- remixrunixlp
- Level: 18 (83%)
- Rank: Flicky
- Member since: Oct 20, 2003
- Last online: 01/22/09 7:23 pm PT
-
My Emblems:
- Rank: Registered Member
- I voted
Welcome to the Peanut Gallery
Games, sports, politics and the fuzzy stuff between your toes...all in one sitting for your reading pleasure.
-
27Jul 07
As promised, here is my own personal viewpoint on why the new review system is not the amazing product Gamespot wanted it to be. I will approach my argument from two prospectives: first from the angle of a quick-reading gamer who doesn't want a full blown essay review, and secondly from a gamer who has been with Gamespot for several years (both of which apply to myself). I intend to primarily address those aspects of the previous review system which have been dropped for the new Emblem, 0.5 increment system. For those keeping track, these are all the components still available to users for use in user reviews (component scoring, difficulty rating, learning curve, etc.).
When unveiling this new system, Gamespot said their reasoning for such a makeover was caused by the fact that many games of today's era cannot be simply reviewed by a weighted averaging system ("You don't need us to tell you that graphics in Guitar Hero aren't all that important"). This argument is indeed valid for a handful of games, most of which possess a special controller of some sort (guitar, gun, DS and Wii games in general), or which are heavily reliant solely on addictive gameplay (WarioWare games immediately leaps to mind). However, there are a plethora of games reviewed under the old system that still received a proper score...why? Two reasons: the reviewer was usually less critical of the other components that didn't really matter, and the existence of the Tilt value.
You can just as easily make the argument that most if not all RPGs really didn't fit into the averaged score scheme, as there was no category for "Story". But that isn't true. Value and Tilt always took an RPGs story, and rythm games playability, a Wario game's quarkiness into consideration. It also added in the amount of fun the particular reviewer had playing the game while also controlling how greatly that reviewer's own opinion affected the score. Gamespot will deny this, but really look at the trends over the past few years of each reviewer. Jeff Gerstmann loves racing games, and was always prone to giving them a stronger nudge. Alex Navarro, the self-proclaimed bubble-gum gamer, wasn't always hyper critical of a game's flaws (such as those in the Smackdown series) because despite those flaws the games were just plain fun. The recently departed Greg Kavasin always boosted a game's rating with the Tilt value if the game tried to do someting inventive (Killer 7 comes immediately to mind). He also had a thing for RPGs.
Sure, tilt skewed the score, but knowing by how much it did was invaluable to a person looking for a good game. The same holds true to the scores for Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, and Value. Some gamers won't play a shooter unless it's uber-pretty. Some RPG fans won't play one that has a so-so soundtrack. Some action/adventure gamers won't by a game that doesn't last past 8 hours. Still others don't care about these things. Having individual scores for each judgable category allowed gamers to immediately see what they were looking for.
The further addition of the Good/Bad sections enhanced this, as gamers could see what exactly boosted/lowered any given statistic. Say voicework was amazing but the soundtrack was not so great, and the Sound score came out an 8. If I prefer voicework, I know I've found a winner. If I'm a soundtrack nut: "eh I think I'll pass because it looks like that 8 is ballooned by something that's nice but not all that essential." Or perhaps: "Hey, why is the value/tilt so low for an RPG game with such great gameplay? OIh the story blows! It's Grandia all over again. No thanks." Or lastly: "What good are great controls and sounds if I can't see the head of what I'm shooting?"
Under that scheme, every single game rec'd an excellent buffer treatment which readers could access within 10 seconds of viewing the review webpage, no matter what type of genre the game adhered to. Sure, the overall scored mattered, but not nearly as much as how that overall score was reached and what it implied. I was comfortable accepting that score because I saw where it came from, and more importantly knew that the reviewer's opinion was being held in check. And again, I could see all of this rather quickly. If I had any concerns/issues, I'd scroll down and read the review.
Queue the new review system. Suddenly there is one overall score, followed by a bunch of emblems which are cryptic in appearance and more often than not parrot the Good/Bad sections. The emblems themselves aren't necessarily all that bad. They've grown on me from what little experience I've had with them, and help to further address issues which can bother/impress a gamer (in-game adverts, artistic graphics, great story, etc.). The problem is that these emblems only work for games that receive a review score between 8-10 or 0-6. Those games will accumulate a TON of badges, as the evidence has shown. Unfortunately, games between 6-8 on the review scale don't actually receive badges. With the average being around 2 badges for these games, there isn't really any upfront information for them.
