I used to be pretty big into fighting games. As was the case with most people my age, it all started with Street Fighter II. Unlike my friends who hung out in the arcades, I was pretty broke so I cut my teeth on the franchise with a borrowed copy of the Super Nintendo version. I was never an expert with Ryu, Chun-Li, and the rest of the crew, but they did get me interested in the genre. Once Mortal Kombat hit the SNES (I didn't yet own a Genesis and didn't care much about the whole blood/sweat issue) I was all about hand-to-hand video game brawling. Mortal Kombat II came out a year later and it was a significant factor in my less-than-stellar grades that semester. There was even a girl in my dorm that asked me to tape fatalities so that she could use them in a presentation about video games and violence. Hopefully I didn't set the cause too far back with that deed. Sorry.

Oh, hello there. Have you perchance noticed that you're on fire...and exploding?

After MKII, I moved on to the SNES (and later the Nintendo 64) version of Killer Instinct. My go-to-guy in KI was Jago. Together, he and I were darn near unstoppable. I could pull off monster, king, killer, ultra, and ultimate combos with ease. You'd better hope you landed a lucky punch against me or else I'd bust out a humiliation and have you dancing like a fool in seconds. My roommates were no match for my powers and eventually quit playing with me. My buddy Sean, whose only character was Sabrewulf, couldn't even perform certain basic moves because...well, because he sucked. I desperately needed Sean to play so I could whoop him without mercy. To lure him back into the fray I agreed to train him. I would design combos for him on our dry/erase board, making sure not to include any moves that his uncoordinated little fingers couldn't handle. I looked like an even crazier version of Bob Knight drawing these moves in multicolored ink and then yelling at him when he screwed up. Is it any wonder dates were scarce my junior year?

I'll admit that drawing up combos instead of doing homework was pretty pitiful, but I did it because when it comes to fighting games, nothing compares to pummeling a friend. The CPU doesn't care that you turned it into a baby, knocked it off of a building, made it dance, or set it on fire. It doesn't throw the controller and storm off whining about your "cheese" tactics after you rack up another perfect victory. No, you have to upset a real person to get the most out of a fighting game. And that's why I don't really play fighting games anymore. Most of my friends are married, have kids, and live 2,500 miles away. There's nobody left to pummel.

At least I thought there there was nobody left to pummel. I was back at my dad's house last week, and while I was there I played some Xbox 360. Both my brother and my old friend Sean (my Killer Instinct pupil who now lives in Washington DC) had Soulcalibur IV so we decided to give it ago. I couldn't believe how much fun it was playing over Xbox Live! After many years of waiting, I think I think it's safe to say that fighting games are just as much fun to play online as racing games and first-person shooters. I'm not talking "kind of playable" like DOA 4, but really and truly functional online to the point where it's not much different than fighting someone in person. I'm sure some of the hardcore fighting crowd might disagree and say that even the minimal amount of lag found in recent games can affect their play, but for the average player there's almost no noticeable difference between playing online and offline.

Yep, I just checked with my sword: Your soul still burns.

What does this mean for me? It means that one of the first things I did when I got back to San Francisco was to pick up a used copy of Soulcalibur IV. I now own my first fighting game since SoulCalibur on the Dreamcast. I got off to a rusty 3-2 start against Sean last night, but my skills are rapidly improving. I can't wait to start laying the smack down on my little brother and Sean until they can't take it anymore. It'll be just like old times. Now if only I can my friends to use a webcam so I can watch them storm off after a ring out...

As most of you all know, I miss Rareware. The company that was once a Nintendo company, now a Microsoft company. They were known for great games such as:

and even more...

Ever since Microsoft bought them and Free Radical (who is now Crytek UK) was formed, things have been changing, and not in the good sense. Some of their most acclaimed series, such as Perfect Dark and Banjo, have been going downhill. Critic scores for their games have gotten lower (example a 3 out of 5 from X-Play on Perfect Dark Zero), and some people no longer being Rare fans.

Reading Gamespot's latest news on Rare restructuring, some fans (myself included) aren't even too sure about Rare's future survival, even with them having four untitled games they've announced.

