Cheating in Video Games: No Shame for the Already Shameful

As a child raised by video games, when you were wandering around in a convenience store, bored at a book store, or abandoned at a newspaper stand in an airport, what were your hyperactive little eyes scanning the most when you passed by the magazine section? Mad Magazine? Nope. Sports Illustrated? Yeah right, nerd. Cat Fancy? I hope not. Marie Claire? Maybe.

Don't lie to yourself. We know the truth.

No, you were definitely scoping out the latest video game magazines. As you leafed through publications like Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) or GamePro, you probably came across stuff like Tips and Tricks, Expert Gamer, and of course the coveted individual strategy guides for video games. As kids, we obsessed over gameplay strategies, codes, and secrets to get by particular sections we were stuck on. Or we used codes as a means to do funny sh*t (Goldeneye comes to mind, with its graphics-altering funny tweaks). But were they enhancements in gameplay, or were they crutches that made you a bad gamer as you grew up?

Walkthroughs are undeniably helpful, and the best reason, of course, is for when you're stuck in one area in a game and you need to find your way past it. Websites like GameFAQs provide almost instant solutions to your problems (thanks, internet); clicking an FAQ for Diddy Kong Racing, pressing Ctrl+F on your keyboard, and typing “WIZPIG” will take you to a section which will either vaguely draw out a strategy to beat him, tell you to exploit a weakness in the game's programming, tell you to “keep trying, it takes practice,” or begin speaking about the etymology of Wizpig and why it's such a “rad name.”

This is an excerpt (click for sharper text) from a submitted Game FAQ explaining the unintelligible plaques (seen above) in Super Mario 64. For some reason, they rejected the FAQ. What nerve!

But a lot of people actually rely on strategy guides and walkthroughs to finish the entire game. They'll spend $40 dollars on a collectors edition strategy guide, and pivot their heads back and forth between their television/PC monitor and this huge, dense monstrosity on their lap (the guidebook, you sicko). Or they'll print out XxSquallLeonheart69xX's 95-page walkthrough from GameFAQs and read it like a screenplay. If your gameplay style is like that, then power to you: I'm sure you have a whole row of blue and black colored works on your bookshelf from your favorite author, Sparknotes.

Game-breaking glitches and codes have their variations of dopeness (like the beloved Konami Code in multiple Konami titles, glitches in Marvel vs Capcom 2 which cause a game freeze and a pissed off opponent, and of course Minus World in the original Super Mario Bros). It's fairly funny how games in the Grand Theft Auto series are only enjoyable via inputting codes to unlock every item, car, and basically make you an indestructible demon-god, hell bent on running people over with tanks so they turn into little green wads of cash.

Cool glitch.

But sometimes they work against the game – especially in multiplayer. The game Phantasy Star Online had a great rare-item system with loads of unique weapons and armor that had people play the game for countless hours to search (and trade) for. Of course, Gameshark and Codebreaker (two devices that let you enable “duping,” or duplicating items) had to be dicks and totally take a crap on the “rarity” of these items. See kids, sometimes cheating is bad, especially when I find a cool rare item and everyone in my party already has one. You dropped the ball on making me a unique snowflake, there, Sega.

But of course, there are the noble gamers. The ones who are purists that never use a guide, or never break their games, because their constructs of entertainment software shouldn't be seen like that. Hats off to you, man of great video game respect. One day you'll put on your gamer resume that you spent 5 hours in the water temple in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess without once looking up a guide or solution. You probably obeyed all traffic rules in Grand Theft Auto IV. You even died a total of 70 times in each Mega Man game in order to figure out the 8 bosses' weakness and order on all on your own.

Fortunately for the rest of us with no integrity (and lets face it, if you play video games, you have none), impatience leads to cheating in video games, and good ol' XxSquallLeonheart69xX will always be there to tell us what to do.

Obscure Title Tuesday: Vegas Dream!

Obscure Title Tuesday presents- Vegas Dream for the NES! Or as I like to call it- I just hab an emergency appendectomy to cure my appendicitis and I’n still high on pain meds.

Ok, so listen you guys…….this is a gambling one. It’s a one where you gamble. I’m not good at gambling, but if I was then I would gamble mor. In this game, you gamble mor.

There are 4 games to choose from- blackjack, slotmachine, and others. You start out with money, and try to win more money. If you loose all money, then you loose, like in real life.

You can loose all your money quickly if you do the slotmachine, but you can win consistently if you do Keno, b[ackjack, or the other one. Wait no, cause the other one is roulette, and that one is like meh. So do the other 2.

Listen, this game is allright. 4 players can play. Videogames are kind of like Appendicitis, in that when you loose, it hurts, like after loosing your appendix. Which would probably make more sense if you had just had 

your appendix out.

Cause it makes perfect sense to me.

There is also many dis-similarities between appendicitis and video games, unless the video games is one of those medical ones where you have to do surgeries on someone who has appendicitis, or something similar. Then it’s remarkably similar in many ways.

village people

This game is allright. 4 players can play. There are 4 ganes to choose form. One of them is blackjack. Do it.

I would rate game this like 80%. But then again, I woud laso rate appendimitus like, 0%. So you have to take it as it comes.

hot chick

black guy

Listen, games can be fun. But don’t do it for real just cause you’re good at the game. That’s how you loose money, unless you win. So you have to take it as it comes.

village people

what?

yaah

85% is what I would rate this game.

Change We Can Believe In

Change can be a scary thing, no? The argument on maintaining the status quo or changing things up in hopes of creating a better experience for those affected has been taking up much of the airwaves recently (for those of you who might still watch that thing called the news). Whether the debate centers on government, car insurance, the rug in your living room, the sour milk in the fridge, the watered down hand soap in the bathroom, or those pants you’ve been wearing for awhile, there tends to be two highly opinionated sides on the issue.