Yes, these games all fall into that range of "Mediocre-Good" games, but some gamers will still be willing to play those games if they adhere to their own needs of gaming. I myself usually would not look at a shooter that receives lower than a 9 in graphics (which, under the old system, could greatly affect the overall review score). RPGs on the other hand, the most important thing to me was that it was playable enough for me to enjoy the good story. Thus, RPGs that landed a 7.0 score were still on my radar if they had a decent story, not necessarily a badge-worthy story, but a decent one. FF1 is one such game. Gamespot gave it zero badges, and the only "useful" upfront info for the game is that it's showing its age and that it's a classic. ?!?!....
More importantly, the emblems have absolutely zero context to operate within. "So great, the voice acting is awesome but the music is repetitive. The game got an overall score of 8. How is the sound reflected in this? Wait, the graphics are artistic, the gameplay is so-so. How'd this game get an 8? I thought gameplay was a must for a Platformer game...they don't say anything about the story or game length...i'm confused."
To further my point on this, take a game like EVE Online. It probably would've received three badges: a badge for a huge world, a badge for excellence in graphics, and a badge for extremely slow paced. Now remember, there is no component score here, so EVE would've received either a 6.5 or a 7.0 for a score under the new system. That combined with 3 badges and probably the following under the Good/Bad segments: Good - Best looking Online RPG to date, that is so big; Bad - game's size fails to suck you in early w/ convoluted controls and slow pacing, lacks customization wanted in MMO. Great...how does this help me?
Furthermore, throw a game like City of Heroes in and compare the two reviews under the new scheme. CoH is a smallish world with amazing customization options for your avatar, but extremely repetitive battle system which gets boring after a month's worth of play. Yet, CoH gets an 8.0 or 8.5, and probably more badges, both good and bad. Which is better? EVE has an insane online community. CoH's is far more laid back. Both have repetitive battle schemes, but EVE can have battles with over 200 ships in a given area. One is Sci-Fi, the other superheroes in a more advanced world. You remove that one number from their review pages, and CoH and EVE look like identical games, and your own preferences would have to choose which to play. Unfortunately, all you have is a handful of badges to help you make that decision. There is no upfront assistance.
And that is the biggest problem I have with this new system. There is no upfront assistance that is useful. You can take away the overall score on any two games in the same genre who's score lands between 6.0-8.0 and they look like the same game. This is ambiguity, not quick and succint information. Also, I no longer know how certain things affected that overall score. Is the reviewer really being objective? I'm not accusing Gamespot of just throwing scores on games based on how much they like them, but all reviews are to a great extent subjective in nature. At least under the old system, I could see how subjective with the Tilt value. More importantly, I could see how the score was reached.
Other sites, like Gametrailers and IGN, do not average the score they place on games. But they do at least provide component scores. IGN does for similar categories as Gamespot used to, while Gametrailers picks the three categories which affected their rating the most and shows their individual scores. I find I trust their reviews more because of this, as I can see that it's not just a subjective take because they are being open with what it is that turn them onto a game, and what scared them away. Sure, the scores aren't averaged, but at least I can make my own decision on how imporant each score is. Neither of them are as good as Gamespot's old system, but hey that's just my opinion.
In short, I like many others am all for the emblems being used in combination with the component scores for Sound, Graphics, Gameplay, Value, and Tilt. I do want the averaged score back, but I can settle for the current approach of .5 increments and unaveraged overall scores if I had those individual scores to go with it. I don't think I'm the only one asking for this, as many less articulate and more offensive posts across Gamespot can attest to. Yes, we are the posting minority. But as Nappan and Shrek have pointed out, Gamespot typically has a 50/50 split in their posting users on opinions for their updates and changes. That has not been the case with these updates, especially if you remove all those posts that were pro the change before it even occured.
I'm done ranting and raving. I'll review games the way I like to, using the system I trust (and hope it doesn't leave as well). For those GS admins that read this, thanks for paying attention this long. You won't hear from me again about all this.
As always, the peanut gallery has spoken.
- Posted Jul 27, 2007 11:52 am PT
- Category: N/A
- 0 Comments
-
25Jul 07
Cartoons have come a long way from their early beginnings as entertaining 15 minute family-fun spots during moviecasts to the current trend of adult humour and addressing political themes. Narrowing down such a great history isn't just a job for any man, but for one who only watches one kind of TV - the cartoon. Yes, this is biased...get over it.
10. Batman - starting out as a solid spin-off of the first Batman film starring Michael Keaton, the Dark Knight has been in cartoon form ever since. Whether it was Batman, The New Adventures of Batman and Robin, The Batman/Superman adventures, Batman Beyond, The Batman, or Justice League Unlimited...good ole Bats has been around the block. Throw in 4 films (one of which went to theaters) and you have one heck of history.
