yellingaboutvideogames

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Final Fantasy VII Wonder Catcher: Worthless, or useful?

Ah, Gold Saucer. Anyone familiar with Final Fantasy VII is aware of the fun center that becomes available early in the game, filled with mini-games and events that can be a great time waster within the game. Most games or events yield prizes based on skill, but some are based on luck. Inside the Wonder Square part of Gold Saucer is a game called “Wonder Catcher”: The easiest game in concept. Drop in 100 gil, and you receive a random item. Or...no item at all. At any rate, there is no skill involved, only pure luck. There’s no way to ensure a better item to receive, you are only left up to the Gods of Gaming to determine if you’re lucky enough to receive a good item for the menial pay. But everywhere I see online is how useless the Wonder Catcher game is, because you almost always receive a Potion or nothing at all, which are both not worth shelling out 100 gil a piece. However, there are some great items that can be won in the WC, but the odds of these items appearing are obviously low. But...how low? And is throwing all of this money into the game worth it in the long run? For the purpose of testing, I tallied every item I received from the WC, with the percentages tossed in for extra measure. I played WC a grand total of 296 times (because all I had on me was about 29,600 gil when I started), and below is the list of items I received in that timespan: Potion: 124 (42%) Nothing: 72 (24%) 1 GP: 57 (19%) 3 GP: 27 (9%) Phoenix Down*: 14 (5%) Elixir: 2 (<1%) Note: You can receive more items than these, but they did not show up during the test period. As you can see, they have extremely low odds. Other items include 80 GP, 100 GP, and Megalixirs *It has come to my attention that on the right machine, winning a Phoenix Down actually yields an Ether, and vice-versa on the left machine. So...yeah. Looks pretty rough, right? Now, I spent 29,600 gil overall. Considering the worth of the items above, did I overspend to net these items? The list below shows the worth of all the items, multiplied by the amount I received. Potion: 50 gil. (6,200 gil) Nothing: 0 gil (...shocker) 1 GP: 100 gil (The price the GP scalper charges per GP. 5,700 gil) 3 GP: 300 gil (8,100 gil) Ether: 1500 gil (21,000 gil) Elixir: ??? Total worth: 41,000 (not counting the Elixirs) Elixirs are not able to be purchased within the game, and therefore have no real estimate-able worth. However...in Gold Saucer, an X-Potion is worth 80 GP, and a Turbo Ether is worth 100 GP. Seeing as an Elixir is essentially these two items molded into one, we could assume an Elixir is worth 180 GP, or more considering it’s more convenient. So let’s just say 200 GP. That would add a whopping 40,000 gil to our total if we went by those numbers, bringing it up to 81,000, which is almost triple the worth of the money I originally spent. But of course, the real worth of Elixirs are up for debate. In broader terms, I spent about 30,000 gil and received 138 GP, 2 Elixirs, 14 Ethers, and a full stock of Potion. Not entirely terrible, but...dammit I could have used that 30 grand on something a little more useful at this point and time. Final verdict: Is it worthless? Overall, yes. Considering the fact literally two-thirds of the items received is generally a Potion or nothing at all, and there’s no guarantee on anything you’ll win, the money you have on you would probably be more useful for something else that you can actually control. While I did accrue a decent amount of GP, and 2 Elixirs, as well as not needing to buy Ethers or Potions for quite some time, those were all things that I more or less could have done without, and used that 30,000 gil for new equipment and Materia. Keep in mind that I did every single one on the right machine, and not the left. The differences between the two are that Phoenix Downs, 80 GP, and Megalixirs come out of the left machine, while Ethers, 100 GP, and Elixirs come out of the right. My last bit to say is that you really should just avoid this game and spend your hard earned money on things you actually have control over. The chances of winning something actually worthwhile is so painfully low that you will have to shell out a lot of money and time before you see even one of these prizes appear.

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Sega Losing Faith in the Sonic Brand

