay. A triple-A title like The Legend of Zelda or Metal Gear Solid might offer an additional 5-10 hours. The notable exceptions to the rule, RPGs, might cap out at around 40-50 hours. Back then there were also fewer studios releasing fewer games on fewer major systems, so there was potentially more time for gaming. You rarely heard the complaint that games were not long enough for their price.

Flash forward to today...

Games still cost $50-60, but now there are a lot more of them, and a lot more options in the types of games. Most games today average out at around ten hours, give or take a few, and a triple-A titles could easily consume twenty hours of your spare time, or more. An RPG might be finished in 60 hours if you're lucky. Some games, in particular games by developers BioWare and Bethesda, boast over one hundred hours of open world gameplay.

By my estimate, total potential gameplay hours have quintupled in the past decade, while the price of new games has remained mostly the same. Why then do I constantly hear the complaint that certain games are not long enough to warrant a full price purchase? Furthermore, how does a longer game equate to a better game? Certainly quantity does not necessarily equal quality. What constitutes a good value in gaming?

What it comes down to for me is overall enjoyment and replayability. What good is a fifty hour game if most of it is the same old thing for thirty of them? If there's nothing left to do after I'm finished other than replay from the start, the campaign had better be short and memorable. One hundred hours of gameplay? If it doesn't have a non-linear or branching story, I'm not interested, because I'll probably forget what's happened before I'm halfway through it anyway.

What a game is worth should not be broken down into a numerical equation based solely on gameplay hours. It should be based on personal preference and quality of production. I mean, which would you rather spend your hard-earned money on: five hours of gold, or fifty hours of "meh?"

If you do insist on looking at it mathematically, try this formula:

To buy a brand new movie on DVD costs close to $20. The average movie runtime is about two hours. That's $10 for each hour of passive entertainment. Apply that ratio to video games, and that new game you just paid $60 for is a pretty fair deal at "only" six hours, especially when you consider that's an interactive medium which can be experienced at any pace, a nearly infinite number of ways.

(I will admit, my biggest complaint with Ghostbusters was that it was too short. That had nothing to do with its monetary value, but rather that I simply did not want the game to end. The positive side is its brevity makes it easy to play through repeatedly, for example, whenever I get around to watching the movies again.)

Let's try to get away from judging a game's value by its length, and instead by our overall enjoyment of it, and how enthusiastic we'd be to play it through again. After all, New Super Mario Bros. Wii may only take about 5-6 hours to beat, but that hasn't stopped me from getting more than $50 worth of fun out of it.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

My Shelf of Shame

Obviously I have not had time to post much lately. I haven't had time to do much of anything, really — except work, that is — let alone gaming. I have an ever growing backlog of games I've yet to play or finish. The hosts of Joystiq Podcast referred to this as a "Shelf of Shame." Hearing this term got me thinking, what games do I own that have been sitting on my Shelf of Shame?

(footnote links are broken. explanations at bottom of article.)

Games I've never played:
  1. Doom 1
  2. Doom II 1
  3. Doom 3
  4. Final Fantasy V 2
  5. Final Fantasy VI 2
  6. inFamous
  7. LEGO Batman: The Videogame
  8. The Matrix: Path of Neo 3
  9. Metal Gear 1
  10. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake 1
  11. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
  12. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
  13. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (Wii) 2
  14. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption 2
  15. Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks 3
  16. Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil
  17. Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil Zero
  18. Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
  19. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles
  20. Star Wars: Rebel Assault II: The Hidden Empire
  21. Super Paper Mario

Games I've played, but not finished
  1. Banjo-Kazooie
  2. Battle Lode Runner
  3. The Conduit
  4. Dead Rising
  5. Donkey Kong Country 3 (GBA)
  6. Donkey Kong 64
  7. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
  8. Far Cry 2
  9. Final Fantasy III 4
  10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
  11. Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories
  12. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories
  13. Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony 3
  14. Kid Icarus
  15. Kingdom Hearts
  16. Kirby's Dream Land 3
  17. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
  18. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
  19. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
  20. The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
  21. LittleBigPlanet (PS3)
  22. LittleBigPlanet (PSP)
  23. MadWorld
  24. Medal of Honor: Underground
  25. Medal of Honor: Frontline
  26. Metroid 3: Super Metroid
  27. Metroid Prime (Wii) 2 or (GCN)
  28. Metroid Prime Hunters
  29. Mirror's Edge
  30. NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams
  31. Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door
  32. Perfect Dark Zero
  33. Pokémon Red
  34. Pokémon Snap
  35. Pokémon Yellow
  36. Pokémon Silver
  37. Pokémon Platinum
  38. Pokémon HeartGold
  39. Punch-Out!!
  40. Puzzle Quest: Galactrix
  41. Red Dead Revolver
  42. Red Dead Redemption
  43. Resident Evil (GCN) 4
  44. Scribblenauts
  45. Shadowman
  46. Sonic Adventure 5
  47. Star Fox Command
  48. Star Fox: Assault
  49. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect
  50. Viewtiful Joe


Games I came close to finishing and stopped:
  1. Final Fantasy IV 6
  2. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
  3. Grand Theft Auto (GBA)
  4. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest
  5. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
  6. Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga 6


1bonus feature on game disc
2part of a compilation
3recently purchased
4sold or traded
5damaged/unplayable
6lost/stolen

(notes: "finished" does not necessarily mean completed.  for example, finishing Super Mario Galaxy means that i reached and defeated the final boss, and saw the end credits, but not necessarily with all 120 stars.  also, games that were purchased without the intention of playing to completion, such as Saints Row 2, and games purchased as party games, such as LEGO Rock Band, are not counted as part of this list.)