For me on Rare, all I can say (again) is I miss them, even with Free Radical/Crytek UK as the old Rare making games for multiplatforms (Nintendo consoles included). If they do go down, I'll probably miss them more than anyone could possibly imagine

A few months ago I launched an editorial that I intend to make a regular feature, called Looking Back. The purpose of Looking Back was to take a look at some older retail games for the current generation that got good reviews (7 or higher). Sometimes these games pass us by because they were released during a glut of other good games. Perhaps you've only just picked up the relevant system. Or perhaps it was a lesser known title that simply slipped under your radar. In any case, the purpose of Looking Back is to determine whether these games are still worth a look, whether they haven't dated well, or whether something else has come along and beaten it at its own game. These games should either be budget priced by now, or you can probably pick up a cheap second hand copy. Due to the feedback last time, I've also included PS2 games, and also added PC games.

However this time around I'm a little light on content as I've only played one game on the list, and not enough to give a qualified review of it. I have had a few people collaborate for this feature, and they are credited for their entries. However, if you wish to write a short review of whether any of the other games on the list are worth playing or not, I will edit it into the main entry (read more details below).

World Soccer Winning Eleven 9/Pro Evo Soccer 5 (PS2)
Gamespot Score 9.1
Is it still worth playing? Yes. Sports games are not usually something you'd be playing two years down the track. The sporting world is constantly changing, and half the fun of a sports game is playing as your favourite team with its current players, and with the constant evolution in PES's engine you'd think that the answer would be no. But you'd be wrong! PES5 is many people's favourite PES for two reasons: it's fast and it's frantic. You can have the ball zipping around like Barcelona in a way you simply can't in any other PES, admittedly because the latter PES's have been more realistic. You see PES6 slowed the game down drastically for a more realistic feel and as such the crisp passing was lost. And if you are absolutely must have your teams up to date, chances are you'll be able to find an option file with everything up to date on the net due to the game still garnering a reasonable following. You may also be able to organise a few games online if you're lucky! But PES truly shines in multiplayer. There's little more satisfying than scoring with a cool finish after a fast and crisp pacing game against your best mate, and while this feeling certainly isn't lost in latter PESs, the speed is. This has another advantage; it can actually give novices a better chance against those who are experienced, as it is more arcadey than 6 or 2008 (but not 09). With the crispness of the passing it's hard to make too many mistakes in possession, so while you might still have trouble breaking down your opponent (the speed also means you'll need some skill to pull of an attacking move), you should be able to keep the ball reasonably comfortably. That's not to say the defending is easy! On the contrary you have to time tackles precisely and mark space and do all the good stuff, but with the speed of the ball even against a novice it'll still take some time and thought to win the ball back, unless of course they're English and play down the centre! If you want a fast and crisp football game that is as deep and as satisfying as the latter PESs then you can't really go wrong with this. - Foolz3h

Black (PS2)
Gamespot Score 7.4
Is it still worth playing? Yes. First person shooters tend to age horribly, although some are still loved, like counter strike. But as graphics get uglier as time goes by, the core gameplay mechanics tend to remain the same, and be honest, wouldn't you rather play a game that looks great and plays the same as a game that looks slightly dated? Thankfully Black is a game that even 3 years after release, is still worth playing. The core shooting in black is good, there are slight latency issues with the controller at times, but overall it's a fairly solid shooter. The guns all feel great to fight with, and there are explosions galore, something which is one of Black's strengths, and boy do they know it. For enemies that seem so intent on preserving their life, they sure do stack a lot of red barrels next to each other. The graphics even now are actually fairly impressive, no choppiness mid game, and the explosions are absolutely stunning, seriously, this is a game all shooter fans should check out if they own the ps2. It may be fairly mediocre in terms of AI, and although it doesn't stand out from the brown lake that is now the FPS genre, it has a few cool features that keep it afloat, although there is no multiplayer which is sorely missing from this game. - doc18

