By This Time Next Year: Volume 3

This is but the first of two annual traditions taking place this month. Tune in on the 23rd for the second annual Golden Duck Awards!


Beginning in November 2007 and continued in December 2008, "By This Time Next Year" (Now properly capitalized!) comes back for its third iteration, with past predictions reviewed and a whole new set crafted for the upcoming year. First up, as usual, revisiting those predictions made on December 3rd, 2009!

"...at least one more console will be added to the North American Virtual Console" = Correct!

Released the same day it was announced, Virtual Console Arcade was added during the 2009 Game Developer's Conference this March, bringing classic arcade games to the living room, bedroom, or wherever the heck you stuck that console!

...Star Fox Wii will have been announced for an early 2010 release (I'm not giving up on this!) = WRONG

I've been posting this one for two years now, and it still hasn't happened. Eh, I give up... Which, of course, means it will now happen.

...the true successor to the DS line of handhelds will have been announced = WRONG

You know, I'm honestly not sure what I was thinking here. It was preposterous to imagine Nintendo doing such a thing. The system's still flying off the shelf like mad, and it would be stupid to stem sales by pushing out a successor. They did release the DSi XL, though, which makes my prediction slightly less inaccurate... Slighty.

...Nintendo still won't have released a true solution to the Wii storage problem = WRONG

This one requires a little backstory for anyone either new to the site or prioritized enough to not bother remembering the ramblings of a random internet weirdo. At the time the previous edition of "By This Time Next Year" was written, Nintendo had announced a solution to the Wii's greatly-limited storage space, but the wording was so cryptic that it sounded as if it solved no problems at all. In reality, though, it appears to have been lost in translation, as the solution did indeed arrive in March 2009 (Same day as Virtual Console Arcade), and it sure did deliver. In short: I misinterpreted a cryptic Japanese press release and made an ass of myself. Next!

...Wii sales will surpass 60 million worldwide = WRONG

Oh, but I was so close! The Wii didn't quite reach that landmark, stopping just short of the predicted number with... Oh, this is painful... 58.37 million, according to VGChartz.com (Which I find to be quite accurate, thank you very much). Now this is just crazy. Well... I was close!

...the combined sales of the Nintendo DS, DS Lite and DSi will overtake the Playstation 2's record sales of 140 million+ = WRONG

...here, however, I was slightly less accurate. The DS, DS Lite, DSi and DSi XL (Man there's a lot of them!) came up 23.53 million short at 116.47 million. My predictions aren't faring so well this year, are they?

...Mother 3 will still be landlocked in Japan, without any sort of announcements made for a release outside of its homeland = Correct!

Okay, I admit, this was a bit of a "Well, duh!" prediction, following in the painfully-obvious footsteps of 2007's prediction of "Duke Nukem Forever will remain unreleased." Sadly, Professor Obvious couldn't be here today to cover this prediction, as he's having a stick of chalk removed from... Uh, on second thought, you don't want to know.

...at least two more Pokémon games will have been released (Main series and/or spin-offs) = Correct!

In fact, four have been released since then (Seven if you count the slightly different versions some games were released in)! Pokémon HeartGold/SoulSilver, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon (WiiWare), and Pokémon Rumble have all seen release since this prediction was made. Oh, that Nintendo and its Pokémon!

-----

And this year's overall prediction accuracy is... Five wrong, three correct. Heck, that's almost the exact opposite of last year's results! Well, perhaps these new predictions will fare better:

...Pikmin 3 will have been formally announced
...Half-Life 2: Episode 3 will have gone another year without any sort of official announcement
...a long-standing, long-since-forgotten Nintendo franchise will make its triumphant return
...Project Natal will have been delayed until 2011
...people will still be erroneously calling the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 "next-generation"
...Mario Party 9 will have been released
...Zelda Wii will have been confirmed for a Summer 2011 release
...yet another same-as-before Call of Duty game will have been released, and people will still be yet to tire of it
...a brand-new Nintendo IP will have been announced
...SEGA will once again bring shame to the Sonic brand

And thus ends the list of predictions for the year of 2010. Hmm... Ten predictions, tenth year of the century... COINCIDENCE?!

...okay, yeah, it's a coincidence. Neat, though. Well then, what do you think of my predictions? Good? Bad? HORRENDOUS? Let your opinion be heard (And maybe even make a few predictions of your own) in the comment section, or in this forum thread.

A new Zelda at this E3? Don't count on it.

The folks at Nintendo love taking their sweet time with their heavy-hitters, and The Legend of Zelda is no exception. In the 23 years since The Legend of Zelda first graced the Nintendo Entertainment System, only six other games in the series have hit home consoles. Six games in 23 years. That works out to roughly one game every 3.83 years, and it's been less than 2.5 years since Twilight Princess was released.

Of course, an average is made of numbers both higher and lower than it, and, going by that alone, it's entirely possible that we'll see the new Zelda at E3. Also, going purely by that, it's equally likely that we won't. An average is good for getting a rough idea of when the next game will be out, and works well when compounded with other factors, but it's nowhere near dependable on its own.