9. Rocky and Bulwinkle - ahhh, 50's charm. I don't quite understand it, I don't know why, but these two characters are STILL some of the most well known cartoons around. Heck, they even got their own crappy live action cartoon that starred EVERYBODY: De Niro, Alexander, Russo, Goldberg, Goodman...the cameos were all over the place to show love for the Moose and Squirrel.
8. Cartman - "You have hippies." Cartman is a cultural phenomenon...easily the most hated and loved character in South Park. He rose to superstardom because of his willingness to say those things we didn't dare, and be sincere about them. Sure, he's all kinds of a$$hole, but we all love him because he's right far too often.
7. Pikachu - he brought the Japanese style of cartoons to the American mainstream. Sure, he was aided by a few best selling video games. But the charm of this little yellow rat thing, combined with the brilliant matching of game style to cartoon, paved the way for marketing anime to elementary and middle school children, and gave the genre its foot hold here in the states.
6. Snow White - One movie. One FREAKIN' movie. And everyone has seen it. If you were once under the age of 7, you've seen this movie. It's like parenting 101. You were probably forced to watch Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty right after this. But SHE hooked you in. She made you Disney's b*%@h. You can't deny it.
5. Mickey Mouse - sure, an entire franchise carries his head's outline as its primary logo (and no its not Hitchcock). Mickey will forever remain a legend with the carrying power of the House of Mouse and his perpetual presence in video games, clothing apparel, commercials...you name it. He really is the icon of the industry (much as Mario is of gaming). If you know cartoons, you know Mickey Mouse.
4. Bugs Bunny - Bugs edges out Mickey on the sole fact that Warner Bros were more willing to take risks than Disney. Hence Bugs' cartoons and co-stars are a wee bit more testy: many will crossdress, cultural references are spewed by Bugs as he flees the maniacal guy with a gun...you get the point. Also, Bugs' image has withstood the sands of time more durably than Mickey, as he continues to pop up in film (Space Jam, and that not-as-aweful-as-everyone-said one with Brendan Fraser), as well as his having a catchphrase that is still in wide use: "what's up, doc?"
3. Sponge Bob Square Pants - I hate this guy. I mean, I really hate this guy. I wish the show didn't exist. But really, this is sadly the future of cartoons for children...ADD acid trips. It started with the randomness of shows like Johnny Bravo and Dexter's Lab, which was cool. Then someone decided to throw Cow and Chicken out there as a more childish Ren and Stimpy. Gross. Then, mainstream culture got its hands on it, as the doomsday device that is Nikelodeon got a hold of it. Out popped this strange cartoon that is more popular than Football with kids and probably has just as much name recognition in America as Harry Potter. THe movie was terrible, that pirate is obnoxious, and there are wayyy to many strange undertones to the show...but its here...
2. Scooby Doo - The cartoon for all ages. This talking dog and his gang of meddlesome kids have solved mysteries since the 60s. He is the lone strong horse left from the Hanna-Barbara franchises, with new direct-to-tv movies popping up at least once a year and a guarantee attempt at a new spin off occuring once a decade. Scooby Doo, where are you? Here FOREVER!
1. Homer Simpson - You can't deny his powers. The D'oh of Homer is quite literally a human philosophy. As the near 20 year run of the family from Springfield nears its debut film (and probably its series end), you cannot deny the influence all of the Simpsons have had on culture. D'oh is on its way into the Enlgish dictionary for goodness sake.
- Posted Jul 25, 2007 9:59 pm PT
- Category: N/A
- 0 Comments
-
16Jul 07
People so extreme that if they all existed you would need a new pair of undies. With one or two notable exceptions, these characters do not possess any super power other then butt-whooping abilities (sorry to the boys in red and blue).
10. Alan Quartermain (The League of Extraordinary Gentleman) - any guy who winds up being portrayed by Sean Connery is a winner to me. Oh and he's an old dude who beats up on things with super/creepy powers. Huzzah.
9. Wedge Antilles (Star Wars) - Going from a bit player in the movies to an icon in the Expanded Universe, Antilles is probably the strangest Bad-arse on this list. He does most of his killing from behind the joystick of an X-Wing, but likes to rough it up with his fists every now and then. But hey, if you count the number of people killed as the primary criteria for Bad-arseness, the number of people who died on the 2 Death Stars this man helped blow up far outweighs anyone here.