Dungeons & Dragons Online : Stormreach (PC)
Gamespot Score 7.5
Is it still worth playing? Yes. MMOs age like good wine - or they die before their time. The online adaption of the best known roleplaying game was well received by critics, but it never gained the popularity to be a hit. The mass thought DDO was too different and complicated from other MMOs with THAC0's and other anomalies and the D&D fanbase thought the game drifted too far from the standard D&D 3.5 Ruleset. The complete lack of an open world and solo content didn't help either. Fortunately Turbine still managed to gather a small but loyal fanbase and several major content updates have already been released, adding new areas and streamlining the game to give it more mass appeal. DDO has never been a game for lone wolves and even with added solo content, it still isn't - but as a group game it's a ton of fun. Next to that there's also the problem with the imbalanced economy; dungeon loot is too good and the game can become too easy in the higher levels. Even with the issues, Stormreach is worth checking out, if you are searching for a unique WoW-alternative that you can play with a handful of friends. - RK-Mara

Star Wars: Empire At War
Gamespot Score 8.7
Is it still worth playing? Yes... and no. In many ways, the first sucessful "Star Wars" RTS holds up remarkably well. The graphics and sound effects are faithful to the movies, and the space battles are spectacular. The controls and user interface are beginner-friendly. Where it fails to keep up with the genre is the ground battles. The maps are far too small, and the unit caps are too restrictive to faithfully replicate the epic scope of battles like Hoth ("Empire Strikes Back") or Endor ("Return of the Jedi").

Another issue is the lack of playable factions: by modern RTS standards, 2 playable factions is too restricting. While includng just the Rebellion and the Empire is faithful to the movies, it limits the strategic possibilities available in more "up-to-date" games such as "Universe at War" (by the same developer). This was rectified by the "Forces of Corruption" expansion (which introduced SW's criminal element as a playable faction). If your interest is in waging war in the "Star Wars" universe, there aren't any other RTSs that compare to "SW:EaW." If you're looking for a more immersive RTS experience, there are several better games on the market. - Orkhammer

Eligible Games not commented on (games released on Xbox 360, PS2 or PC in January/February 2006 that scored 7 or more)
Xbox 360 (just one game this time around)
Fight Night Round 3 - 8.3

Playstation 2
Wild Arms 4 - 7.8
Mega Man X Collection - 7.2
Ape Escape 3 - 8.2
MVP 06 NCAA Basketball - 8.0
Devil May Cry 3 : Special Edition - 8.2
Tales of Legendia - 8.0
Mark Ecko's Getting Up : Contents Under Pressure - 8.7
Drakengard 2 - 7.0
Grandia 3 - 7.6
Rugby 06 - 7.6
Fight Night Round 3 - 8.2
TOCA Race Driver - 8.5
FIFA Street 2 - 7.5
MLB 06 : The Show - 9.0

PC
Diner Dash - 9.1
MX vs. ATV Unleashed - 7.7
GT Legends - 8.5
Command & Conquer : The First Decade - 7.6
Mark Ecko's Getting Up : Contents Under Pressure - 8.4
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six : Lockdown - 8.0
Everquest 2 : Kingdom of Sky - 7.6
TOCA Race Driver 3 - 8.5
Galactic Civilizations 2 : Dread Lords - 9.0
SWAT 4 : The Stetchkov Syndicate - 8.2
The Sims 2 : Open for Business - 8.0

Note to potential contributors
The idea of this feature is to identify whether some decent games from yesteryear are still worth playing today. If you hated the game to start with, then you shouldn't be writing a review for this feature. If you liked the game and can be objective about whether the game is still worth playing, whether it has been superseded by something better or is simply forgettable, feel free to write a paragraph or two about the game in the comments following the format above. Please ensure your language and grammar are well formed. Over the next few days I will edit in any entries with full credits. Thanks for your collaboration. Next time I'm sure there are some games that I will be able to talk about!

Sometimes I look at the gaming industry and wonder whether it has become too commercial. Whether it's milking a popular game for all its worth or endlessly spilling out "new" downloads, which in the long run cost an arm and a leg. It goes to say that many games have become a sort of fade and some people even tend to go with that fade. Hyped up games see no end, at least until the reviews start to be published and disappointed faces emerge.