It takes a lot for a flagship franchise or product to finally bite the dust: numerous setbacks, negative customer reception, terrible packaging, terrible product development, and terrible customer relations are all valid reasons for a massively successful franchise to lose steam. And wouldn't you know it, Sonic The Hedgehog has been doing all of those things for nearly ten years now. You know what's really common in the video game industry? Like, almost happens 100% of the time? Developers and publishers sending out advance copies of their game to reviewers. This way reviews of the game are readily available even before the game is officially released. Gives consumers a last minute nudge to either purchase or pass, and just about every single game developed by big name companies get this treatment. So often that it's quite weird when one of them doesn't go through that phase... Enter Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric. No doubt you've heard about how lackluster and bad this game is. Just look at it. The game is clunky, glitch-tastic, bland, non-intuitive in many ways, and honestly offers little to no enjoyment while playing for even the biggest Sonic fanboy/fangirl. After the many Sonic titles that have seen negative reception and given more trash talk than a Boston fan at Yankee Stadium, the bar is set pretty low by fans...and the game still undershot that by a mile. Sega made the bold decision to not send reviewers advance copies of the game, instead opting to let everyone in the world experience the crap party at the same time. This meant no prior knowledge to what the game was or how it played (aside from trailers and the handful of people that got to play a demo at a gaming expo) would be known until everyone had a copy to see it for themselves. While the reasons may be obvious, it also could signify that Sega is losing it's faith on the brand and is doing what it can to recover financially. Let's think about it for a minute. Why would Sega not let reviewers give it a spin before the public is able to purchase it? It could mean that Sega knew it would be getting scathing reviews and nothing but negative reception from professional gaming websites and magazines, which would no doubt hamper the sales of the game after notoriously bad Sonic games have really damaged the game's brand loyalty with it's fans. So by not letting reviews of the game be available prior to the release, more people would have to resort to actually shelling out the $60 for their copy, meaning more sales being made regardless of how good or bad the game really is. If they were really proud of what Big Red Button Entertainment had done with their beloved little hedgehog, wouldn't they be giddy to show reviewers what the game was and what it had to offer? It's almost clear as day that Sega themselves didn't like what the final product was, and didn't want the bust to be exposed until after it was released to prevent longtime fans abandoning the game before it even hit store shelves. With games like Sonic '06 and Sonic Unleashed constantly being regarded as some of the worst games in the series, as well as being incredibly hyped about at the time, Sega's speedy spikeball has lost a lot of face. Nowadays when people talk about Sonic, the only positive talk is from the Genesis and Dreamcast days, and the negative is all about the current generation of Sonic and how he sucks eggs. That's something I'm sure that Sega is well aware of, and their handling of Sonic Boom pretty much proves that. They couldn't trust themselves or Sonic Team to create this one, so they put him in the hands of a company that is virtually unknown to the masses. Well...virtually unknown until Sonic Boom. They probably wish they were still unknown now. However, Sonic Team did create the television series that's supposed to be set in the same world, and from what I've heard...it's not bad. While it is geared more towards children, there have been far more positive reviews on the show thus far than there are on the game. It begs the question...did Sega bank more on the TV show than the game by letting Sonic Team develop that instead of stretching them out to develop both the game AND the series? What does this mean for Sonic? I don't think anyone really knows for sure. We may have some ideas, but the unpredictable nature of the gaming industry is a fickle thing. Maybe Sega is still confident in Sonic, maybe not. It would be hard to after all of the shluck they've given the fans in the past few years. Colors and Generations were well received, but are those really the only good ideas that Sega and/or Sonic Team can squeeze out of Sonic? There's got to be something else at least half-decent they can work with before they retire him. But isn't that what people have been saying for years? Maybe we're not much farther than we were back in 2006...or maybe we're too far to recover. Only time will tell.

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Why Did The Game Gear Fall?

Ahhh, the early days of portable gaming. Do you remember what it felt like to finally be able to take a gaming system on a long car ride when you were stuck with your family as you made a six-hour drive to visit family out of state or country? It was glorious: no longer were you staring out the window as your little sister complained about being hot or your older brother singing incredibly off key to whatever tune was on the radio. With the advent of the Nintendo Game Boy...well those last two things still happened to you, unfortunately. But now you could tune it out with a video game!

...no not one of those.

There we go!

Wanted to play a Mario game on the go? You could. Wanted to pop in Tetris and compete against your bratty sister? You could. With this handy little device, you could finally uproot your gaming and go anywhere you wanted with it. The Nintendo Game Boy was the first portable gaming system that allowed you to change game cartridges, much like the NES and Master System at the time. You no longer had to bring multiple handheld Tiger Electronic Games if you wanted to play something different. Not only that, but the Game Boy actually had games graphics, real music, different screens, and depth. It much more resembled playing a game console than anything else available at the time. Needless to say, the Nintendo Game Boy was a massive success when it debuted in 1989. Stores couldn't keep it in stock, and Nintendo's bank account was soaring by the second. It seemed like everyone you knew had one, or knew someone that had one with them at all times. Commercials and ads for the system were everywhere, and many critically acclaimed games were released, giving customers reason to purchase one, games that were not on any other console or handheld. But with success in a brand new field comes many other companies and business that want to cash in on the success as fast as possible, to sink their teeth into the cash cow so to speak. In this case, Sega and Atari were the companies that tried to match Nintendo's success by creating their own handhelds. We'll get to Atari's handheld at a later time, so we'll focus on Sega.