That being said, I bring up this matter: A new Zelda on the Wii would most likely require a brand new game engine. Twilight Princess was a Gamecube game ported to the Wii that still ran on Gamecube hardware. This new Zelda will be a true Wii game made exclusively for the Wii and will run on Wii hardware. It will utilize far more resources than Twilight Princess, and Nintendo is sure to push the console to its limits in every way, just as they always do with their big-name games, and will more than likely be running on a brand-new engine. Granted, the Wii's architecture is quite similar to that of the Gamecube, but that doesn't mean that this new engine can just be made up overnight.

But hey, I'm no game developer. For all I know, the entire previous paragraph could be wrong, wrong, wrong. So what else is there that points to a new Zelda not being at E3? Well, how about Miyamoto himself? In April 2008, the man himself was quoted saying "The Zelda team is forming again to work on new games!". Keyword: Forming. As in, at that point, they'd not begun any real work on the game. They were probably still brainstorming back then. A year later, they may have made some progress, but enough to show off even a teaser? I don't think so. With them just beginning in 2008, I'm guessing the game won't be out until 2011 at the soonest. I somehow doubt they'd show their hand a full two years before playing them. Twilight Princess was a unique situation, in that it was delayed to coincide with the Wii's release. This next Zelda will most likely not be delayed by such an event.

What's that, you want even more reason why a Zelda probably won't surface at E3? Well, in the December issue of Official Nintendo Magazine (No source available; Information comes from Wikipedia), it was said that "the teams [are] still in the planning stages", and that "we wouldn't expect to see or hear anything more until the E3 event next summer at the earliest", and "even that may be optimistic". Words such as these are hardly encouraging. Of course, the magazine also says "we WILL know something in 2009 [about the title]", but there's a whole five months between E3 and the end of the year. Chances are, we'll only see a preview of it at some other convention in the fall.

Finally, as of late, Nintendo has begun only announcing games closer to their planned release date. We learned of Punch-Out in October, and it's out next month. Heck, Excitebots was only officially announced in February, and it came out last week! Chances are we won't be waiting two and a half years from announce to release like we did with Twilight Princess.

So then, here are the reasons I've pointed out:

• *The average amount of time between console Zelda games' release dates is 3.83 years, and we're currently not even at 2.5 years since Twilight Princess.
• *An entirely new game engine will probably be utilized in this new game, and that can't exactly be whipped up overnight.
• *Miyamoto himself said the development team was only even beginning work on the game just over a year ago.
• *Official Nintendo Magazine has said that the game was still in the planning stages a mere six months ago.
• *Nintendo has taken on a new trend of only announcing a game when its release date is determined and close at hand.

While some of these factors may not stand up well on their own, when lined up together, I feel they create a compelling argument against a Zelda game being revealed at E3. What's your take on the situation? Will E3 bring solid information on a new Zelda, or will we be waiting longer before we get a glimpse of Link in the first true Zelda game on the Wii? Also, what do you think of my points? Are they solid and convincing, or flimsy and weak? Please, feel free to let me know your thoughts in the comment section, or this forum thread.

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks - A look at what we've seen

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks was announced yesterday, and forums all over are abuzz with speculation and worry regarding this new installment in the classic franchise. Some people have pointed out minor gameplay additions in the trailer, but nobody's really sat down and thought about the core changes that are taking place in the game's formula, both concept- and gameplay-wise. That's what I've set out to do with this article, and I hope you all take what I say into consideration next time the game comes up in discussion (Which is sure to be quite often over the next little while).

Without a doubt, the first change deserving mention is the train. Having already addressed the obvious question of why a train is in a Zelda game (See the bottom of this article for the answer), it's time to see just what sort of impact this technological marvel will be having on the gameplay. First, let's take a look at the following screenshot taken from the trailer:


As you can see by looking at the top screen, there's a maze of tracks covering a large amount of what I'll be calling "Hyrule Field" until another name is given. One of the first things to notice about this is the fact that most of the upper-left quarter of the map is devoid of rails. What does this mean? Quite simply, it means that not all exploration will be done via train. There will be on-foot travel in Spirit Tracks outside of dungeon exploration. Second, note the tattered edges of the map on the left and bottom borders of the screen, and the absence of them in the right and top borders. This suggests that what we see here is, at the very least, a quarter of the overall game world. The map is at least four times this size in total. Whether or not the rail system continues into these unknown regions is yet to be found out for sure, but that one stretch of tracks running along the eastern side of the castle suggests it will, and I expect significant amounts of on-foot exploration will go along with it.

One may notice a parallel between the way the train works and how seafaring worked in Phantom Hourglass (Spirit Tracks' supposed prequel). The ocean from the previous game has basically been replaced with a largely empty field crisscrossed by rails, and the boat replaced with a train. Instead of sailing across a sea, we'll now be chugging across a large field. In short, there's nothing truly new and restricting about Spirit Tracks (That we so far know of) when compared to the seafaring in Phantom Hourglass.