Then they are those certain people, the ones who seen to hate everything you love. A game may score anything of 9 and above yet they'll still be those who hate it. You just can't please everyone. Video game developing isn't perfect, it's not rocket science. A good amount of the time is tends to be experimental; trial and error. If it works out brilliant if it doesn't ah-well at least they know what not to do next time. I guarantee they'll still be those few who will love it regardless. Not everyone cares about what the greatest game in the world is or what is the most hyped game of the year was. Yes many of us fall into it that trap and I'm no exception, but then again we're only human. A tendency to go with flow. So what if someone bashes you because you like a certain game, at the end of the day you're here and they're probably on the other side of the world.

Sometimes it's just nice to acknowledge that a video game is just a game. It's meant to be there for you to have fun. Isn't that what a game is meant to be, fun. It doesn't have to be the best; of course it wouldn't help it if it was abysmal either. Still as long as you enjoy it regardless of what anyone says all that should really matter is your own opinion. Just because a game is 9+ doesn't mean you have to like it, and just because it scores a 5- doesn't mean you have to hate it either.

Saying that, it's very hard to come across a review that is 100% bias free. Preferences differ from reviewer to reviewer, so what one may think vital to there review another might not care about or may have a different perspective on it. You just have to look at different reviews for one game and see how the content changes depending upon the reviewer. If we all thought the same then they'd all have identical scores. It would be a boring world, didn't someone once say diversity was the spice of life. At the end of the day reviews are meant to be there to help us choice a game, not to tell us what to buy... well except in a few cases where they do. In the end it's up to yourself to buy it or not. It's your money (except where in the case of it's your parent's). So should it matter what anyone else says.

Well hello there. I was originally going to sum the past year like I did last time with one of lists of 10. But I noticed like every year, most of the big gaming sites are handing out there awards so I thought I might as well experiment a little and try it myself.
I will be using the same type of awards as the Gamespot crew if that's ok? Though I will using far from all of them, as I simply have not played enough games to fill each category. So if you guys would wanna help me out with the awards I missed that would be great, or you simply just want to disagree you're free to that as well.

Well then off we go!


Best Story

Lost Odyssey
Grand Theft Auto IV
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Dead Space
Valkyria Chronicles

And the winner is...


Best Graphics, Technical

GRID
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Crysis Warhead
Dead Space
Gears of War 2

And the winner is...


Best Graphics, Artistic

Fable II
Little Big Planet
Valkyria Chronicles
Mirror's Edge
Prince of Persia

And the winner is...


Best Atmosphere

Grand Theft Auto IV
Dead Space
Fable II
Fallout 3
Left 4 Dead

And the winner is...


Best Original Music

Lost Odyssey
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Fable II
Mirror's Edge
Prince of Persia

And the winner is...


Best Sound Design

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Battlefield: Bad Company
Dead Space
Fallout 3
Left 4 Dead

And the winner is...


Best Voice Acting

No More Heroes
Grand Theft Auto IV
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Dead Space
Fable II

And the winner is...


Best Cooperative Multiplayer

NHL 09
Little Big Planet
Resistance 2
Gears of War 2
Left 4 Dead

And the winner is...


Best Competitive Multiplayer

Burnout Paradise
Sins of a Solar Empire
Grand Theft Auto IV
Resistance 2
Gears of War 2

And the winner is...


Most Improved Sequel

Saints Row 2
Fable II
Fallout 3
Resistance 2
Gears of War 2

And the winner is...


Best Original IP

No More Heroes
Lost Odyssey
Dead Space
Valkyria Chronicles
Left 4 Dead

And the winner is...


I will post part 2 by the end of the week were I discuss a few disappointments of mine and also hand out the bigger awards.
And I aplogize before hand of possible grammar issues, I'm posting this right before I'm going to sleep lol.
//ZimpanX

When we eventually look back on this generation, we will see a couple of things that the industry will benefit on: more mature themes in games (Heavy Rain, Fable II, Fallout 3), the meteoric rise of downloadable games and content and the virtual "that's a good boy" pat on the back that is Achievements. On this post, the focus will be that of Achievements.