This issue is can also be applied to the entertainment, with all the remakes, director’s cuts, and remastering going on in both movies and video games. Should the company/developer/some-random-guy have the rights to touch a work that in most circles is considered a work of art already? This topic is still quite relevant to lovers of film with the advancements of digital transfer of classic movies that are originally shot on grainy film. I mean just look at this shot from Predator! PREDATOR TRANSFER Arnold’s wax figure stand-in

On left: Arnold; On right: Arnold's wax figure stand-in

So history should repeat itself with game remakes/updates, yeah? WRONG! Or at least not really. As discussed on the previous post “Poopy Polygons,” an updated graphics engine for gaming classics is usually welcomed with open arms—and legs, if you’re into that. So why do video games prove to be the exception to the rule?

Well, there has been quite an advancement in graphics since the origination of playing in a 3D environment. Developers used the highest end technology of the time to be on the cutting edge of the gaming industry so that gamers could explore a world in glorious three dimensions instead of the 2D side scrollers that many were used to. This argument that older products should be upgraded with the latest and greatest that technology has to offer does not apply to other fields because of the nature/purpose of video games is (as I have said quite a few times now) to create as much of an immersive, interactive experience as possible. With film, the goal is to create a world interesting enough for passive viewing that the narrative easily fits into the events that play out before the audience, and hopefully it will custom fit the attention spans of most film goers. It's difficult to get absorbed in a game when it looks like the fuzzy porn channel that was all the rage in middle school.

Typically when you touch something that is valued by legions of fans and is considered culturally (and maybe even artistically) important, history shows public outcry that an original work of art is being decimated by companies trying to draw what they believe to be sure profit. For example, take Ted Turner who has committed what many film buffs consider to be a cardinal sin. He took black and white films and made them into the way they were “meant” to be seen: in bright, saturated, filthy looking color!

Guess the movie

Sure, colorization might not be as harmful for all movies, but it was essential for a good majority of them, like the brooding tone and high-contrast, noir look of Casablanca. Just because it wasn’t filmed in color in the first place, doesn’t mean it was meant to be done that way. On the video game end of things, I just cannot imagine any game developer in today’s world intentionally creating a game with the 3D graphics from the late 90s and early 2000s. It’s like installing dirty, cracked windshield in a car. It’s stupid! God knows how many times I died playing those Playstation or N64 games because I could not tell what the ^&*# was going on (Metal Gear Solid definitely comes to mind). An update in a graphics engine is always welcomed for this particular reason. So one way you can look at an original classic like MGS or Resident Evil is not to think of them as an original work that should go untouched, but rather a rough draft, filled with not so great graphics, and sometimes not so great controls too. Colorization for film is more like changing the 3D graphics of Resident Evil into a cell-shaded environment, or changing the physics engine. Now that $#!t wouldn’t fly. You might as well just change the gameplay at that point. And while you’re at it, just make it a sequel.

I’m all down for advancements in more realistic, or at least a more uncluttered and sharp, gaming environment. The God of War I and II update for PS3 won me over; I also look forward to playing update of Goldeneye (one of my favorites) for the Wii.

Ten years from now you might even see this argument being made to update games from today, and that’s okay in my book.

Poopy Polygons - The Ugly Switch from 2D to 3D Graphics

Remember 1995? That was the year the Playstation (PSX) came out. Remember 1996? That's the year the Nintendo 64 (N64) came out. Final Fantasy VII and the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time were two of the biggest games of that generation, and heralded by many gaming communities as some of the greatest games of all time. But what those fanboys and fangirls love to deceptively hide about that those game is that both of those games look butt ugly in the future (of the past) (which is present as of right now) (the games look like ass today).

"Graphics don't get any better than this!!" - you, age 10

“But dude, those games had AMAZING graphics for its time, bro! You can't deny that! Don't be a controversial naysayer!” you're probably saying as you flip between this blog and a webpage tab containing FFVII Cloud's buster sword 1:1 replica listings on eBay. Yes, for it's time; unfortunately, games of the PSX and N64 era's (as well as many PC titles, lets not forget games like Quake or Fallout) have, for the most part, aged much more terribly than the 2D-dominant era before it. There are several factors associated with the “butt ugly era” of video games (yeah, I'm gonna name it that).

First is the technology of its time: polygonal 3D graphics were in its early stages, with few complex renders and designs being implemented. The limitation brought upon video game characters and environments looking like blocky shapes slabbed together with no real overall smoothness to their graphics models and assets: pretty much everyone looked like wooden toys. You can argue that the developers and graphic designers did pave the way for great graphical feats seen in the current video game generation, but the butt ugly era is not immune from being sh*tty looking just because it was a transitional stage.

Next is the aesthetic difference between 2D and 3D. While 3D was in its early stages, 2D was thriving quite well. Games such as Street Fighter III, Super Mario RPG, and the Japanese-only sequel to Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 3) had amazingly detailed sprites (two-dimensional images) and animations. A game such as Kirby 3, released at the end of the SNES life cycle, had a particularly unique, stencil-like animation that worked wonderfully.

It looks like a six-year-old drew the game. A VERY TALENTED six-year-old.

Unfortunately, these 2D wonders also happened to be the “peak” of 2D graphical interest: once the PSX and N64 console juggernauts came into play, everyone was raving over 3D graphics, and developers knew what they had to focus on. Nobody can blame them though, since 3D rendering was essentially easier to deal with and developers no longer had to lock their artists in shoddy basements, forcing them by gunpoint to individually draw Kirby's suck-and-blow frames so they can see their families again.

Of course, that means that once 2D peaked, 3D was in its infant stages. People didn't notice how primitive the 3D technology was at this moment in time because, hey, it's 3D polygons and the newest leap in graphics. One of the major reasons why polygonal graphics of that era aged terribly is because of awesome sh*t like this; polygonal graphics and rendering have come a long away, haven't they? It's nowhere near perfection, but it's definitely easier on the eyes than Bubsy 3D.