In 1991, Sega debuted their answer to Nintendo's Game Boy: The Sega Game Gear. It featured a sleek design and looked futuristic compared to the Game Boy. It was shaped more like a controller and was designed to fit the player's hands better than the brick-like shape of the Game Boy, which many people admitted to feeling awkward holding. But the grand daddy of all the differences was the screen. The Game Gear had a full arrangement of colors instead of the puke green and black limitations that the Game Boy possessed. And to see them better, the Game Gear also had a backlit screen. It was essentially a portable Master System. At this stage in the game, Nintendo and Sega were bitter rivals when it came to consoles: The Super Nintendo was getting ready for a release when the Game Gear was launched, and Sega's Genesis was Nintendo's main competitor in the market that they needed to answer to. Sega tried to keep all of their bases covered in hopes that they could continue splitting the market and possibly even knocking Nintendo out of the game for good. That didn't work, because the Game Boy (and it's Game Boy Color upgrade) went on to sell nearly 120 million units over it's lifetime, while the Game Gear couldn't muster up even 10% of those sales, selling approximately 11 million units. So...what happened? Starting off, the Game Boy was much more accessible than the Game Gear: The Game Boy launched at a modest price of $89.99 when it debuted in 1989. The Game Gear launched for $149.99, almost double the amount of the Game Boy. Automatically, parents were more drawn to the Game Boy's cheaper price tag, and because the Sega Genesis hadn't quite taken off when the Game Boy was released, many customers were drawn to the Nintendo label, as the NES was wildly successful. There was trust and loyalty to the brand, while Sega hadn't quite gotten there yet. Because the Game Boy came out two years earlier than the Game Gear, a lot of customers that wanted a portable gaming system already had one, and felt there wasn't any need to spend $150 plus the cost of the games on another portable gaming system. These consoles were mainly aimed towards kids and teenagers, so more than likely they didn't buy their own consoles: their parents did, who had already bought them their Game Boy's and felt like they didn't need another portable console that would cost them much more money than what the Game Boy did. Next was probably one of the biggest reasons buyers were put off: the battery life. The Game Gear was notorious for being a power eater, requiring six AA batteries that would guarantee you around 4-6 hours of play. Compared to the Game Boy's need of 4 AA batteries and 10-12 hours of play gave Nintendo a huge advantage. While The Game Gear did have an AC adapter that would allow you to play while connected to a wall socket, the advent of portable gaming was still new and not many people wanted to be wired at home to play their games that were meant to be on the go, though it was a nice addition regardless. Sega would eventually release add-ons to help remedy the battery life issue, but it still didn't come close to the Game Boy's battery life, and it just meant customers would have to shell out even more money. Moving on, the Game Gear had a very...questionable gaming library. Because of some licensing tactics from Nintendo, there were very few third-party companies available to make games for the Game Gear. As a result, the only real company that was producing games was Sega themselves. The Game Gear did have about 300 games in it's lifespan, but the Game Boy had a much broader library with over 1,000 games. Because new games were not being released at a consistent rate, interest died out on the Game Gear. Compared to the Game Boy, which saw many releases during it's entire lifespan, it's no wonder customers were more drawn to Nintendo. But the biggest fail on the Sega Game Gear came down to one final reason. The Sega Game Gear faltered because of poor support by it's own company. Sega was more focused on new home consoles in the Sega CD, Sega 32X and eventually the Sega Saturn that came out in 1992, 1993, and 1995 respectively. Because of all the focus on the new home consoles and expansions, Sega turned a blind eye to the Game Gear, hoping what they had done with marketing and the release of multiple add-ons and accessories (such as a TV Tuner shown below) would keep the Game Gear in contention, but it quickly faded out of existence. With no third party companies to give older owners fresh new games later in it's life, the Game Gear was dropped like a bad habit while Nintendo continued dominating the market.

Yeah, let's watch TV on this. The Game Gear was eventually discontinued in 1997, almost exactly 6 years after it debuted in the United States. Meanwhile, the Game Boy was in production for nearly 14 years, more than doubling the life span of the Game Gear. With the addition of the smaller Game Boy Pocket and the slightly upgraded Game Boy Color (both of which only needed two AA batteries), the Game Boy line continued extreme success and was produced as late as 2003 when it was finally discontinued while Nintendo focused on their Game Boy Advance line of consoles.