Let's face it, achievements have now become an integral part of the quality of the game, whether or not the system its intented on allows for an overall score across its system (a la Xbox Live and PSN Trophies). Gamers need the feeling of "Hey, you're playing this game this way, and guess what? We are so proud of you doing so." To some, it's become a blessing, others a hinderance and to a very few people: a curse.

The purpose of this post is to reflect on the good, the strange and the bad of the achievement system on any and all platforms. So, let's start with the good, shall we?

+ Feeling of Progression - Let's be honest, there were some games where you felt "Hey, I'm almost done with the game!", only to realize that you were only...well, 35% of the way in the game. Achievements for some games reward you as your progress through the game, letting you know that you are hitting pivotal plot points in the game that advance you further into the story or into the main objective of the game.

Speak to some gamers and the reason why they don't finish that great game they started is because they felt there was much more to do in the game than they could have actually handled, thus they quit said game entirely only to find out they were almost finished with the game itself. The achievements unlocked for getting to a certain level or to a certain area usually signify when something "interesting" is going to happen in the next few hours.

+ Another Form of Competition - "Yeah, I've had like, I dunno, 35 Headshots with a Double Barrelled Sawed Off Shotgun while playing during a summer solstice." If some guy told you that, you're more than likely brush him off and say something not so nice involving a shotgun of an other sort. But...wait a second, then you see this achievement on his Gamerscore:

Eclipse of the Shell - 20G - Pull of 35 Headshots Using a Double Barreled Sawed Off Shotgun while playing during a summer solstice and watching Heroes, Season 3 Episode: The Eclipse

After commenting on his abhorrent choice in television entertainment (or of what a complete achievement whore he's become), you feel strangely compelled to pick up that copy of whatever it is this guy is playing and play it again, just to get that bloody achievement. Now, you find more replayability with that game then you did previously, just because of virtual bragging rights.

+ Personal Satisfaction - Be honest...when you got those 1000 Achievement Points for that game (and not Avatar...I'm looking at you Ruff_3dgz) that feeling of "Ahh...finished!" was all the more sweeter. That's more or less akin to getting all of the stars in Super Mario 64 and all of the secret areas in Donkey Kong Country...you not only beat this game, you conquered it.

One of the main problems with games in the previous generations is that very few of them made you really feel you achieved anything. Either they made you feel like you're running through the motions or that the game was, generally, a cakewalk. With the advent of achievements, the game's relative difficulty or its conventions can be conveniently masked with a sort of chotchke reward.

Furthermore, with the overall score in XBL's Gamerscore, there's a sense of nerdery pride and satisfaction when you finally reach 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 points. I remember when I finally reached 20,000 after a year and a half of playing 360 games...the enormous amount of achieving I felt with my gaming time never felt so satisfying. It almost makes me feel like the crushing lack of social life I had was much worth it....almost.

---------------

Those are all great things about the Achievement system. Let's look at some of the stranger things:

? Achievement Whores - Everyone in their gaming circle has one. This is a person who deliberately finds exploits, cheats and horridly easy games to get the most achievement points in as little time as possible. You know, the guy who you found just three days ago playing Peter Jackson's King Kong and NBA 2K6.

These puzzling individuals seem to not care if they are having fun with the game, just as long as they dish out those tasty achievement points with that little sound that pops up when you recieve them, they are set. They are the ones who, while you're playing a round of Left 4 Dead, decline because they need to get the final points in Phantasy Star Universe...yeah, that guy.

? Suddenly, OK games are good again! - Admit it...you've played a game where you've sat there, shooting at Random Bad Guy 12 and said "Man, there are better games to play but...hey I got an achievement!" and you sunk down more hours than you really should have? People who played Gun, I'm looking sqaurely at you.

With achievement points, it seems that even sadly mediocre games can reatin some sense of quality with a well distributed achievement point system. It's hard to say whether this is a good thing or bad thing, but let's just say it's a strange thing and leave it at that, hm?