When it comes down to it, it's much easier for me to play a game from the past that I haven't yet played that didn't fall within the ugly radius of the PSX/N64 era. A friend of mind recommended The Secret of Monkey Island for me to play (because I'm a super idiot for never playing the series before), and when I began playing it, I was impressed with the animations and presentation: though it was from 1990 and in 2D, it was a great looking game with plenty of details in the environments and scenes.

Witty dialogue AND it looks good? Monkey Island owns.

However, another friend recommended for me to play the first Resident Evil (since I've only played the second one onwards), and, well, the graphics were way too dated for me to move on. It wasn't even the gameplay that was turning me off; it was simply because of how terrible Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine and everything else looked in that game. That's probably why there was a remake with an updated graphics engine on the Gamecube; so that people from this generation could stand to play the original if they haven't yet.

Gamers thrive to justify their nostalgia. We love to say that Ocarina of Time, FFVII, and Super Smash Bros 64 are timeless gems that won't look disgusting to most people today. Ironically, some of these same people say they won't even play the original Super Mario Bros, backlog on other Final Fantasy games, or sift through the Mega Man games just because “it's 8-bit” or “it's 2D, so it's outdated.” Regardless, the PSX/N64 era remains butt ugly, doesn't age well at all, and its grotesque visuals transcend even the most powerful barricade of nostalgia.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, if an SNES game and a PSX game got into a fight at a bar over who's prettier, I would kindly ask the PSX game to leave and proceed to console the SNES game*.

*I hope you enjoyed the pun.

Obscure Title Tuesday: Anticipation!

Obscure Title Tuesday presents- Anticipation for the NES! Or, as I like to call it: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This may be as obscure as it gets! This little ditty, unsurprisingly for the NES, is probably so obscure because it’s just a game of Pictionary. That’s it. There’s a board you go around, and each color space on the board is a different category, like letters, clothing, food, etc. Wooo!

The entire game play is: you see dots on the screen, and then, as time runs out, the game starts connecting the dots with a pen, drawing in lines here and there. When you think you know the answer, buzz in and, one painstaking letter at a time, spell out what you think is being drawn as the picture. (Gah you need to know how to spell. I can’t tell you how many times I yelled at the screen: It’s a Friggan Xylaphone! The thing marching bands have!! Xylafone!!! Xylaphoooone!!!! *timer runs out* *sadly, to self* zylaphone.) Also sometimes the answer is so long it’s hard to spell out the answer before time runs out, given the awkward slippery letter choosing system.

......Those Dippin' Dots Ice Cream?

Once you get all 4 colors, you move up to the next level. There are 3 levels total. Get past the third level and you WIN!!!! There’s a few different difficulty settings for the computer players. *Yawn*

I’m not gonna lie, I’m mailing in this review by doing Anticipation. I always knew I was gonna do it because it’s so obscure, but, there’s absolutely nothing to say about it. No jokes to be made. They made an entire NES game about connect the dots. It’s Meh. The game is Meh.

"Hat."

Ooooh, actually, HERE’S how you know a game’s crappy: The box art has no cartoon character, or recognizable character, or anything extraordinary, or even gripping. The box art for this game is literally real, no-name actors being normal people playing what I can only assume, but I have no guarantee is, this video game.

The 80's

The only other example of a game that is so bad it has a no-name actor doing something normal is that game Razor Scooter 64 for the Nintendo 64. You guys remember thaat? The box art was like, a 12 year old on a razor scooter. That was it! I want my box art to have either a cartoon, or a sword, or a gun, or a Plumber, or a woman in a space suit, or an Italian -- NOT an actor you hired to take a picture of themselves doing something that they can do in their everyday clothes. Even worse, the family in this box art is playing the game itself WHICH YOU CANNOT SEE!!!!

They don't even show the television!

Gah, that’s bad. Can you imagine? Its so bad, they won’t even let you see the television on which they are playing the game; it is so bad, you are to know nothing about the gameplay or nature of this game until after you’ve bought it. It’s a family, looking engaged, gathered round what I’m guessing is a television playing what is impliedly this game. And that could be the box art for ANYTHING. In not showing the product itself, just a happy family doing something you assume is this game, that could be the marketing for any product ever. Certainly any video game or movie or television series… just have someone on the movie box art looking at a television screen happily. But also, for any other product, you could market it this way.  Because the box art doesn’t... you wouldn’t know... it’s not... you could have a microwave, and the art on the box is a smiling family LOOKING like they just ate something.

So wait......which one farted?

I’m not done. The box art has EIGHT FRIGGIN’ PEOPLE ON IT! How many controllers fit in a regular Nintendo Entertainment System? It’s less then 3. The game itself had a max of 4 people! I would be misled, seeing this box art, because I would know nothing about the game itself and therefore would infer the only logical conclusion: 8 people can play this game at the same time. Which is not unreasonable because the tagline is ‘Nintendo’s first video board game’ and many board games, like Monopoly, can have up to 8 players. LIARS!

Liar!

LIAR!

It’s a meh game and that’s all there is to it. The music is meant to be quick, short and catchy, games go by quickly, and the only thing good that I can think of to say about it is that it would be an acceptable way to pass 20 minutes if there was nothing on television because of another writers-strike and the internet hadn't been invented yet. Otherwise, no need. To quote Norm MacDonald: “I Bet ‘Board’ is spelled ‘B-o-r-e-d." Thanks, Norm. If you were a Video Game, you would get a 5.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqeqsBQ0wq0&feature=related

2.5/5 It’s Not That it Sucks, it’s That This Person Wants to Give You a High Five:

This One's For The Ladies

That title is such a lie. This post is nothing but pure, gamer man to man action. ...Never mind that last sentence. The point is, would gamer guys be happier if their girlfriends or wives played video games? It has come to my attention, through the last article and a handful of people mentioning their significant others as a reason to not spend time gaming, that maybe there are some guys out there who would be much happier if their ladies were also gamers -- or even refuse be in a relationship with a non-gamer. It also has come to my attention that I begin many posts with questions that may never get answered, but I hope one day there will be people to answer them in the comments section. God I'm desperate... On To The Ladies!