To that you may ask "Well, why not just stick to the ocean, then?" There's a simple answer to that, but you may not like it: To make the game more casual friendly. With a wide open ocean there's plenty of places to get lost, but if there's set, defined paths crossing it, it's next to impossible to lose your bearings. Now, if it's being made casual friendly, that means it has to be super-easy, right? Well, that's not quite true. Two paths could be taken here with game difficulty without hampering the experience for more dedicated gamers. The two paths are as follows:

-One option would be to implement the "Kind Code" patent that surfaced back in January, allowing more advanced gamers to play it as usual, while still allowing any less experienced gamers the opportunity to enjoy the story, and jump in for a bit of action whenever they want.

-The other possibility would be to leave the difficulty in tact and not lower it at all for the more casual gamer. Spirit Tracks could become more of a "bridge" game than a "gateway" title, helping new gamers to slowly advance from simpler titles like Wii Sports over to more complex and difficult games such as this. The rail system will be the simplified aspect of the game, letting the newcomer concentrate on learning how to fight. From this "bridge" game they could then move on to more serious and difficult titles like the console Zelda games, thus completing the path Nintendo set for them.

Of course, I'm not at all denying the distinct possibility that Nintendo will avoid both of the above paths and instead make the game incredibly simple. All I'm saying is there are other possibilities that would serve both dedicated and newcomer gamers alike.

For the next section, we'll be taking a look at the following two screenshots (Again, taken from the trailer):


These two screens right here confirm the most important parts of any Zelda game are intact: Dungeon exploration and epic boss battles. Unlike the above uncertainties involving difficulty, this much remains fact; Spirit Tracks will still very much be a Zelda game, perhaps even eclipsing Phantom Hourglass as the definitive handheld Zelda experience. With a new super-powered, fan-like weapon and the ability to control Dark Nuts to do our bidding, Spirit Tracks holds all the markings of a masterpiece. Will it hold up to this potential? Only time can say for sure, but my outlook is optimistic.

What do you think of what we've seen of Spirit Tracks so far? Are you excited for it beyond all reason, or are you more likely to burn a Miyamoto effigy on your front lawn? Feel free to speak your mind in either the comments section, or in this forum thread. Just no burning of effigies around here; The cops are already on my ass about the "cherry Kool-Aid" dripping down the walls.

The Legend of Zelda: Title of Inadequacy

Another short article. Thought it up last night, and figured I should write it down before someone else does... Again.


I love the Zelda series, maybe more than any other in existance. I love the gameplay, the characters, the sense of adventure, the writing... Pretty much everything is number one in my books. Two things that annoy me, though, are the terrible, terrible names given to two of the series' installments.


It didn't take long for the franchise to hit it's first naming failure, with Zelda II: The Adventure of Link being, quite possibly, the worst title of all. What can someone unfamiliar with the franchise gleam from this title? Well, they'd see that it's the second game in the Zelda series, and that it's about the adventures of one named Link. That's not a problem. However, if this is The Adventure of Link, then what the heck was the first game, and for that matter, all following iterations in the franchise? The Legend of Zelda: Link's Non-Adventure? The title of Zelda II makes it sound like the first game was not an adventure at all! Nope, The Legend of Zelda was just one huge illusion of adventure.


And now the series lands on the Game Boy for the first time, and does so with a name that's practically a spoiler. Link's Awakening just about gives away the twist ending before the player even opens the box! As we all know by now, Link's Awakening ends with, well, Link's awakening. The whole game was a dream. And what does Nintendo do to keep the ending an absolute mystery until the player reaches it? Slaps it on the front cover of the box. Bravo.

Oh, I love you, The Legend of Zelda, but when your installments falter in the important department of their very name, well, I can't help but notice. Just make sure you don't title the next game "Link Kills Some Monsters" or "Zelda Dies at the End", and maybe I'll forgive you.

Discuss This Article On The Forums

The three scariest enemies ever to touch a Nintendo system

In the spirit of Halloween, here's something a little spookier than usual. Feel free to enjoy this while chowing down on copious amount of candy. It would only make sense, as that's what I'm doing while writing this. Long live Halloween! Also, I know my Photoshopping sucks. Can't blame me for trying... Right?


Games on Nintendo consoles are often known for their bright palettes, colourful characters and happy, lighthearted narrative. But that's not always how things go. Sometimes, someone deep in the dev team goes mad. They end up making something so terrifying, so vile, so... Not Nintendo. Now little kids lie awake at night, quivering at the thought of what they just saw deep in their favourite, happy, E-rated video game. Having been raised on Nintendo, I've witnessed some of these moments personally, and they've forever scarred my fragile little mind. The following three creatures are the most terrifying I've ever seen in all my time playing Nintendo consoles.