Was there anything special about the Game Gear? Well, it definitely was more comfortable to hold, and the games were vibrant: they looked great for the time. It really felt like bringing a game system on the go. If you compare the music and graphics to the Nintendo Game Boy, it's clear that the Game Gear was a superior console. But being a more powerful console doesn't always yield success, and there's no better analogy of that than the Game Boy and Game Gear comparison. I suppose the headline of this article is a little misleading: Sega definitely found success with the Game Gear. 11 million units is still a good number. Only when you compare it to the Game Boy's 100+ million sales does it really pale and look like a failure. But let's be honest, even with the extra money and possibly even more share of the market the Game Gear was able to bring to Sega in it's wake, it failed to do it's main priority, and that was topple Nintendo. Does that make it a failure? Well, that's up to the customers and the video game moguls to decide. Today, the Game Gear still holds a special place in many gamers hearts, and it's become a popular system for collectors to invest on, with it's many add-ons and expansions that were released during it's lifetime. While it never had the third-party support that the Game Boy did, it had some good games that didn't get the recognition they deserved. Retrospectively, many game critics praise and criticize various aspects of the Game Gear that have led most people to be pretty split on their opinions. If you can find one at a garage sale, flea market, or used gaming shop for relatively cheap, I recommend you pick one up if you've never played one. It's not greatest handheld, but it is still pleasant to play.

[thederpimaniacs]

This, just really so much this. I hate people who just sit there and bitch about a game’s graphics. It’s like, shut the fuck up with that shit. You play a game to be entertained. You play a game to immerse yourself in the story, and it’s characters.

To this day, I still love going back to literally all of the things in this photo, and more. These games are my childhood, my precious memories. No matter what anyone says, no one can take that away from me. I can go back and replay any of such games for the millionth time and it still feels like the first time every time. :)

It’s like the best sex you could ever imagine!

……..

Okay, too far.

But you know what I’m trying to say! Never judge a book by its cover, and never dismiss a game without giving it a chance. You might find something special <3

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Smash Bros. Character Probabilities Part 1