I'm sure she really does play games in real life, too.

For my own case, I don't care if my girlfriend plays games or not, I just want her to understand that I love playing them. My last girlfriend didn't know how to pronounce Nintendo, let alone play something as complicated as Super Smash Brothers. My current girlfriend has collected all 150 Pokemon (There are no others and never will be). Twice. She's gotten all the Gold Cups on MarioKart Wii, owns Wii Fit and her own Rock Band guitar. Am I happier? By far, but that's not because she's got some gamer in her, it's because I'm in a better relationship. Plus, despite all this, she would never go so far as to call herself a gamer and gets a little annoyed with me when I spend extended periods of time gaming. That's fine; it makes sense to me. She understands how much of a gamer I am and supports me. She even tries to read Super Dope Gaming posts... sometimes. But enough about me and my perfect life. I wonder if life would be better for gamers if they had gamer girls.

They all look like this and apparently come with three of their own controllers.

One has to understand one thing before really getting into this discussion: women are crazy. I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, but let's take a moment to think about it. Women have a lot of stuff to care about. They can't just roll out of bed and be ready to face the day like most guys. We men throw some jeans on, brush our teeth (sometimes), and find our only pair of non-work shoes before getting out there. There are so, so many more things for women to do. It's admirable, really. I know if I was a woman, I would crumble to pieces. I would never even go out when it's dark -- whatever sh*t I have to do can wait 'til morning. But that's all beside the point. How many more things can they take on without some aspects of their lives merging with one another? Let's say you have a hardcore gamer girlfriend and you love it. You guys even play the same games together or watch each other complete some story modes. But what happens when you headshot her in Halo: Reach? What if you camp her ass? How's that night gonna go for you? Not well, my friend, not well. Plan for your side of the bed to be the coldest thing you've ever felt.

"I have THREE kids! I... Am... INVINCIBLE!"

The most likely situation is you find a girl who'll play games, but only games like Rock Band or Wii Fit, and you'll just hate it whenever she picks up a controller. There are just some games that never, ever, need to be played. For every sexy, Wii Fit girl, there are hundreds more who love the most casual of games or have no idea how to even hold a controller. Is that what you want to deal with? Is it? Really? No. Stop it. Just... Just stop.

There are benefits to dating a gamer, let's be honest. But whether or not they outweigh the cons is up to you. For instance, if you are both excited for an upcoming game, maybe it'll be split between you two. Really the cost of any game-related items should go down overall. Imagine the kinds of gifts you'll be getting each other. Imagine sitting on the couch together watching the other beat the final boss. Imagine discussing the latest gaming trends and how terrible they are. Imagine playing co-op with your lady love and saving the universe together. I can see countless gaming experiences made better with having your girl next to you. Something like this scenario, if you will: "Yes! I finally got that last achievement!" "Wow, I'm so impressed, boyfriend! We should celebrate with some sex!" OK, OK, that will never happen. I can't even read it without a tone of sarcasm in that girl's voice, and I just made her up.

Of course, all this really only applies to those interested in the ladies to begin with. If you're a member of the fairer sex looking for a guy who meets all your gaming criteria, well, then you're obviously imaginary. But, if you're a gamer guy looking for another gamer guy, then fantastic, your search is easy. Congratulations on finding your soul mate, now wish the rest of us some luck.

Gaming Attention Deficit Disorder (GADD): Being Distracted from your Distractions

Some co-workers and I about a year ago spent a couple of days to remember and write down how many games we've beaten to completion. One guy had about 30 games completed, another had around 80ish. My best buddy had about 150 games, which impressed everyone else in our dork circle. However, when it came down to my list, I hesitated, then brought out a 5-page document and laid it upon their curious eyes. The total count was 453. Immediate response from everyone? “....wow.”

Professionally (i.e. MS Paint) crafted graph depicting the inverse relationship between video game scoring and real life scoring. Apparently I was a stud when I was 3 years old.

I was both praised and made fun of soon afterward for such a “feat.” As I looked at the list again, I sat there and wondered, “What kind of time did I have growing up to have beaten 453 games in my lifetime? That doesn't even count the games I didn't beat.” As I sat there with shame and regret hanging high on my shoulders, I noticed a trend: there wasn't as many games listed within the recent years (2006-2009); the completed games were mostly accomplished between 1994 and 2004. As of one year from making that list, I've maybe completed 4 or 5 games at best, and I consider myself a seasoned gamer.

What's with the slacking? Why aren't I pounding through game after game per week, shotgunning a Mountain Dew and wiping Cheeto dust on my Zelda-themed triforce shirt every time I see the end credits roll? I've developed something many of my friends and other people have but seldom admit: Gaming Attention Deficit Disorder (GADD).

Some symptoms of GADD include the following: buying new games but only playing them for an hour and then shelving them, carrying on with those you've neglected but stopping because you forgot how to play and/or what the story entailed, dying three times in a game leads to you trading in the game in to Gamestop with the “it's not my thing” excuse, choosing work or social activities over quality gaming time, ignoring your MMO of choice in order to “raid” your girlfriend, becoming a contributing member to society, and so on.

One major cause of GADD is the saturation of the gaming market as a whole. The gaming industry tends to put its biggest releases during the September to December window for the holiday season (though that trend is getting less and less prominent, with publishers now spreading their supposed “triple A” titles throughout the year). Some gamers are reserved and purchase two, maybe three games during this season and are content. However, there are many (and, as a former Gamestop employee, I can attest to this) who will buy upwards of fifteen to twenty games within this timeframe. That's about a game a week. Having so many games on someone's plate will cause them to only fiddle around with their new copies of games for an hour and shelf them until a) they overcome GADD and complete the game, b) sell the game, or c) forever keep them on their Shelf of Unfulfilled Purchases.