8. Green Arrow (DC Comics) - I know what you thinking...how does a sissy communist with a gag weapon arsenal wind up here. The simple answer: the non-canon comics starring Mr. Queen have made him into a very grumpy man who likes hurting people to send political messages ala Stalin.
7. John Constantine (Hellblazer) - I almost didn't put this guy here, because the man does have a BIG EXTRA SOMETHING backing him up. But, this is a relatively normal guy who beats up on the supernatural and demonic...a Bad-arse in my book.
6. Daredevil (Marvel Comics) - He's blind. He jumps off buildings for fun and justice. Oh, he's blind.
5. Marv (Sin City) - I'm sorry, but any guy this f-ing ridiculous deserves to be here. I mean c'mon, the man is CRAZY and happy to be so, and it took more than one shot from the electric chair to put him down for good. Whoa.
4. King Leonidas (300) - "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" I rest my case. Yea, the comic was awesome. The movie took the awesomeness to insane levels. Leonidas barely edges Marv out because of the red cloak...and the man pouch.
3. V (V for Vendetta) - Driven absolutely insane to the point of believing solely in anarchy, and burned beyond recognition, this is one bad mutha. The movie tried to turn him into a hero...WRONG! Making V a hero is like telling Superman to break the law...it just doesn't work. V just LOVED chaos and revenge, and set an entire country into anarchy all by his lonesome. Rock on.
2. The Punisher (Marvel Comics) - He kills people for justice. His whole life is his weapons and his hits. He has no secret identity. He can hurt you in a lot of ways and will probably enjoy it too. He only loses to number one on this list because...
1. Batman (DC Comics) - ...Good ole Bats has to deal with a "real world" life where he gets to be a billionaire playboy, and manages to beat the living crap out of people but keep them living just so he can do it again. I mean, what's not to love about that?
- Posted Jul 16, 2007 11:18 pm PT
- Category: N/A
- 0 Comments
-
16Jul 07
10. John Carpenter's Starman (1984) - Jeff Bridges is an alien. Need I say more?
9. Payback (1999) - "Be Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." - couldn't have said it any better.
8. Showdown in Little Tokyo (1991) - Dolph Lundgren AKA B-Movie Ahhhnold at his finest.
7. Demolition Man (1993) - Stallone comes as close as possible to portraying Duke Nukem on the big screen...oh and Wesley Snipes actually looks like Nukem to boot.
6. Bubba Ho Tep (2002) - Bruce Campbell plays a senior citizen Elvis fighting an Egyptian mummy in a nursing home with the help of a black dude who thinks he's JFK.
5. Le Placard (2001) - Straight man becomes gay to keep his job at a male necissities factory. You do the math.
4. The Science of Sleep (2006) - Mildly insane artist tries to wooo girl while occasionally slipping into hallucinations inspired by his artwork.
3. Thank You for Smoking (2005) - Nick Naylor is a true American Hero.
2. 13th Warrior (1999) - MANHOOD to the EXTREME! Oh, and Banderas plays an Arab...deal with it.
1. The Machinist (2004) - How Christian Bale went from being literally 2D in this film to being able to fill out a batsuit is beyond me. Oh, and the movie is downright creepy.
- Posted Jul 16, 2007 10:52 pm PT
- Category: N/A
- 0 Comments
-
27Jun 07
I know that we, the humble viewers of your works and toils, are not actually paid to do this job nor are we in any way techincally superior to ya'll in your knowledge of game reporting/reviewing. However, you have a fanbase. This fanbase for better or worse is greatly rebelling against the primary issue inherent in all these little cosmetic facelifts (the thing I am not apparently allowed to flame against in this particular thread). This is simply not going to go away. We aren't the pro-wrestling fan base that is prone to massive turnover rates and sudden bouts with amnesia. We are gamers who seek intellegent feedback concerning possible purchases. We want to be informed consumers.
The two keywords here are "intelligent" and "informed". Badges are for elementary school or people who feel the need to have accomplished something (alaXbox Live). Since a game cannot attend school or feel pride, slapping badges on it seems pointless. Shrouding your reviews in a mosh posh of photographs isn't going to help us reach a decision, and the new review system is well broken to the umpteenth degree, for so many reasons that ya'll have opted to send your readers on a wild goose chase for a forum that will probably be given very little attention because ya'll are right and we are wrong. The "intelligent" and the "informed" no longer have a guage for your reviews, which I still believe are incredibly well written but lack the "umph" from having a stabilized, calculated value attached to these words, thereby giving us, your readers, the capability of receiving a succint and keen-eyed view of a given product.