If you have never played a Super Smash Bros. game, that is entirely surprising. Though not a conventional fighting game, it has become one of the most popular series in the fighting genre, and notorious for it's inclusion of huge crossover characters. Ever wanted to have Link from Legend of Zelda be pit up against Mario? Well you can! Hate that little lightning rat Pikachu? Throw a bomb at him and shut him up! When it was first released, Nintendo did not expect it to be such a huge success. But so far, all three games in the series have garnered critical acclaim and are consistently ranked as some of the best games on their respective consoles (with many people going so far as to say that you should buy a Nintendo Gamecube solely for Super Smash Bros. Melee). As a result, with each new announced installment into the series, one of the biggest anticipations are what new characters will be added in, which current ones will return, and which currents one will be left off the roster. Today, that is what we're going to be talking about for the characters in Super Smash Bros. 4. At the time of this writing, the characters that have been confirmed in SSB4 are as follows: Bowser Captain Olimar Donkey Kong Fox Kirby Link Luigi Mario Mega Man (NEW ADDITION) Peach Pit Samus Sonic Toon Link Villager (NEW ADDITION) Wii Fit Trainer (NEW ADDITION) But what about the chances of the other older characters? Let's go over them all, shall we? ----------------------------- CAPTAIN FALCON ----------------------------- Series: F-Zero First Game: F-Zero (1991 SNES) Genre: Racing It's safe to say that most people know of Captain Falcon because of Super Smash Bros. Captain Falcon has appeared in all three games to date, meaning he is one of the four "Original 12" characters that has not been confirmed yet. That alone is enough to give people confidence that he will be confirmed at some point and time, though the last F-Zero game came out almost ten years ago, making him a rather irrelevant character. But, as stated above, Falcon gained more popularity from the SSB series than F-Zero. In the first two games he was a rather strong competitive character, but was nerfed in Brawl, and subsequently dropped from A Tier in Melee to G Tier in Brawl. He has also been the center of a number of popular memes outside of the series, and still remains as one of the most popular characters in the series. Chance of being confirmed: 8/10 --------------------- DIDDY KONG --------------------- Series: Donkey Kong First Game: Donkey Kong Country (1994 SNES) Genre: Platformer The nephew of Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong has been around for quite some time. He was popular enough in Donkey Kong Country that he ended up being the main character in Donkey Kong Country 2, and getting his own spinoff in Diddy Kong Racing. He was also a main character in the short lived Donkey Kong Country TV show. Aside from being in his own games and Donkey Kong games, he is frequently added into Mario spinoffs, such as the Mario Kart series, Mario Superstar Baseball, Mario Power Tennis, and many more. Diddy Kong is notorious for being one of the strongest competitive characters in Brawl, placing 3rd on the Tier List, behind only Meta Knight and Olimar. He's not an obscure character, but one could have legitimate concerns to his inclusion in the new game. Chance of being confirmed: 5/10 ----------------- DR. MARIO ----------------- Series: Mario, Dr. Mario First Game: Dr. Mario (1990 NES) Genre: Puzzle Mario has donned quite a few professions in his career. He's been a golfer, a tennis player, a go-kart racer, a baseball player, a tennis judge, a boxing referee, and the list just goes on. In 1990, he took on the profession of a doctor in the Tetris-esque game of Dr. Mario, which has been consistently named one of the best NES games made, as well as a very influential game to the puzzle genre. He has had only one other game in physical form available; Dr. Mario 64 for the N64. He eventually went on to have DSi Ware and WiiWare games released. His inclusion in Melee was surprising, yet warmly received, as a clone of Mario that was actually, overall, the better character (in certain aspects). He was slower than Mario, but more powerful, and had better finishing moves. His pill projectiles were stronger and moved in more predictable routes. His Super Sheet was longer than Mario's cape, but had more lag. Some weaknesses he had compared to Mario is he missing the Meteor Smash is his Forward-A Aerial attack that Mario has, his Down-B sends a character in a random direction instead of straight up, and many more differences. He was not brought back for Brawl, so right away, his chances of being re-included are slim to none. Add in that it has been rumored that many "clones" will not be included, betting on Dr. Mario to arrive for SSB4 is like betting on a one-legged doberman to win the Kentucky Derby. Chances of being confirmed: 1/10 ----------- FALCO ----------- Series: Star Fox First Game: Star Fox (1993 SNES) Genre: Rail Shooter Falco is Fox McCloud's right hand man in the Star Fox series, and is arguably the best pilot on the team. His arrogant attitude has been noted numerous times, but is a reliable comrade in the field of battle. Falco has appeared in Melee and Brawl, albeit as a clone to Fox. They are largely similar in Melee, but had many of their own differences in Brawl. While Fox and Falco topped the Tier List in Melee as #1 and #2, respectively, in Brawl, he is much better overall, placing ten spots over Fox at #6 and #16. As such, in the two games he has appeared in, he has been represented in the competitive community on a consistent basis and is credited as one of the best characters to main. As such, he is incredibly popular among casual and competitive fans alike. His inclusion in SSB4 is somewhat questionable, as the only two clones that have been confirmed are Luigi and Toon Link, who have more differences from their counterparts than Falco and Fox have. But his strong popularity and relevance to the Smash Bros. series could really boost his chances. He's not a lock, but pretty close. Chances of being confirmed: 7/10 --------------------- GANONDORF --------------------- Series: The Legend of Zelda First Game: The Legend of Zelda (1987 NES) Genre: Action/Adventure Ganondorf is the main villain in many Zelda games, including the first game in the series and many of it's most popular and successful sequels. While he is not in every Zelda game, his appearances and mentions cross over the majority of them. To date, in all of his appearances, he has been an antagonist (unlike a certain koopa king we all know). Appearing in Melee and Brawl, he was introduced as a clone to Captain Falcon in Melee, but having more unique moves in Brawl. In Melee, his moveset was almost entirely similar to Captain Falcons, with only minor differences. He was incredibly slow and heavy, but very powerful. In Brawl, his moveset still bared resemblances to Captain Falcon's, but had much more differences in execution. He was an above-average matchup in Melee, but in Brawl, he was dropped down to dead last, being one of the worst characters overall. As a result, he was poorly represented in Brawl tournaments. He also played a big role in the story mode "Subspace Emissary". The Zelda series is alive and well, meaning Ganon is still a relevant character. He has proven to be a little less of a clone to Falcon, and his possible inclusion to SSB4 would most likely mean an even bigger departure. But again, it has been rumored clones will get cut more than original characters, do Ganon's SSB4 future is up in the air. Chances of being confirmed: 5/10

[webofgaming]

Evolution of Video Games

[yellingaboutvideogames]