Bowser in Luigi's Mansion

In his oh-so-predictable little way, Bowser almost always manages to make an appearance in every Mario game, and he quite often proves to be a formidable foe. However, in Luigi's Mansion, Bowser's different. He's big, spiky, shelled, hairy-Wait, that's normal. The real kicker is this: He's dead. King Boo gutted and possessed Bowser's corpse, using it as some sort of vile flesh Gundam in the final battle in Luigi's premiere leading role. Lumbering about the rooftop, these reanimated remains of Bowser seem like just another cheesy boss with a slightly morbid twist. That's when things start to get crazy.

After wailing on this poor corpse for a while, the head comes off and just... Floats there. Yeah, yeah, King Boo, I'll get to killing you in a minute, but... This is just disgusting. His head is just floating there with the look of death on its face. Wait... Oh god. Oh god no! He's back on his body... BACKWARDS. Now he's stumbling around the roof, grabbing at his head in vain to put it back on right. Seriously, WOW.

Now, some may argue that this isn't really Bowser, and that King Boo is just using some sort of Bowser robot suit. To them I ask: Where, then, did he get this suit of robotic terror? Plausible answer: None. This is no animatronic suit of reptilian doom. No, this is the honest-to-goodness corpse of Bowser, king of the Koopas. Heck, he dies so often, I wouldn't be surprised is King Boo has a closet full of those things. He had to land somewhere after he was killed in Super Mario Bros. 3!

Never thought you'd see such a gruesome moment in a Mario game, did you? Well, you were sure proven wrong! You can have your Boos, Bouldergeists and haunted merry-go-rounds. I'm gonna stay over here with the true reigning king of scary Mario monsters: The decapitated corpse of Bowser.

...actually, on second though, I'll come stand with you. MAN that's a creepy boss.

Dead Hand

Ah, Ocarina of Time. What a wonderful game you were. I remember much of you fondly. Hyrule Field, Volvagia, the Zora Domain... However, there's one part that I have less fond memories of... The Kakariko Well. Undoubtedly the scariest part of any Zelda game, the Kakariko Well is full of so many terrifying things. However, not even 30 ReDeads, Phantom Ganon and Richard Simmons all rolled into one could compare to the abject terror stricken into my heart whenever I go up against Kakariko Well's Dead Hand.

Resembling a pale, bloated corpse, Dead Hand's primary section lumbers about the arena, slowly coming towards terrified little Young Link. Once within range, it slowly lowers its hideous head, bare its long, disgusting teeth, and prepare to attack. Of course, this is the point where you strike. Sounds simple, right? Wrong.

Dead Hand's name comes from the fact that there are, quite literally, arms sticking out of the ground all over the arena. These arms can reach up, grab Link, and hold him still until the lumbering mass that is Dead Hand's body can lurch over, lower its head, and attack. You can fight to escape the hands, or even attack them while free to even the odds a bit. Still, these pale limbs lurk all over the room, slowly moving about, constantly coming towards you. Dead Hand's hungry, and he's feeling like some Hylian food today.

It gets even more terrifying when you consider this: Just what is Dead Hand? Is he true to his appearance, consisting of the limbs of the dead, all controlled by one large, bloated, legless corpse? Is he the embodiment of Ganondorf's insanity? Or is he a severely mutated villager from Kakariko, forever warped and morphed by some bizarre magic? We may never know for sure, and I consider that to be the scariest part of all. When a developer leaves an enemy's origin to the player's imagination... Things can get really, really messed-up.

Dead Hand rarely shows up in discussions about scary Zelda monsters, and I have no idea why. He's far scarier than Phantom Ganon, and leagues above the face-humping hoards of ReDeads. Dead Hand is hands-down (Hurr, pun) the scariest Zelda enemy in history, and if you don't agree, I suggest you revisit Ocarina of Time. Go ahead, get grabbed by his limp, pale hand. Be victim to his ferocious, close-up, tooth-baring attack. Then walk away, change into a clean pair of pants, and tell me ReDeads are scarier.

I'd say "let's give a big hand to Dead Hand", but I'm sure he has enough as is.

Dr. Salvador

Resident Evil 4, on the whole, is likely the scariest game I've ever played. Bloody tendrils sprouting from the backs of dogs, Wolverine-like claws flying at my face, Las Plagas parasites shooting from the necks of angry villagers... It's certainly something that should be played with the lights on. The one enemy in Resident Evil 4 that really takes the cake, though, would have to be Dr. Salvador. With his burlap sack mask, flailing chainsaw, and more longevity than an Energizer battery, this doctor always has an opening for new patients... And his patients always leave with a few extra openings themselves.

The true horror begins before he even comes into your line of sight. You're walking through the village, keeping an eye out for zombies, when, all of a sudden, you hear the revving of a chainsaw. This is when you know you're truly in deep trouble. Suddenly he comes running out of nowhere, charging at you with his chainsaw above his head. One second he's nowhere to be seen, and the next he's lowering his deadly weapon upon your neck. You know how in a lot of commercials it says "4 out of 5 doctors recommend it"? Dr. Salvador's that one who doesn't recommend it, as all of his remedies involve chainsaws and jugular veins.