Look no further than your new Final Fantasy Anniversary Edition review. You highly advertise a system of bigger and better, yet one of your key new additions. the badges, make absolutely no appearance in this review. I would assume this just adds to your statement that the game is mediocre, but in what sense. There are no badges, the reviewed number, a 6.5 i believe, no longer displays a basis for such a value, so your readers are left with the only option available to them: read the "Good" and "Bad" and the whole review. Oh wait, that's what we used to do, and back then we also had a quantified value before we did read on! With a game published by the Squeenix banner of doom, where hundreds of thousands of readers possibly hang their purchase in part on your words, you've failed to provide them with the service you are claiming to provide: a quick and upfront display of what the game's about. Since the game is apparently trapped in mediocrity, there is no "upfront" info. This update hasn't served its purpose. You've effectively taken a step backwards in this mission.
Lastly, this new update seems to assume that every gamer is the type that doesn't care to actually read anything available on your website. Quite frankly, a review is supposed to be in-depth...not a quick gloss. Your approach seems to say "ya'll don't really care what we have to say, so here's some in-game shots and some quick thoughts we had." Judging by the other comments heaped on you by other readers, your main base does not seem to be in agreement with this new logic, as most come to this site for a reason: to READ about video games. Yes read, even gamers like doing that. And intelligently written reviews/news/commentary to boot. Wow its almost as if gaming is a legitimate part of society now. And maybe I won't just go buy that Star Wars game because I liked the movies.
I have never bothered to post anything on the forums before because I've never cared too much. When Kavasin left, I got a little upset since he was the only person I trusted to review the games I liked. The more and more I sit around on this site, the more and more I realize that things have gone downhill since leadership changed, which seems to be solely a product of the recent lack of communication between readers and editors. Hopefully my taking some sort of action can make you realize just how awful these changes are. If not, there are other places out there to find my reviews from. However, none of them succeeded in being so critical, so upfront, and so sharp with their eye for the medium of gaming. Do not let this die.
- Posted Jun 27, 2007 9:37 pm PT
- Category: Opinion
- 3 Comments
-
27Jun 07
For those of you who had the priviledge of readingthe concise and sensible argument I posted on the New Enhancements forum, the Gamespot gestapo have deleted not only that rather lengthy essay, but also all the forum posts referencing my little manifesto. Sadly, I was too stupid to think they would actually delete this, and do not have a saved copy of the thing, nor do I intend to waste anymore of my time yelling at a brick wall of stupidity. I feel accomplished in that I've pissed them off enough to honor me with a deleting of my posts and a *gasp* warning to lower my level...HEAVENS TO MERCETROIDS....ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!
EDIT: Figured out how this "YOU'VE BEEN CENSORED" system works and found the original post. It is above.
- Posted Jun 27, 2007 9:02 pm PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
-
26Jun 07Runix's Rants will be in high gear the next coming weeks. Expect my own personal colorful sense of humor, hatred, and general lack of respect for most of the known world to drain into this newer version of my reviews/random blogs. The only review that will remain in its current form is my Final Fantasy VII review seeing as it is the only one I had a legitimate reason/argument to present.
- Posted Jun 26, 2007 10:21 pm PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
-
26Jun 07
So, I'm reading the new transformers game review, with all that fancy new upgrades Gamespot has made to their review system. As usual, the written part of the review is a typical, solid piece of writing that points out all the pros and cons about a game.
Then the bad set in: Upon reading about how much the reviewer approved of the voice acting and graphics, I automatically scrolled up to see "how good" these two things were, and immediately realized that I no longer have a guage value to compare against the written review and other games. I felt lost and empty inside...okay maybe not seeing as i have no care about that particular game. However, when a game comes out that I am looking forward to possibly purchasing, you will find my happy butt cruising reviews on OTHER websites in hopes that I can see exactly what it is about a game that makes its review score so high/low. YOU'RE CHASING AWAY A LOYAL FAN!!!
Oh and those badges...I'm glad someone feels the need to apply boyscout logic to video game reviews. I spent just as much time trying to figure out what each badge meant as I used to spend reading the good and the bad sections. There is no useful change present in any of this nonsense. This site has officially become more ridiculous and shady than some random fan site that says "Halo 2 is teh HAXXORs!!!" I mean honestly, if I wanted these kinds of review scores, I'd go to IGN...wait no even they haven't stooped this low yet.
WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS MEAN? WHY DO I CARE ANYMORE?! I'm a gamer who wants a crisp balance between graphics, sound, and gameplay. I'm far less critical of RPGs, and am hypercritical of FPSs. Under the old rating system, I could get a general idea as to whether or not I'd like a game. Now...I have no bleeding idea. I don't care what yall say, unless I see how the average score was achieved, I stand by my statement that ya'lls reviews are no more than the personal and biased opinion of the gamer who has written the particular review.
Prove me wrong...please.
- Posted Jun 26, 2007 8:16 pm PT
- Category: Rant
- 2 Comments
-
5Jun 07
Why, you ask? Well, I just like to torment myself like that sometimes. Truthfully, it was because a few of my friends seemed utterly shocked that I despised the game so much. And, if you haven't noticed yet, I've wasted quite a bit of my life playing through Square-Enix's flagship franchise, so for me to say I actually hate one of their games is...well strange. So yea, I was convinced that I should give this game a second chance,and proceeded to wasted another two day's worth of life to change my mind.
Now I simply loathed this game. I've never raced so fast to a finish of an FF before. Clocking in at an incredibly short 33 hours played upon defeating Ultemecia, the only worthwhile part of playing through this game was to see the after credits cut scene for the first time (silly me, in my disgust of the game the first time through I rushed to turn it off so I could get on with life).
So, rather than re-review this god-awful game, I have decided to give you the Top 10 Reasons why no Final Fantasy/RPG gamer should ever be compelled to play this game:
10. I've never felt so urged to hit something as when Rinoa flirts with Squall during battle scenes...and this isn't Pirates of the Caribbean pseudo-witty banter in-between cannon fire. This is, "Tee-hee I'm a Blonde" flirting while someone's being shot at or hanging from a scaffold 1,000 feet in the air.
9. "Waaa, waaaaa, waaaaaaa...Rinoa...waaaaaaa" - Squall. Love story or late puberty...you be the judge.
8. The only worthwhile character, Seifer, becomes lost in this crapfest of a story, and his conclusion couldn't be any lamer. Goin' Fishin' anyone?
7. Yes, the FF Series is well legendary for its ridiculously lucky characters and their plot devices (FF10's acquisition of the airship immediately leaps to mind), but this game takes the cake on its lunacy. Honestly, what were the writers thinking? "Let's have our characters be lost in space, only to find an airship floating aimlessly less than 100 yards away, one which hasn't been seen nor heard of in 12 years! That'll be a great way to introduce the Ragnarok and bring the lovebirds back to Earth!" Even worse: "Dude, let's make a time compressed world! Oh oh! Laguna will know exactly what they'll have to do in said world, and can fabricate this amazingly complex plan which will go off without a hitch!" This game makes the logic leaps found in the original Batman series look normal.
6. Dude, Rinoa becomes a sorceress and has awesome powers like...uhh...yea.
5. Draw System.
4. "Waaa, waaaaa, waaaaaaa...Rinoa...waaaaaaa" - Squall.
3. Random encounters that are more tedious than ever thanks to the ill-thought out enemy leveling system
2. Hurray high tension moments! Wait, I have to spend two hours realigning my junctions. Oh and there isn't really anything going on on-screen now is there? What's with this stupid mini-game smack dab in the middle of all this? Seriously, its as if the game goes out of its way to make "exciting moments" more tedious than anything else.
1. RPG's are about two things: Amazing stories and a fun battle system. FF8 fails in both regards. No character in this game beyond Squall has a background story that affects the overall plot. After disc 2 you can walk through every battle with the Aura spell and just watch Squall swing away. Don't bother upgrading weapons, just find a good junction spell. To heck with items, just turn them all into spells and go along your merry way. FF6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 all had sidequests which enhance the characters' backstories...FF8 has...well nothing.
Bleh.
- Posted Jun 5, 2007 10:39 am PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