GTA V Banning Problems

A slew of unlucky consumers of the hottest new game, Grand Theft Auto V, have found their Xbox 360 to be console banned, and they are now left with a $300 brick of plastic. Why is that? On September 16th, there were copies of the game sent out before the street date of September 17th, and some consumers who pre-ordered the game got it early. Because of this, Microsoft has banned those players who played the game before the street release date. Isn't that wrong? Actually, Microsoft is just doing what they have to do: Banning players who break the Terms of Service. Believe it or not, in section F. of the Xbox Live Terms of Service, the "Cheating and Tampering" section, the bullet points state: F. Cheating & Tampering Do not cheat in a game unless cheats have been deliberately enabled by the developer. Do not use unauthorized hardware or modifications to gain an advantage or disrupt the competitive landscape of Xbox Live. Do not exploit game vulnerabilities or glitches. Do not make unauthorized modifications to your account profile or its contents, to include but not limited to: tenure, Avatar, gamesaves, or Gamerscore. Do not intentionally play with someone who is using unauthorized software or methods. Do not play any illegitimately obtained software or pirated games. Do not take any action to cause degradation of service for Microsoft or other users. Do not play a game before it has been authorized for play on the service. Take special note of the bolded statement. It basically states that the person who agrees to the ToS has agreed not to play a game that the company has not given them authorization to do so. In other words, play a game before it has been officially released, even if they for whatever reason are in possession of it. Some people have argued that it isn't the consumer's fault and that the company who sent them the game should not have broken the street date, which is true. The games should not have been delivered until it's official release date. But at the same time, all persons who created an Xbox Live account agreed not to play a game before it's release date on their account. This is a big example of why people should read the ToS sometimes. Because of this, all consumers who have been console banned cannot form lawsuits on Microsoft for seemingly using their powers for a non-legitimate reason, when in reality they have every right to do so when the consumer unwittingly broke the rules. Folks, if there's anything to be learned here: Read the Terms of Service. It might save you from your game console being ruined.

[yellingaboutvideogames]

The Golden Age of Multiplayer

Think back to the days you would play video games with your friends. You would tell your buddy to bring his controller, and head over to your house, so you guys could play your favorite game on your favorite console. You fire up the system, and you're at the title screen. You're given an option between "1 Player" and "2 Player". You both giggle with excitement, select the "2 Player" option, and your entire afternoon is set. For a time, if you wanted to play a game with your friends and family, you had to be sitting in the same room, with the same TV, system, game, and controllers. It's a primitive way to look at it, but it was certainly a bonding experience for you and your co-player. Sitting next to each other, talking about anything you want, and playing video games. In present time, this method of "multiplayer" is starting to fade away. Players are abandoning it for the more popular and efficient "online multiplayer", where anywhere in the world, you and your friends can play the same game, without the hassle of traveling and bringing your equipment. It's efficient, it's easy, and everyone is doing it, so it's no wonder this method is by far in the lead. But even with headsets, keyboards, even visual-based programs like that of Skype, it does not hold the same bonding experience with your friends in your actual presence. No doubt that it is a great thing for modern day video games, but it just doesn't have the same feel as sitting in your bedroom with a good friend, firing up the SNES, and playing through Super Mario World, or playing a round of Breakout on the Atari 2600 and handing the paddle over to see who could get the high score. It doesn't hold the same party-like atmosphere as gathering a big group of your friends into one home, and all playing a tournament of Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl. With the new wave of young gamers coming into the picture during this new generation of multiplayer-type games, it seems only inevitable that the Golden Age of Multiplayer will be over with for good in due time, and it can be quite a shame that some kids will rarely know the feeling and memories you can have just by simply playing a game with a friend under the same roof.

[firstworldotakuproblems]

For the longest thing I’ve ever posted, I decided to give my two-cents on what makes one a gamer.

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Why are certain video games so rare?