A really creepy part of Dr. Salvador's bloody campaign is how many times he keeps getting up. You gun him down, you think he's dead, but fifteen minutes later, he's back in a brand new setting to cut you up into bite-sized pieces. You gotta hand it to the doc, he's persistent!

I know that this article is otherwise consisted of terrifying enemies in happy games, but dammit, I just couldn't leave this one out. Dr. Salvador is one terrifying, messed-up son of a Plagas. Or is he? This is where things become interesting. We never find out for sure if Dr. Salvador actually is infected. For all we know, he's just some maniac with a chainsaw who loves his job a little too much. Just imagine if he could talk... "Dammit, Leon, I'm a doctor, not a murderer! Well, actually I'm a murderer too, but I needed a hobby, so here we are. Now, it's jugular time!" That was so poorly written and unfunny it's almost scary!

So then, there you have it: The three most terrifying enemies I have ever seen on a Nintendo console. Do you agree with what I said? Did I miss one? Do you disagree with one of my choices? Or do you just want to whine a little? Well, look no further than the comment section, or this forum thread. Hurry, before Dr. Salvador makes you fun size!

Edit: November 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 AM: One thing I want to add here: I know that there are many, many Resident Evil monsters far scarier than Dead Hand and Luigi's Mansion Bowser. Thing is, I didn't want to put more than one creature on here per franchise. Otherwise, it'd be nothing but Dr. Salvador, the machine gun guy and the zombie dogs. I tried to keep some variety going here, as I wanted it to be an "overall" sort of article, not a "this franchise is scary, man, look at these" article. This way we have a better variety, instead of just three guys from the same game. Heck, if I went for the other approach, I probably would have just scrapped this article altogether. That's how much it would have sucked, to be perfectly honest. Oh, and I don't claim to have played every single scary game to grace a Nintendo console. I'm sure there were some pretty tense and shocking moments in Manhunt 2 poised to make me shed my skin in a most unpleasant manner.

So yeah, that's the story of this article. I actually originally intended to include a version of the above paragraph in the post, but I forgot, so... Now I need to make a big, ugly edit instead. Oh well, live and learn. You guys all have a great Sunday, and I'll see you on Monday (Or 2:00 AM Tuesday; I procrastinate a lot).

The worst final bosses

Think of this as "The greatest final boss battles of all time"'s evil little brother.

Generally a game's story leads up to a huge, amazing battle at the end. Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are all fine examples of this. After so much adventuring and fighting, players finally reach the final boss. Really, at this point, we gamers deserve to be treated to an amazing spectacle of game design and storytelling. We want the last part of this game to be the best. Sadly, some games just can't pull it off, leaving us with a disappointing final battle hardly fit for the adventure we just completed.

Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon

Of course, there are some cases where the battle's mediocrity is rivaled only by the rest of the game it's in. Thus is the story of Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. The resulting bastardization of an ill-fated Nintendo/Phillips partnership, these two games are widely regarded as some of the worst ever made. The final boss battles did nothing to make up for the terrible quality and design of the games themselves. After all this time, all this suffering, you want to really have it out with Ganon. You want to rip his Face of Evil off of him for forcing you to experience this crap pile of a game. And how does the battle go?

"...or else you will DIE!"

One hit, he's down. No, really. In Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon, Ganon is defeated either by throwing some book at him, or tossing the Wand of Gamelon into his piggy face. I suppose it's only fitting, though. A crappy end to a crappy game. Alright, enough dwelling on this pustule on the ass of game design.

Super Mario Sunshine

Ah, Sunshine. It's amazing how many people have sad so many bad things about your gameplay, but hardly a peep about your terribly disappointing final boss battle. I'd hardly even consider it to be a battle, come to think of it. What does it entail? Breaking Bowser's hot tub to send him plummeting into some sort of abyss. Yup. Mario basically pushed aside all formalities and caught the man while his pants were down. A classy guy, that Mario.

"Dammit, Mario! This is my 'Me Time'!"

Anyways, throughout the entire "battle", Bowser toasts you with his flame breath as Bullet Bills constantly rain down on you. Is there anyway to hit Bowser? Nope. You don't even get to touch the bugger once in the whole darned battle. A boss battle where you don't even make contact with the enemy can be an interesting design choice if done right, but the thing is, this wasn't done right. Instead of an amazing final battle, we get to see Bowser taking a bath while Mario tears up his floating hot tub. Doesn't this go against some sort of Plumber's Code?

Pokémon Diamond and Pokémon Pearl

The final battle against Cynthia, the Elite Four Champion, is a bad boss fight for a somewhat different reason than the others on this list. The real reason this is here is because of the fact that players have to fight Cynthia. Cynthia, the person we know next to nothing about. Cynthia, the person who appeared about three times previously in the game. Cynthia, who doesn't even seem to matter at all until the time we fight her. Seriously, why her? Couldn't something else have been worked out? I mean, it was a good fight, sure, but I hardly would consider Cynthia a proper final battle. Someone we know a little better would have been nice. Perhaps even a person we thought wasn't even that strong a trainer. Imagine if it turned out to be the starter player we didn't choose. Players who chose to play as Lucas would face Dawn, and vice versa. I would have liked almost anything more than to fight this woman we knew almost nothing about.