Simply put, having too many games around you puts less emphasis on actually completing them. Completing the games you have before you buy new ones can be a cure to the problem, but gamers aren't that pragmatic – they have to buy the collector's edition Final Fantasy XIII on midnight of its release and never get past the tutorial stage.

I feel like a lot of people such as myself, when we are afflicted with the deadly GADD, we tend to think of finishing a game as a chore or as “work.” When it gets to that point, we can probably blame the length of the game, or how terrible some aspects of the game are to prevent you from continuing. But the fact remains that you made the purchase, and you have to slog through Prototype's mundane missions because you dropped $60 bucks on that sucker, and you don't want to trade it in because your friend's beat the game and review sites are telling you there's a good game somewhere in there.

This guy has only actually played Super Mario Bros.

Or maybe the cause is that people my age are adults with obligations, not having time to entertain ourselves via the video game medium. Video games definitely take an ample amount of investment, but why is it that we have the income to purchase these distractions, only to not get the most of what we buy? It's fairly difficult to have a casual attitude about gaming, especially when we don't want to let go of our “veteran” gaming mindsets.

Final Fantasy 3/VI (pictured top) took me a couple of days to beat. With GADD, games like Final Fantasy XIII (pictured bottom) will take me 2 years to complete half the game. Thanks, GADD!

It's just unfortunate to spend money or time on a hobby you're not utilizing to full advantage. But for some, GADD isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you have obligations or friends or other relevant concerns in your life. But if you don't have those things, then I guess dying alone with your shelf of unfinished games is your only option.

Obscure Title Tuesday: WWE With Authority!

No I did not rip-off this image from another site, I just really wanted to name my manager 'GameSpot.'

Obscure Title Tuesday Presents: WWE With Authority! for your PC! Or, as I like to call it - Pokemon for Wrestling Nerds.

For those of you who are unaware, there are a few television shows that air every week by a company called ‘World Wrestling Entertainment.’ In these shows, grown men with varying colorful names and personalities beat the ever loving crap out of each other! And in my youth, I was such a fan… such a huge fan, you guys.

First of all, the Rock was my homeboy. Second of all, everything that happened was totally bad-ass: people would get hit in the face with steel chairs and thrown in the air and then land on a table, and then the table would break, people would insult each other and THEN hit each other in the face with chairs... it was a way for me to let out all my pent up 7^th grade aggression by yelling at the television. Third, don’t even get me started about wrestling today. Why, back in my day, we didn’t have any of this PG nonsense, we walked uphill both ways in the snow. Damnit.

Global Ranks on the left. Wrestling is very popular in Japan and also Mexico. And now you just learned something.

So while I cheered on my favorite "good guy" wrestlers and booed vehemently against my least favorite "bad guy" wrestlers, I found out about an online turn based Card game that I could play for free! I was all over that like something on a fitting analogy.

This is a card game much like Pokemon or Magic the Gathering, with a few key differences. You first select a wrestler, who all have different health (hit points) and a special ability. You create a deck of cards, including which 5 cards you start every match with. Most cards are simply wrestling moves that do damage to your opponents health, like ‘body slam’, clothesline’, or ‘throw over the top ropes’ Only, each move requires a certain amount of momentum, which is a type of card you can play during the game besides a wrestling move. Momentum comes in a few different types, like Strength, Strike, Technical, Agility, and Knowledge. Wrestlers that are fat and known for being strong have limits placed on how much ‘agility’ momentum they can have, etc. Then there are special cards that do different things like increase damage done with moves, make you draw more cards, make your opponent have to ditch a card, whatever. In the game, after each turn you draw a card, and the object is to play wrestling moves to beat up your opponent enough that you can pin him and win the match.

I like Rob Van Dam more then I like The Big Show because RVD is not looking at me angrily, a disapproving menacing frown emanating from his core.

There is also the ability to counter moves. Every move, besides requiring certain kinds of momentum like strength or knowledge, also has a type, like ‘in close’, ‘arm extended’, or ‘behind’. Some moves counter other move types, so if you play ‘body slam’, which is an 'in close' move, and your opponent has enough momentum, he can counter your body slam, without getting hurt, by a move like ‘punch’ or ‘push’ or ‘vertical suplex’… moves that counter in close moves. Now the other guy has to respond to the move used to counter, and on and on. Also, each wrestler has 2-4 special moves, like finishers or trademarks, that only he can perform.

There is no single player option for this game. Besides a helpful tutorial, once you create a deck, you go into a chat room, find an opponent, and try to beat the ever-loving bajeesus out of each other. Though this game was marketed as ‘free’ you start out with about 60 cards and each playbook needs a minimum of 50, but if you wanted any one of the thousands of other, better, more helpful cards out there, you could pay a paltry fee of 3 dollars and get 10 or so of those better cards. And that was how they made money. I believe, all in all, I blew about 40 dollars on this game. By the way - worth it. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent man-handling other people with my Rikishi playbook. Also, there were chat rooms to talk about wrestling, or trade cards.

The Rocks real first name is Dwayne. Him and Dwayne Wade make bein' named Dwayne cool.

The game itself did a very excellent job of simulating the entire wrestling experience. The game play area looks like a wrestling ring, complete with fans and flashbulbs in the background. To win, you have to ‘pin’ your opponent when their health gets low, but they could kick out and the game would continue. Some moves, like ‘low blow’ and ‘steel chair to the face’ are illegal, and if you connect with them, the referee would give you ‘warnings.’ Receive too many of these and you would likely, tho not always, get disqualified. Furthermore, throughout how ever many years I played this game, they were always coming out with new cards and wrestlers, as new Wrestlers became popular in the WWE, and new wrestling moves were being performed on the show. This was a nice touch to keep it fresh. They also had weekly tournaments where the winner would face the current ‘champion’ and if he won, he would become the World Heavyweight Championship title holder for that week, until he would have to defend it the next week. It was totally sweet; though, I was never good enough to win a title. I was too cheap to buy the really good cards I would have needed to win. And by that I mean my parents were not willing to blow any more money on this game for me.