For most gamers, owning a game is all about playing them, and getting the experience. Some keep games after they're done with them, and some sell them back to the stores to get some of that cash back. Of course there is no right or wrong way to be a gamer; everyone has their own routine with video games, and that's all fine and dandy, as it should be. Some gamers like to collect them and build a nice collection of video games, and some actually play them all, and others just collect as a hobby, and certain games are just so damn expensive or hard to find. What are some factors for that? That's what we're talking about today! Why are certain games so rare, expensive, or hard to find? Let's start off with a number of Nintendo (NES) games. At the beginning of the video game boom, companies had no real solid projections at what would happen when new systems or games would be released. There was no knowledge on the effects of the market before a new system was to be released, as gamers had settled on the NES and the Sega Master System to a lesser extent, and there wasn't much of a precedent. At the end of the NES life (Around 1994), games were still being released for the NES, even though the SNES had already been out for 3 years, and the Sega Genesis had already been out since 1989, 5 years prior to the last NES game being released. As such, most gamers had already abandoned buying new games for their old system, and had turned to the new generation of gaming, spending their money on new games for the SNES and Sega Genesis. Once the 16-bit era had officially begun, the market for 8-bit video games were plunging rapidly, due to inferior graphics, level of quality, amongst others. Because of this, many NES games that were released after 1991 are considered rare and quite expensive to purchase. When they were released, they saw very limited sales, resulting in halted production much earlier than games released in, say, 1987, when the NES was at it's peak. Because of early halted production, not as many cartridges were sold and produced, making those games something of a rarity. Games like TMNT Tournament Fighters for the NES is a prime example of that; being released in 1994, as well having an SNES version released at the same time. Most gamers chose the 16-bit version over the inferior 8-bit version for obvious reasons. For these reasons, the NES version saw low sales, and halted production, while the SNES version continued to sell and be produced. Of the Top 20 rarest NES video games, 18 of them were released in 1990 or later. But having limited copies is not the only factor into a game's rarity, per se. Believe it or not, games like Final Fantasy VII and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening are considered rare to video game collectors. How can that be, when millions upon millions of copies exist? Let us explain! While it's true that these games are not exactly hard to come by (FF7 sold nearly 10 million copies worldwide), it's hard to find them on the open market. Final Fantasy VII in particular is generally perceived as the greatest video game ever made. As such, people do not willingly sell their copies, or give them away, very often. The rarity is boosted by the fact not many un-owned copies exist. Most people hold onto games they really like, and Final Fantasy VII is one of those games. Even though many copies exist, it's not uncommon to see complete copies of the game sell for more than $60, more than 15 years after it's release. One more big factor is "Future Exposure". This is when a game was released a long time ago, and never found the level of success that the level of demand is in present time. One good example is Chrono Trigger for the SNES. In the USA, Chrono Trigger (which includes the Final Fantasy Chronicles version, and the original SNES cartridge) sold 290,000 copies in the USA, with a decent amount going to the FFC version. As such, it's considered a rather rare game to find on the open market. This, too, is considered to be one of the greatest games ever made. So why didn't it sell as many copies as FFVII? That would be "Future Exposure", where the quality and magnitude of the game had become public knowledge far after it had stop being produced and sold in stores, making it a high demand game to collectors, and gamers alike, with copies selling as high as $80 for just the cartridge alone. Granted, the game had the distinction of being one of the best RPGs in history at the time of it's release, but because RPGs had not become a part of the mainstream yet in the USA (that would change 2 years later when FF7 would be released), it was largely overlooked by most gamers, who still heavily favored platform and action/adventure games like Mario, Sonic, Zelda, and Metroid game, among others. Coupled with the fact Chrono Trigger was released only mere weeks before the Sony PlayStation was launched in the USA, it also suffered from gamers not wanting to spend money on games for a dying console, in favor for saving it for the launch of a brand new console, and new era of gaming. Many other factors exist, but these three are large reasons why certain games are hard to find, expensive, and just overall a rarity that most video game collectors face when trying to acquire certain games. What other video games do you know of that fit the bill of these ones mentioned?

[yellingaboutvideogames]

Sonic: Has he really been that bad?