-
5Jun 07
1. Boston Red Sox - they're winning with an underperforming offense
2. Cleveland Indians - Garko = Pronk Jr. indeed
3. New York Mets - injuries be damned: Minaya is godly
4. Detroit Tigers
5. LA Dodgers - Martin defies the sophmore slump; schmidt is back
6. San Deigo Padres
7. Atlanta Braves - poor pitching is catching up with them
8. LA Angels
9. Arizona Diamondbacks - nice run, but not as impressive as it is on paper
10. Minnesota Twins
11. Oakland Athletics
12. Chicago Whitesox - once offense opens up the AL isn't gonna like playing them
13. Philadelphia Phillies
14. Florida Marlins - yes, i did just rank them this high
15. Milwaulkee Brewers - Prepare to watch the plummet continue
16. Toronto Bluejays - injuries holding this team back
17. Colorado Rockies - better than record but can they get it together?
18. San Fransisco Giants - Morris, Cain and Lincecum = 3 reasons this team isn't the worst in baseball
19. Seattle Mariners - oh offense, my offense, wilt thou wake up?
20. Baltimore Orioles
21. St. Louis Cardinals - Good Morning Mr. Pujols, you seem to have overslept
22. Houston Astros - ugly losing streak covers up fact that offense is waking up
23. New York Yankees - oy.
24. Chicago Cubs - Okay, so Sweet Lou graduated from my high school and is kind of a hero for my school, thus i feel bad about saying this but seriously, when a manager's tantrums start rubbing off on the team, there's clearly an issue. Lou needs to learn how to be angry like Bobby Cox fast or he's gonna be out of Chicago faster than Bartman.
25. Tampa Bay Devil Rays - i think its time to go back to the three inning saves
26. Pittsburg Pirates - something tells me they'll crack the top 20 soon
27. Washington Nationals - they are slowly becoming that aggrevating thorn in everyone's side
28. Cincinnati Reds
29. Kansas City Royals - hurray! We're no longer the worst!
30. Texas Rangers - double oy.
- Posted Jun 5, 2007 9:43 am PT
- Category: Sports
- 0 Comments
-
25Apr 07
Title says it all. Ill be doing this kinda routinely as the season progresses. Some teams will have notes next to their names explaining why they're ranked where they are. Others...take a wild guess.
- Boston Red Sox (bullpen is better than anyone expected)
- Atlanta Braves (bobby cox = godly)
- LA Dodgers (the Kings of small ball w/ a scary starting staff)
- New York Mets (SPs have been surprising thus far, bullpen is lights out)
- Cleveland Indians (bats are starting to wake up)
- Detroit Tigers (need Sheff's bat to wake up soon)
- San Diego Padres (best pitching staff in baseball, just needs to plate more runs)
- Chicago White Sox
- Minnesota Twins (loss of Radke hasn't hurt them yet)
- Oakland Athletics (can they survive without Harden?)
- Toronto Blue Jays
- Milwaukee Brew-Crew (they're young and they're scary)
- LA Angels (trying to still win while getting younger a hard task)
- Arizona Diamondbacks (Big Unit's back...)
- Cinncinati Reds (bullpen is only real weakness)
- New York Yankees (hahahahaha...aside from A-Rod, what hasn't gone wrong?)
- Houston Astros (Lee and Berkman can't carry this team)
- Philadelphia Phillies (what in the heck are they thinking w/ Myers?)
- Florida Marlins (no pitching = rough summer)
- Tampa Bay Devil Rays (they're surprising a lot of people w/ nothing between the SPs and Reyes)
- Baltimore Orioles
- San Fransisco Giants (waiting for Morris to fall off)
- St. Louis Cardinals (need to learn how to protect Pujols if they want to win)
- Pittsburg Pirates (surprise pitching can't overcome a dead offense)
- Texas Rangers (where art thou offense?)
- Chicago Cubs (Soriano's return means nothing to a team without a bullpen)
- Seattle Mariners (KING FELIX...oops)
- Colorado Rockies (bats need to wake up if they want to compete)
- Kansas City Royals (improved...but not enough to pull them out of the cellar)
- DC Nationals (they can't get any worse)
- Posted Apr 25, 2007 2:26 pm PT
- Category: Sports
- 0 Comments
-
1Apr 07
Finally, the sport that matters is back on the air! With the NBA being all kinds of ugly, football taking a break, and hockey trying desperately to repair all the damage cause by its players' strike, BASEBALL - w/ Barry Bonds' big head and all - returns to save me from sporting purgatory. Seeing how Zen-like my Superbowl rant was, I figured I might as well try and predict how baseball this year will pan out.
1. ROIDS BABY! - Barry Bonds once again claims the spotlight this season as he edges closer the the ultimate power-glory. And he's going to get it. The guy's still got the ability to hit .280 blind-folded, and there's always HGH if he's really in a grind. As long as my conspiracy theories don't come true (something tells me the government arrests him when he's one HR shy of Aaron), the man with the ever growing beachball head will be our new reigning HR king...doesn't matter though, as A-Rod and Pujols will take it back in a few years anyway.