I loved this game for a few reasons. The competition was an important aspect, because you’re not playing against a stupid computer AI, you’re going full out against another thinking person who probably spent just as much time perfecting his playbooks as you did, and winning felt really satisfying, every time. Also, everyone could see your rank and how many places, among the thousands who played, you were from being number one. But also, there was a huge amount of strategy in this game. For example, before I even played a game, I would count the number of move type cards I had in my playbook and compare that to the total number of cards I had in my playbook in order to calculate what percentage of my cards would counter certain moves my opponent might play, and also what percentage chance I had to draw a momentum card each turn. I would try to balance it so that I had a higher percentage chance to draw moves that countered the most popular and widely used move types. Various in game strategies include letting your opponent hit you with all his weak moves to save your counters for hurtful moves, or just loading your playbook with only one type of uncommon move type, like leg extended.

'Chair Shot' has yet to be recognized as an official wrestling move by the National Collegiate Wrestling Organization

Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. Tragically, this game died. Apparently it cost the WWE more money to pay the staff running this game then it did money they made off of online card sales, so they closed down the site hosting this great game. Thus, my totally awesomely ranked Rikishi became a worthless memory, and my 40 dollars worth of online cards were quickly revealed to also be a worthless memory.

However, good things come to those who wait. Don’t get me wrong, the game is still dead, but about four years later I was looking on-line, and for nostalgia, I looked up ‘With Authority.’ Though the game was long gone, a super fan had made it so that he was hosting the game himself, and you could play it online again! Still, there are only about ten people who play nowadays. BUT… I, of course, out of curiosity, went to play a few rounds, and imagine my euphoric surprise when, in order to get the game to work, the guy hosting had to make it so that every new player has access to multiple copies of every single card that had ever been made in the game. So there I was, only five years ago dreaming of obtaining one specific card to improve my one playbook, and now, I had access to every single card they ever made, ever. I made like, 20 playbooks before I even played anyone, instantly remembering my winning formula for playbook by Math and odds calculation. And you know what? That very same day, those ten leftover people, from a time when this game thrived with the pulse of light, hosted a tournament for the WWE With Authority Heavyweight Championship Title. And you know what? I F**king WON that thing, BABY!!! Whooooo!!!! In your FACE, Bitches!!! Don’t you ever tell me I’m not a gamer, I got your strategy right here… in my PANTS!

If you’re just too curious, you can download the game here: http://www.wap2p.com/ Feel free to ask if you’re having trouble figuring stuff out, anyone would happily help you, assuming anyone of the ten people are in the chatroom.

3.75/5 Dope! Strategy Will Make You a Winner, Jabroni! Know Your Role and Play This Game! Smell What This Game is Cookin’! Gaming 3:16!!!

When Games Go Overboard

I'm not sure about you, but I love playing videogames. I would miss work or class if it meant I would get another shot at the boss who's been plaguing the land with evil. He had it coming, anyway. Don't get me wrong, if it's a day I cannot miss - for fear of getting fired or maybe some kind of exam - I'll take the hit and leave my game behind, but will no doubt crave some more play time until I get back in the action. Somehow, I still sound like an addict, but what about those games that make you feel like you have to keep going? Is it always a good thing for the game to present you with near-infinite quests in order to keep you busy? Games are designed to grab their audience and keep them playing, but when does the point of "too much" come?

Anyone who has played any Role Playing Game (RPG) will attest to the countless quests available to fill your time. This is not a bad idea. I know I always want to continue from one mission to the next, despite only one out of 30 being part of the core story. I'm not sure why we feel so compelled to deliver some letters, kill a few bandits, or trek the world, facing demons, beasts or terrorists in order to find one missing person, but we do. To add insult to injury, most quests don't even give rewards worth the time sunk into completing the task. I once spent three hours, traveling from one place to the next, enduring many loading screens and killing anything that got in my way, just to get an item I vendor'ed before the next mission. All gamers know this feeling. Some game developers even praise themselves for all the possible tasks to undertake in their game, while leaving the main story as a small drop in the bucket. The entire series of Grand Theft Auto is a prime example of when extras take over the story; another series that does this is Fable. Neither of these games are known for their gripping narratives or involving gameplay, but for their open-world environments and incredible possibilities (many of which most other games do not have). The aspects which make these games famous have nothing to do with the core of the game, so how does one judge a game when its so full of extra material that it overshadows the main story?

To be blunt, it makes the game worse. By the end of Fable 2, I was sure I finished a bad game. I wanted to keep playing and kill more store/house owners to buy up their property, but I wanted nothing to do with the core game. The story was tired and dry, many quests felt like re-done versions of quests from the first Fable and the ending was just awful (the final boss is you either shoot someone once or your team member does). As for Grand Theft Auto, I don't even know what the story is. I've never seen anyone play the game and do missions to advance the character or story, just a lot of stealing cars, driving around, and blowin' stuff up real good. What makes a game great is when the player gets involved with the characters and cares about whether or not they succeed. You cannot possibly think a game is good, but the characters and story were trash. To take it one step further, one can say the entire genre of RPGs is guilty of going overboard. When did it get to the point that gamers even care about the position of the protagonist's eyebrows or width of their ears? And that's before the game even starts. Once you get into the game, there are, of course, numerous Quest-Givers who ask for a certain number of this or for you to go somewhere and talk to that guy, which do nothing other than grant you some experience or money.

The problem with this is the idea that side quests and the main story are different games unto themselves. Recently, more and more games have a tendency to provide the character with choices which affect small parts of the story. Games like Dragon Age: Origins allow the player to kill possible members of your party. This doesn't do anything to the protagonist or for the story itself other than give you fewer party members from which to choose. If you already love your current party, why not kill everyone else? Definitely makes it less to manage.