? Wouldn't Life Be Better If It Had Achievements? - Yeah, this is for the seriously hardcore achievement point whores. You ever do something that you just wish gave you some sort of achievement points? For example:

Got a Raise! - 20 G - Maintained above satisfactory job performance to recieve nominal raise in salary.

Bought a Lexus - 50 G - Bought the car of your dreams

It's a Double! - 30 G - Got to Second Base for the First Time

I mean, jeez, even Gamespot gives you a freaking achievement system for its own site! With a level cap and all!

---------------------

OK, so let's get to the negative side effects for achievement points

- You Want Me To Do What Now?! - Ever been told you had to jump off of a roof, land on a van with a mattress, jump off that mattress into a convertible while it is moving and jump out of it before it hits a wall? So why the hell should you do something that is so stupid, insane and impossible just for 10 G?

A good achievement system can make a game last longer than expected, but to purposely pad those achievements with impossible or insanely stupid requirements just to get those points? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do 50 Headshots in a Row while in a Ranked Match using a Pistol. Nor am I going to rush 600 with the Running Back of the Dolphins against the Pittsburgh Steelers while Away.

Yes, I'm aware that some would be happy to get these achievements...they are called insane. For the rest of us, this feels more like using art assets from a previous game to make a new one: like a complete rip-off.

- Achievement Systems Cater To Certain Types of Games - You ever wonder why Japanese RPG's aren't selling as well as they used to? Let's throw the quality of the game out of the equation for a second. Japanese RPG's, such as Lost Odyssey and Infinite Undiscovery, can last over 50 hours at a time. In a system that asks to give positive reinforcement to a type of game that asks you to invest incrementally, not emotionally, to your game, Japanese RPG's seem to be run right out of the loop of an achievement based era.

Then again, this could also be chalked up to the Japanese game makers being completely out of touch to Western Audiences. Nearly all Japanese influenced games, from RPG's to action games, seem to look at the achievement system as an afterthought. For example, one could play both discs of The Last Remnant and not get ONE achievement for doing so. On the flipside, Ninja Gaiden II doesn't space out its achievements well in the slightest, giving you a large span of time where you aren't earning anything for your time playing the game.

Sports titles are another example: Either the game way too easily gives you achievements or makes them near impossible to recieve. For an example of how not to do sports achievements, NBA LIve 09. In this game, you can go through an entire season and not get a single achievement. But, if you go through all of the tutorials and minigames, you can get a load of them. What if you don't need the tutorials to play the game? You miss out on at least 350 points of achievements.

There are also achievements that pretty much hint that there are deficiencies in the title itself. Remember the 600 yard run achievement with the Dolphins Running Back? Well, that's in Madden NFL 09. Why is it specifically running? Because running wasn't the primary focus this year in development; passing was. The game would rather you masochistically make the game harder for yourself to beef up your gamerscore. Because, why would you improve on a game when you can slap some achievements on the gaping wound like a band-aid?

- Dude, Why Are You Using A Sniper Rifle In Close Range Against A Chain Gun?! - If you played either Gears of War title you know exactly where I'm getting at. Ever play a multiplayer game that has some pretty cool achievements, but the person (or people) on your team are just farming or deliberately doing stupid things just to get those achievements? The newest phenomenon in the current generation of stupidity, other than trolling on XBOX Live and making absolutely abhorrent comments.

Nothing is more annoying that playing a game that is highly competitive and requires people to work as a team....only to have some person on your team go a completely different direction and not listen to your entire team because he's "Just 5 shots away from this achievement!"

Developers need to do one of two things when it comes to this: When making achievements for multiplayer focused games, do what Valve does and involve teamwork in the achievement, not personal goals. Or, do what Infinity Ward does and not put achievements at all in the game for multiplayer.

Other than that, multiplayer achievements provide an unstable and uneven playing ground for gamers when achievements are thrown into the mix.

------------

Of course, there are a few more good, bad and strange things that has to do with achievements. What do you guys think? What other trends have you seen?