Back in the early 90's, Sonic The Hedgehog was the all the rage. To this day, he is (or was) the only video game character that rivaled the popularity Nintendo's mascot, Mario. Every kid in your neighborhood that had a Sega Genesis, more than likely, had one because of Sonic. Much like Mario and Nintendo, Sonic put Sega on the map as one of the top dogs in the video game industry, which was previously dominated into a monopoly by Nintendo with their NES. And it wasn't by sheer luck. Sonic The Hedgehog (1991), the first Sonic game ever made, stands as one of the most critically and commercially successful game of all time, later being packaged with the Sega Genesis when bought (much like Super Mario World and SNES). But that wasn't it. Sonic The Hedgehog 2, 3, Sonic & Knuckles, and basically every game in the series enjoyed strong success and positive reviews from professional gaming magazines, websites, and reviewers. While Sega fell off the map for game consoles around 2001 with their console, The Sega Dreamcast, they continued to make video games, including the Sonic series, and they all were still heraled as some of the best games for their respective platforms. Sonic CD is argued as the best Sonic game of all time, and it was on a failed system, The Sega CD. In recent years, as more Sonic games have been released, there is a rapid increase in disapproval with the series. Most notably, Sonic The Hedgehog (2006) for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, has been universally panned from gamers and critics alike, citing it as one of the biggest video game commercial failures not including game systems. It was Sega's attempt to bring Sonic to the current generation of gaming, and it's not a stretch to say that he came in face first into the ground. As such, Sonic has lost a lot of fanbase, and is drastically declining as a video game mascot. When you mention the name "Sonic the Hedgehog" to a person, they will either mention how awesome the Genesis games were, or how awful his newer games have been. But with some further analysis, has Sonic really been that bad over the years? I decided to check out aggregate ratings for the games. In the 90's, for the Genesis games, almost every reviewer gave them 9/10, 90+%, A or B+. All nearly perfect scores. Sonic 3D Blast could be considered the first "lackluster" game in the series, which averaged 56/100 scores, or 5/10, C, and the like, but was still praised for it's ambitious change in design, and brought 3D to Sonic on the Genesis. Even the Game Gear and Master System Sonic Games were nearly flawless, all scoring high scores very rarely dipping below 80/100, depending on the reviewer. Moving on to the Sega CD, Sonic CD (as mentioned above) has been debated as the greatest Sonic game ever made, for it's small changes to the normal Sonic formula. Sega did it right when they did that; They didn't fix what wasn't broken, and introduced new ideas that didn't alter the ultimate layout of the formula. In 1993, when Sonic CD was released, games weren't making staggering changes to the way they presented themselves. That was the middle of the 16 bit era, where things were at their peak. The Dreamcast came out, and it had two standout games: Sonic Adventure, and Sonic Adventure 2 (both later ported to the Gamecube under Adventure DX: Directors Cut and Adventure 2: Battle, respectively). Both were largely critical and commercial successes, even on a doomed console, and often considered some of the best games in the series. Even the Gameboy Advance games, Sonic Advance 1, 2, and 3 were met with largely positive feedback, as late as 2004. While it is worth noting that most games saw small declines in positive feedback, almost all games were still reaching 8/10, 75/100, and B ranking from most reviewers. Success for Sonic, while not as strong as it was in the 90's, was still very alive and well, solidifying that he, along with Mario and Link, among others, could stand the test of time and become a historically great character and series. That is, until 2006 came around. Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) was released in late 2006 for the Xbox 360, and early 2007 for the PS3, to largely negative reviews, and is often cited as the worst game in the entire series. But upon further look, the reviews and rating were not as bad as it seems. The average score it received was 4/10, 44%, or C. In fact some professional reviewers actually gave it strong positive reviews (mainly on the 360 version). Play magazine gave it an 8.5/10, and GameInformer gave it a solid 6.75/10, making it a decent reviewed game. Overall, while it has indeed been given relatively poor reviews, they could have been much worse. The GameFAQS fan rating gives it a 5.8/10, which, while not great, is not as bad as it has been led on. Sonic Unleashed, released in 2008, is another game that is made out to be so much worse than it really has been. Most reviewers generally scored it 6/10, to even as high as 79%, with most praise coming from the Wii version. The GameFAQS fan rating gives it a 7.3 of 10, which is nothing to shake a stick at. Sonic And The Black Knight, released for the Wii in 2009, is almost virtually the same as Unleashed: receiving average scores, but given the reputation as a bad game. The GameFAQS fan rating gives it a 6/10. On a personal note, I actually own a copy of Black Knight, and can agree with most aggregate reviews. It's not exactly a bad game, it's just nothing very noteworthy. It is, however, fairly interesting. Aside from those three games listed, there weren't any other highly anticipated Sonic games that got less than spectacular reviews from fans and critics alike. Almost every Sonic game, from it's inception in 1991, up to 2013, has been well received. Games like Sonic Generations, Sonic Colors, Sonic The Hedgehog 4, and Sonic And The Secret Rings, which have been released in recent years, have all been incredibly well received and have helped revive interest in the series, especially after games like Sonic '06, Sonic Unleashed, and Sonic And The Black Knight. It is for this reason that the first Sonic game into the next generation of gaming, Sonic Lost World, has such strong hype, and is generally perceived as a game that can either save the series, or ruin it. So, has Sonic really been that bad? According to professional reviews, including some fan ratings, he really hasn't been. But maybe because Sonic had been a nearly perfect series up until some of the newer generation games was a large reason why people started to pan it. What was once flawless was not showing a number of flaws, and fans started losing faith in the series, not to mention many of Sonic's old fans have since stopped gaming, and the new wave of gamers coming in were exposed to a "bad" Sonic era, per se, damaging his reputation even more. Sonic is not a dead series, even through the lackluster titles that have been released the last few years, and it looks like he is on a way to a comeback. What do you think? Is Sonic going to be finished soon, or will Lost World save him?