The solution to this problem is to make the side quests, all the "extra junk", have some kind of impact on the story. IGN discussed the difficulty of being evil in games, but Super Dope Games wants to take it one step further (especially since I personally have always thought being bad was much easier and more fun): Leave nothing in the game that does not affect the story in some way. This means more than just how your party members talk to you or how random Non-Playable Characters (NPCs) react to you. The Mass Effect series takes a nice step in this direction by giving you optional material which helps you out. Sure, you can ignore all your people, but you can also talk to them and make them loyal, which gives them a bonus ability, making them better in a fight. The "extras" in Mass Effect are optional, but they more directly influence how well you do in-game. None of which force you to be the hero, by the way.

If you decide to kill a party member who's a famous member of a certain race, then let that race make things harder for you: coming to sabotage your missions, putting a price on your head, refusing you from entering areas they control. More to the point: if you choose to ally yourself with monsters, let the monster-killers hunt you. As for the "conversational reactions" present in most RPGs, the intricate choices of facial structure can influence those. If someone has a giant nose or, God Forbid! a mouth that slope down too far, then people should find the protagonist unattractive and be less friendly. Maybe that strays too far away from "everyone's beautiful in their own way" but we all know that's a lie anyway. People like attractive people.

Even the fact that these optional aspects of gaming are known as "extras" lets people know how little they matter. The main story, quests that one cannot avoid to complete the game, is what's most important. That doesn't mean the optional quests have to make less of an impact, and it doesn't mean you have to jam a game full of them just to keep the audience entertained. We just ask that what our character does, matters.

Pacifism over Pugilism – Why You Suck at Fighting Games

You're arrived at a friends house that you haven't seen in a while to pass some time. After 30 minutes of watching hilarious YouTube videos, you guys decide to move on to playing some video games. “That's fine,” you thought, because both of you are avid gamers.

After a couple minutes of back-and-forth indecision, your friend finally pulls out a copy of Super Street Fighter 4 for the PS3. “You don't mind if we play some rounds? Are you good at this?”

“Oh cool. Uh, yeah, I've played” you say somewhat optimistically.

However, this is a lie. You haven't played a Street Fighter game since Street Fighter II on the SNES. “Street Fighter was mad fun. I wonder if I can still do Rye-you's fireball. This shouldn't be any different, right?” as your naive, little mind reassures you as you put your hands on the PS3 Dualshock while your friend pulls out a huge, $150 arcade stick that looks bigger than the damn PS3 itself.

To me, the fighting game world is perfect. Nothing to rearrange.

“Whatever. I guess I'll give you a quick tutorial. I already put in the game so might as well get this over with,” your friend says dejectedly.

As you play, you furiously start to mash buttons, thinking you're playing a side-scrolling beat-em-up like the X-Men Arcade game, as well as your thumb consistently doing the down-to-forward motion on the analog stick (the “Rye-you's fireball” motion that you happened to forget and were recently reminded). As you're doing this, your friend is only pushing one button – the Medium Kick button - and topples you with a perfect victory.

You sit there, puzzled. Thirty minutes and a 14 – 0 record later (6 of them being perfects), you tell your friend you don't feel like playing Street Fighter anymore. Several thoughts go through your head: Why isn't this the same fun as your childhood? Why couldn't you grasp the game as quick as playing a multiplayer shooter or action game? Why is every fiber of your being terrible?

“I thought you played this before? I was hoping you did. Not many of my friends play, so I was hoping for competition, but instead all I got was your scrubby @$$,” he says as he turns off the game, puts the arcade stick away, and puts on Gigli to pass the time.

Your friend is a dick. But it's not his fault. Not entirely, at least.

Fighting games are seemingly built from the ground up to steer casual players away from playing them for more than an hour. At first, the games seem simple enough: two people fight, one person lowers the other dude's life bar to empty (once, twice, maybe thrice), you do a cool victory pose, you tack on a win and another guy tries to beat you up. Rinse and repeat.

However, once you start observing the details further, there are those aspects of fighting games that frighten gamers to pacification.

First and foremost are the controls. A game like Halo is simple: Press a button/trigger to shoot, press a button to jump, move around with two analog sticks, shoot people, call yourself a gamer. Easy to understand, and applicable to a competitive level.

A game like Street Fighter, however, has basic movement like jumping and moving forward, but has SIX buttons for attacks (Light, Medium, Hard for Punches and Kicks). Each of those “normal moves” has a different function standing far away from the opponent, standing close to the opponent, jumping toward/away from the opponent, jumping in a neutral state, and crouching. And guess what? They differ from character to character. Your mental bucket was already full from the concept of six buttons being used in a game.

Not only are there various normal moves, but “special” moves are quite daunting for the casual player (i.e. Ryu's “Hadouken,” Chun-Li's “Lightning Legs,” Blanka's “Being Ugly as Hell”). A Quarter Circle Forward motion (QCF, where you press down, down-forward, then forward in a smooth motion) can take minutes to learn, while a Dragon Punch (or “DP” motion – forward, down, down-forward) can take dozens of minutes, or even an hour, or even never because, dammit, all you wanted to do is make Ken from Street Fighter do a cool flaming uppercut with the power of blonde anglo-saxon karate fighting in your palms.

The guy on the right (Geese Howard from Fatal Fury) is doing "Raging Storm," which is performed by inputting down-back, forward, down-forward, down, down-back, back, down-foward + two punches in one motion. kill me now

Mechanics of fighting games create a steep learning curve. For example, defense: not only do you have to attack, but you have to (gasp) DEFEND. Defense differs from game to game – some games require you to press a direction away from your opponent and some require you to press a button for Guard (a la Soul Calibur). Some attacks hit high, some attacks hit low; sometimes you can guard in the air, sometimes you can parry an attack. The only way to beat a guard outright, sometimes, is to throw. How do you beat a throw? You “tech” a throw by canceling it out with your own throw input. How do you beat a tech? Yomi.