2. Bud Selig finally gets fired. For the love of all things holy, that man sucks.
Alright, now for the real predictions:
AL East Champs: Boston Red Sox
AL Central Champs: Cleveland Indians
AL West Champs: The not from LA Angels of Anaheim
AL Wild Card: Yankees
AL Cy Young: Jeremy Bonderman
AL Rookie of the Year: Delmon Young
AL MVP: Bobby Abreu
NL East Champs: New York Mets
NL Central Champs: Houston Astros
NL West Champs: San Deigo Padres
NL Wild Card: Philadelphia Phillies
NL Cy Young: Jake Peavy
NL Rookie of the Year: Homer Bailey
NL MVP: Jose Reyes
PLAYOFFS
Indians over Yankees
Red Sox over Angels
Mets over Padres
Phillies over Astros
ALCS: Indians over Red Sox
NLCS: Mets over Phillies
WORLD SERIES: Mets over Indians in 6
- Posted Apr 1, 2007 1:15 pm PT
- Category: Sports
- 0 Comments
-
21Feb 07I spoke ill of Final Fantasy 7, and have incurred the wrath of some of the Gamespot video game aficionados. Perhaps if they cared to read beyond the tag-line of the review, they'd see my point a little more clearly.
FF7 is still by far one of my favorite games. I may have explored every nook and cranny of the world, and gone through the story five or six times, but I still play the game about once every two years. The whole point I was trying to make with the review is that the story is soooo good that no one really cares about how ugly Cloud looks on the world map in comparison to the amazing battle graphics or quaintly drawn 2-D backdrops, nor do they care how simplistic the Materia system really is. These things aren't overwhelmingly offensive, and as such we don't notice their relatively basic flaws because we love the story that darn much.
But alas, it seems I have blasphemed against the most holy of holy Squaresoft products, even though I too am a rabid fan of the game. Whoops.- Posted Feb 21, 2007 12:50 pm PT
- Category: Opinion
- 0 Comments
-
4Feb 07So it's that super-special time of year where everyone hopes for the next coming of Terry Tate or the Budweiser Frogs. And once again, it's the two teams that no one really cares about. The Colts rode the arm of their QB and the genius of their coaches to get them to where they are, and the Bears have had their defense provide all their offensive punch.
Honestly, neither one of these teams are the "well-rounded" juggernauts of past Superbowls. Heck, the 2001 Ravens had a better offense than these Bears, and that was with everyone's favorite wash-out QB Trent Dilfer. Meanwhile the Colts defense has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer.
What does all this mean for the average football fan whos team is long since removed from the playoffs and is once again forced to watch a mediocre Superbowl? Pray that the commercials are entertaining enough to warrant the party you've thrown. Pray that Rex Grossman remembers he's a QB and not a recent arm amputee. Pray that the Colts don't destroy the overrated Bears secondary too fast. Lastly, pray that Manning survives the game, as he will be the key to making the game interesting. At least with him in, you know you'll be given a show as one of football's best offenses takes on one of the best defenses. If this happens, bathroom breaks will be perfectly positioned for the two minutes of gametime that the Bears actually have the ball, and you won't have to miss any of those commercials!
Prediction:
Colts 31, Bears 24- Posted Feb 4, 2007 9:23 am PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
-
28Jan 07Why do we do it? Is there any point? We know we won't play them...but we do it anyway.
I speaking of course about the buying of endless amounts of games which we never actually intend to play but are scourned for having never experienced. For those of you who are as cheap as myself, this tendency rears its ugly head when I do my "bargain bin dive". Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, and 3...for $30!? Sweet...I mean I've never really wanted to play them...but for $30 can I go wrong?
Emphatically YES! Xenosaga, Devil May Cry, Command and Conquer, Splinter Cell, MGS, etc...all great game series that I've never really gotten into...and I own every game in the series. CURSED BE THE MAN WHO ALLOWED USED GAMES TO BE SOLD! That is all.- Posted Jan 28, 2007 9:27 pm PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
-
4Jan 07Why in the blue heck are all used RPGs still ridiculously overpriced? Dragon Quest VIII...$19, Xenosaga Ep. 3...$25, and don't even get me started on the cost of the Shadow Hearts and Wild Arms games. I understand these prices are considerably cheaper than the $50-60 that you can be expected to pay, but several other games of similar age are being sold for often times under $10. And before anyone begins to tell me that those prices are lower for games that are older and aren't rare, I found games like Psi-Ops, Psychonauts, Freedom Fighters, Zone of the Enders etc. for less than $7 a pop. These games' sales numbers are comparable to if not less than many of the RPGs that are sold for higher prices on the used game market. Yes, demand is higher for RPGs in the states, but that much higher? Us economically poor gamers are SOL if they wanna play RPGs.
- Posted Jan 4, 2007 11:17 am PT
- Category: Rant
- 0 Comments
- 1