Cynthia...? Seriously?

But, maybe I'm just nitpicking here. After all, if Pokémon were to adhere to real-world logic and probability, the chances of the Elite Four Champion being someone you know personally would be insanely low. But after facing Gary, Lance and Steven, I had expected someone more important to the story to be my opponent. Heck, facing off against Professor Oak would have been better. Actually, that's not a bad idea... Game Freak, get working on it!

Final Fantasy

That's right, I'm calling out one of the all-time classics. Well, technically I'm calling out it's Game Boy Advance remake, but close enough. Anyways, Chaos was way too easy. I was in no way overly leveled up or loaded with the best weapons available. I took him on thinking I'd be thoroughly wiped out, but emerged victorious without even breaking a sweat.

Small picture, small threat.

I've heard that the Dawn of Souls remake is far easier than the original title, but still, it's no excuse for a 100% underwhelming and not-at-all-challenging final boss battle. I want it to feel like I'm practically dead as I deliver the final blow, not standing there yawning while swiping my sword at him. Chaos was no challenge at all. He was more intimidating as Garland. "I, Garland, will knock you all down!" Seriously, this is far more cool than anything Chaos ever said or did. Garland should have quit when he was ahead. Or behind. However time travel works.

Discuss this article on the forums

The Duck Has Spoken.

Gaming Oddities Episode IV: All Hope Lost

Tortimer says: "Heh heh horff, that's not a real movie!"

So then, my brain is fried and thereby unable to comprehend tonight's intended article. Thusly, we have Gaming Oddities Episode IV: All Hope Lost (Good thing George Lucas won't ever see this).

Item shop, weapon shop, armor shop... Is there a grocery store in this town?

Play any RPG, and you're sure to encounter the following: Every town has plenty of stores for your warriors to peruse, but nowhere for the townspeople to buy food, clothing, or anything else. Since there doesn't seem to be all that much farm land in Castle Corneria, I suppose everyone just sucks in nutrients from the air. Or maybe everyone but us has access to a secret grocery store hidden deep beneath the Earth's crust? They must save a bundle on their electricity bills down there, what with natural heating and all.

"Drink this potion! It'll magically reattach your retinas!"

It seems that no matter how injured a character gets, one simple potion will save them. Knife to the face? Have a potion. Sword in the gut? Take one and call me in the morning. Skull bashed in? There's a Visine for that. If only this were true of real life. Legs crushed by a tractor trailer? You know the drill.

All cash works at any store anywhere at any time

So, you just flew in from Midgar, and boy are your arms tired! You need a place to rest for the night. But wait! This is a bizarre and unknown land half-way around the globe! Surely they won't accept your foreign currency here... Right? Well, it would appear that everyone on Gaia has agreed to use Gil as their primary form of cash. If only it were so easy on Earth... I could go down to the States and spend freely without worrying about exchange rates or paying duty... Finally, a way to legally escape our exorbitant taxes!

I suppose "English as a Second Language" doesn't appear on Hyrule report cards

No matter where you go or who you talk to, almost every single person you meet will speak perfectly fluent and understandable English. It doesn't matter if you travel five or five thousand miles, chances are, the people there will speak English. Heck, in some games, aliens and non-human species even have a grasp of our native tongue! Leave it to gaming to completely dissolve the language barrier. Just imagine if this were true of our world... We'd actually hear Miyamoto talking, and not his pesky little translator!

"Your car can survive falling 30,000 feet? How much you want for it?"

Half-Life 2, Need for Speed, Driver, Halo... Almost any game that involves driving cars usually ends up involving said car falling a billion feet and driving away unscathed. Last I checked, cars don't fare all that well when plummeting from dizzying heights. I have honestly never encountered a game with cars where this hasn't been true. From Halo's mighty Warthog to Half-Life 2's slapped-together buggy, it seems no force of gravity can bring your car to a halt. I really need to figure out who makes these cars and buy some stocks.

Stuck on an alien planet? Need ammunition? No problem.

it seems that no matter where you go in an FPS, there will always be somewhere to replenish your ammunition stocks. Covenant dropship in Halo? I gotcha covered. Deep, dark caverns in Half-Life? No problem. Far-flung planet in the distant Alimbic solar system? The ammo's right over there, Ms. Aran. Either our heroes (And heroines) have access to insanely adaptable weapons, or someone likes to drop ammunition wherever they please, be it cavern, alien vessel or far-off planet. Damned litterbugs.

So ends yet another edition of Gaming Oddities. Feel free to discuss this in the comment section, or this forum thread. Or both, if you're feeling adventurous. I'll see you all again on Friday.

The Duck Has Spoken.

They can put a man on the moon...

No debating about whether or not the moon landing was faked. It happened, get over it, article now.



Ever notice that gaming technology has come so incredibly far, yet problems from the early days still exist? I mean, seriously, they can put a man on the moon, but...