Casual gamers also hear things about “framedata” from “pro” players, and that you have to “count frames during the game in order to be good.” This is heavily misconstrued. You have to count frames before you start playing the game, and if you don't memorize frame charts for all the characters moves, you basically have no chance at learning the game.

Just kidding! But seriously, you don't have to learn frame data to learn a fighting game. Frame data is completely referential, and while it's helpful to know that Balrog's jab has 3 startup frames, it's not absolutely necessary. The more you play fighting games, the more you know what moves beat which moves, what moves are fast or slow, and which moves are able to get you hate messages on PSN or XBL calling you a “spamming scrub” or telling you “u suk at this game, Chun Li is ovrpoweres dawg.”

The key is to keep playing, but there is such a pronounced skill gap between new and seasoned players that, generally, newer players get turned off by it. If a person sucks at Modern Warfare 2, he's able to at least get a few cheap kills from someone who wasn't looking and learn from there. However, fighting games aren't that rewarding. One must grind, loss after depressing loss against someone that's good, in order to learn the game. They eventually have to ask a good player what their own flaws are, and work on those in order to succeed. They have to put effort in a game, which by all means is very undesirable for the casual crowd.

The fighting game community doesn't really help the casual presence. They like to see new blood, of course, but it's a steep road to be competitive in fighting games. Game mechanics in newer fighting games, such as in Street Fighter 4, have been shunned by fighting game enthusiasts because they appeal to casual gamers (such as lenient special move motions, “Ultra” combos with low risk/high reward, etc).

This guy (Rufus) is considered one of the top (if not the top) tiered characters in Super Street Fighter 4 because of his easy damage combos and easy Ultra combo setups. But mostly because he's fat as hell and so is the USA (he's American)!!!!

Nostalgia (like for Super Street Fighter 4) can create initial burst in sales but can't create a large a group of new, lasting players like the FPS genre or even RTS genre can. There will always be a huge divide between causal and seasoned fighting game players, much bigger than any genre out there. If you want a fighting game with a much smaller gap of skill, there's always Super Smash Bros Brawl, right?

(By the way, the “friend” at the beginning of the article was me. The Gigli thing wasn't a joke.)

Obscure Title Tuesday: Sesame Street ABC & 123!

Obscure Title Tuesday Presents: Sesame Street ABC & 123! Or, as I like to call it, The one that taught me how to count and shit!

Ahhh, Sesame Street. Whether it be fond memories of a childhood learned to read and count from you, or Liberals using scare tactics like "Republicans want to cut funding to Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) so they can kill Big Bird", those Jim Henson creations have a special place in my heart.

That being said, this game is shit. Just Kidding! More like the shit! Though the game will have absolutely zero replay value now to anyone old enough to read this article, rating it in regards to the age range this game was targeted for (the very young that are just learning the different letters, numbers, colors, and shapes), this game is great!

All you favorite Sesame street characters are here (except Snuffleupagus) hosting 4 mini games, each with varying degrees of difficulty that you can set easily from each mini games start screen:

Wait...both 'B' and 'P' work here. What the hell????

Big Birds Letter Go Round: A giant Ferris wheel moves around and around, with each cart being a different letter. You push A to stop the Ferris wheel to select one of the letters. The easiest mode has you matching upper case and lower case letters, while the more difficult levels prompts you to fill in the missing letter for a word, or even to spell out your own word……And don’t you spell out a cuss word you dirty piece of crap, childhood innocence is on the line!

Oh, and if you spell enough words right, Big Bird comes and dances across the screen! And that yellow mutha-sucker is off the hook! He’s all dancing and jumpin’ up and down to this cool music; I learned how to dance from this game.

Ummmmm......yes?

Astro Grover: This is the numbers one. Little aliens come across the screen, and you either count how many there are (1-9) or do simple addition and subtraction (the answers never go above the number 9). Now, I love Math, but for one section of the game, there’s this Moon, and NOT ONLY does the moon, in the normal state of the game, look sad and unconfident in your number identifying ability, but if you get the answer wrong, the moon shakes his disappointed head ‘no’ and this really scary music plays. It’s only for a second, but it scared the crap outta me when I was that young. It was my second biggest surprise Video Game scare ever. The first being the evil music and flashing lights from when you beat world 7 in Super Mario Brothers 3; then you get the letter from the Princess, at least you THINK it’s from the Princess because all 6 other letters were nice, quiet, no background music, peaceful power-up-giving letters from the princess, and you go to look at the similar looking letter then BAM!!!!! The letter is really from Bowser! and scary music plays, and I shit my pants and ran into my Mommy’s room. And she said: ‘I guess we won’t buy you any more Video Games that scare you. And you know what? I manned up, went back and beat that f*cking World 8. Cause that’s how Super Dope Gaming writers be when they’re kids.

I'm Sorry!

Ernie’s Magic Shapes: Match the shapes! And the colors! For example: match a square with a square, but don’t choose the triangle because a triangle is not a square, dumbass. Or, Ernie shows you a red square, and you can select from a blue square, a red square, a green square, etc. Though, for some reason, for the red square, you can not select a triangle again. But why would you, dumbass? The highest difficulty section has a complicated picture like a bird made up of many different shapes, and you have to match several different, similar-but-not-exact shapes to the picture.

Ernie......you're kinda bein' lazy here.

Ernie’s Big Splash: This is a spatial game kind of like snake. No! It’s more like pipes, where you start out in a square as a rubber duckie, and you can go straight, up, left, or right based on different pieces that you can select from, and you keep going until you make a path from your box to Ernie. The harder difficulties have various Sesame Street characters you have to navigate through before you get to Ernie. When you make it to Ernie, you see the rubber duckie go through all the boxes with these little animations and sound effects; when Ernie gets his duckie, he rejoices happily, splashing carefree in his tub in what I presume is all his nude Muppet glory.

The music for this game is good, the dancing Big Birds will blow your mind, and I definitely remember learning several new words from this game. Dope!

3.75/5 Can Teach Current Gamers’ Future Potential Children to Read and Count! Literacy!