Respond and I will put this on the Opinion Unlocked podcast in a future episode, with your name or screenname on the show.

And as always, be sure to tune into the Opinion Unlocked podcast. Follow Brad and Bryan on their gaming exploits and opinions as they discuss the topics that shape the gaming industry and the games that follow them. Go HERE to download the podcast. You can also look at my blog, as well as Ruff_edgz on the site for more on our personal Top Tens and more.

After every game I play through I tend to look at what the game did right and what the game did wrong and then compare those things to other games I've played before and the gaming market in general. I think there can be lines drawn between almost every game and it's pretty easy to see why some games succeed while others end up littering bargain bins a few months down the road. This rant comes after playing Legendary and realizing that all games are not created equal which left me wondering, "Why are their prices?"

I say this only because I was shopping at a Wal-Mart when I came across Legendary in a bargain bin at a $30 price point. I knew ahead of the time the reviews that this game got were mostly average to poor but I picked the game up anyways. Before I even sat down to play the game I realized that a lot of people said this game is mediocre or even old fashioned because it doesn't break any new ground and that started me thinking of how my opinion might be swayed a little bit seeing as I'm paying half as much as they did.

I really think some developers are incapable of making great games and certain publishers are unable to fund great games and Legendary is an example of this. There was no way this game was going to be a hit and I find it even more damaging to the game's sales for it to come out at the busiest time of the year and priced the same as games that have a ton of hype surrounding them. They knew they had an inferior product so my question is why not sell it at a cheaper price to compete?

I imagine this being as if Burger King tried to compete with Red Robin's burgers at a price point level. It would be sheer lunacy if a Whopper meal ran someone $11 when the food is bargain level quality. So I don't understand why some game publishers or developers try to do the same.

There would be clearly some benefits of pricing a game less than blockbuster titles and I think reviews would be one of the first things to reflect this. Of course eventually if this price point is successful, there would be a huge flood of bargain titles competing against one another and reviews would once again level out but I think the first few average titles to come out sporting a below average price would rake in the benefits of being reviewed on a different scale. At $30, Legendary could have been in a league of its own instead of being compared to games like Half Life 2, and other better quality shooters. But no, instead they shot themselves, or more appropriate for this game, axed themselves in the foot by putting themselves in a race they would never win.

I'm also thinking of impulse buys. When I was at Wal-Mart that day, there was no way that $60 was going to be an impulse buy, but for the price of two new DVD's I could instead have roughly eight hours of entertainment instead of the average four hours of entertainment from DVD's. I actually put back a couple of DVD's and picked up Legendary. Now $30 might be a steep impulse by for some and it's not like I'd make buys like this too often but a recent release at that price that I was somewhat interested in was too good to pass up.

In the end, I did my review, posted it up here on Gamespot and then looked at the other reviews of the game. The average was 5.1 for critics and a bit lower from gamers that were probably thoroughly pissed over paying $60 for this game. My score ended up being a little higher than the critic average but not too high.

In theory, the smaller price point worked for me. Would you react similarly in this situation?

Legendary: I can't say they didn't warn me when I looked at the scores for this game and read some blurbs about how average it is. It is very mediocre but at a discounted cost, it's a good enough time. My review of it is right Nyeah.

Seriously, when companies make ports on any particular platform, people say they've given up on their platform. That is not true on any level, or by any means.

Now here's what I mean. Nintendo announced last year Play on Wii, a program of theirs that ports Gamecube titles to Wii. A couple games I'll bring up for example is Metroid Prime 1 and 2. Nintendo plans to rerelease these Gamecube games by adding Wii Remote Gameplay. But some people think that a company has offically gave up on their platform for this. C'mon, there are probably games being ported that people never got a chance to play in their lives. Like example, people want a Pikmin for Wii. And I for one, want Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast ported to Wii. I played the game before, but I never owned it and want it on a console. It is still known as the best Jedi experience ever and still pwns Star Wars: The Force Unleashed to this day.

Overall, ports dosen't mean a company has given up on a certain platform. In my opinion, giving up on a platform is not making ANY game anymore or at all for that platform.