...they can't give FPS characters feet?

Ever play a first-person-shooter (FPS) and look directly down? What do you see? Most likely, you see nothing but floor. Where the hell are my feet? Not only is this a little odd (Am I just a floating arm with a gun?), but it can often lead to disorientation when standing near a cliff or edge.

Here's a little experiment for you: Fire up your favourite FPS (Halo, Half-Life 2, heck, even Portal will work). Walk up to a ledge and look down. Continue to move forward until the cliff takes up about %50 of the screen, while the other half is the ground below. Stand up, turn 180 degrees, and look down again. Voila, you're floating!

Nothing strange here...

I can flyyyyyyyy!!!!

Can FPS characters please grow some legs already?

...they can't stop clothes from clipping through stuff?

Anybody who has played a 3D Zelda game for more than five minutes knows exactly what I'm talking about here. Just in case, here's a screenshot showing off the problem:


Look closely at the circled area. Notice something? How about the fact that Link's sword is sticking THROUGH his hat? The screenshot above is just one minor example of this.

Textures and character models get better and better, but clothes still manage to phase through junk! Would it be so hard to assign some sort of physical mesh to the hat, leading it to be treated like a real-life object? Use whatever technology that keeps people from walking through walls and falling through floors and use it on the hat! If we're going to be staring at it for hours on end, at least make it look good!

...they still can't eliminate load times?

Back in the early days, things were good. You popped a game in the NES, turned it on and started playing. But with the advent of disc-based games, load times reared their ugly heads.

The Playstation (The first commercially-successful, disc-based game console) launched way back in 1994, 14 years ago. And in this time, loading has still remained a huge problem. Developers seem to improve so many things when making new consoles, but load times don't seem to be one of those things. It seems that the only way to fight load times is to keep games (And consoles) simple.

Modern gamers are all too familiar with the above words

Maybe, one day, all games will be on computer chips or something like that. Perhaps then would load times finally cease to exist...

...they still can't find good voice actors?

Fire up almost any game with voice acting, and you'll soon find yourself reaching for the mute button on your remote. From Elebits to Sonic and the Secret Rings, far too many games feature utterly talentless voice actors. The voice over in the latter was so bad, I switched it over to Japanese voices, only to hear the same terrible acting in a different language. I don't even know Japanese, but I could tell it was terrible.

So where are all the good voice actors? It seems you can't find a good one unless you're playing a licensed title. There's the occasional exception, but mostly every game has terrible acting. I've racked my brain, and I can barely come up with a handful of examples of good voice over in a game.

Somebody, please keep the cast of Elebits away from here!

I've mentioned a game or two in the past that I believed would benefit from voice-acting. I stand by this, but with the minor caveat that they be good actors providing the voices.

Technology has come so far, yet some simple little problems persist. Can you think of anything else gaming-related you expected to see solved by now? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section or in this forum thread.

The Duck Has Spoken.

Gaming pet peeves

I love games a whole lot, but there are just some things about them that really annoy me. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this. Here are a few things that really tend to peeve me off with games.

Showing off moves/abilities unavailable to the player

I really hate it when trailers, cutscenes or promotional art pieces show off the main character doing things the player cannot do. For example, there are scenes in many of the Legend of Zelda games in which Link takes a running jump, but the player cannot spur such interactions.

And what about that promotional art? I was just playing a bit of Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure. I've learned that angering the local savages is never a good idea, as it always leads to Zack instantly being captured, and thusly ending the level. After I had enough of the game for the night, I flipped through the manual and saw art of Zack running from a savage while holding a treasure chest; Two things impossible to do in the game!

The trailers and commercials are often the worst, though. Ever see the latest commercial for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune? Nathan Drake (The main character) is sneaking up on a group of enemies when his walkie-talky goes off, alerting the foes. He looks at the device, glances up at the opposition and says "Think it's for you!". He tosses the walkie-talky at an enemy, whips out his gun and shoots them while they're reeling. As far as I know, there's no possible way to do this. I've never played the game, admittedly, but after some brief research I saw absolutely no mention of any such unique tactics. Maybe this happens in a cutscene, which is somewhat more forgivable than false advertising, but still a real annoyance for me. And this doesn't apply to just Uncharted, I'm just using it as an example.

Somewhat related to the above, it also really peeves me off when game commercials consist almost entirely (Or 100%) of cutscenes and pre-rendered clips. That really bugs me to no end. At least label the scenes as either actual game footage or not, like in the latest Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games DS commercial.

Invisible walls

I remember when I first got the Wing Cap in Super Mario 64. I was flying around, having a grand old time... And then I hit an invisible wall, and plummeted to the ground. Ever since then, I have hated these see-through barriers relentlessly. I prefer it when the developers take a more unique approach to fencing off the player. In Half-Life 2, straying too far from land results in you being attacked by ravenous fish. Swimming too far from shore in Jak 3 triggers an attack from a bizarre squid-like monster. In Battlefield 1942, leaving the mission area causes your player (Or vehicle) to lose health rapidly after a ten-second warning. More games need to instigate such measures, instead of resorting to the annoying and overdone invisible walls.

Rubber band technology

Ever get a huge lead in Mario Kart 64? Well, it didn't last for long, did it? Instead of letting you enjoy your massively advantageous position, the game juices up the speed of all the racers behind you, causing them to catch up in no time at all. I remember pulling off a huge shortcut at the beginning of Rainbow Road that cuts about a minute off my overall time, only to have my opponents catch up by the end of the lap.

It doesn't bug me much when the lead racer gets crappy items, leaving all the good stuff to those in lower positions. That's just fair, really. But dang it, speeding them up far beyond their usual threshold just isn't right.

Peripheral-dependent games being sold without said peripheral

You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen used copies of Odama sitting on the shelf at my local Rogers Video, only to notice that they don't even have the necessary microphone bundled in with them. Same deal with Mario Party 6 and 7. I know this is hardly the fault of the developer. It's the re-sellers' fault. But dammit, it still really boils my spuds.

Lack of checkpoints

I really, really, REALLY hate it when I get reeeeally far in a level of a game, only to die and restart back at the beginning of the stage. That just annoys me to no end. Working so hard, getting so close, only to fail at the last moment and end up back at square one. You know what would solve this? Checkpoints, people! Like in the old Sonic games from the Genesis/MegaDrive, little markers during the stage acting as restart points. That way if you die, you don't have to restart the whole level.

Another problem is when there's too few checkpoints too far apart. Recently I was playing Half-Life 2: Episode One, at a point where I had to make a timed jump, sprint past a hazard, gun down some enemies and reach a point beyond them, all without dying. Now, I think that's a bit much. In my opinion, there should have been a checkpoint after the hazard. It wouldn't have been quite as bad if I had a chance to heal in between (Thus lowering my chances of losing the gunfight), but that sadly wasn't a possibility.

Then again, there shouldn't be too many checkpoints, either... It's probably a hard balance to strike.

So then, I hope you enjoyed reading about some of the gaming-related pet peeves I have. Now it's your turn: What are some of your gaming pet peeves? Feel free to voice off in the comments section or in this forum thread.

The Duck Has Spoken.

Even more unquestioned gaming oddities

A sequel to "The never-questioned and omnipresent video game oddities".



For as long as games exist, there shall be a never-ending stream of oddities. Here is but another small selection of the crazy stuff that happens in games.

Free anti-gravity boots to every game star

Perhaps the craziest of all video game super abilities would have to be the infamous double-jump. First you jump, then (In mid-air), you jump again, launching off of nothing. Somebody wanna explain this to me?

A few games offer reasons as to how these feat is possible. For example, in some Metroid games players are unable to double-jump until acquiring a special set of space boots. But in other games such as, say, nearly every platformer ever made, there's no reason given at all. People just do what they please, it seems, laws of physics be damned.

Side effects include: Visions of floating coins

While we're on the subject of gravity-defying anomalies, what is up with all the floating items in games? From hovering coins to a cache of arrows levitating in the middle of nowhere, things just have a tendency to float in the magical world of video games.

Please discard all weapons at the front door

Why is it in many Zelda games that you can't use any weapons indoors? With a few exceptions such as mini-game houses, you can never whip out your sword or bow and arrow inside a building. Even some towns prevent the use of weapons (Hyrule Castle Town in Twilight Princess, for example). I guess they don't want you accidentally mutilating an innocent bystander, but with the frequent use of "Can't touch this" (As described in the last installment), what does it matter?

Let's not burn bridges... Because we can't physically do so

What is it with some wood being burnable in games, but other wood being fire-proof? If the characters in the game somehow managed to make a bridge incapable of catching fire, why not just make it out of stone instead? It'd probably be a lot easier than conjuring permanently moist cedar.

And what's with unbreakable wooden doors or whatever? Link can slice and dice monsters like they're ripe onions, but he's somehow foiled by a wooden door? It's not as if he can't kick it down or whatever. Link has bombs, too, but they don't do squat. Go figure.

Black holes make excellent space-savers

Black holes. There can be no other explanation for Cloud Strife holding so many items in a seemingly bottomless (Not to mention invisible) inventory. Too often to game characters have far too many items in far too small a space. Am I expected to believe that a Pokémon trainer's backpack can hold 99 of several different kinds of Pokéballs, a huge stock of berries and a bicycle? How about the gargantuan Biggoron's Sword simply disappearing when Link isn't using it? Where the hell does it go?

The answer is black holes. I cannot accept any other explanation.

This urgent mission can wait while you stock up on items

I can't count how many times a game has given me an urgent mission. And just about as numerous are the times I blew off this dire quest to go stock up on items or perform a side quest. "What's that? Team Magma is stealing a submarine? Gimme a minute, I gotta go participate in a Pokémon contest first.". You can run around for days doing whatever you please, and come back to find that Team Magma's still in the process of stealing the sub.

Time waits for no man. Unless that man is a main character in a game, in which case it'll wait up.

All Goombas come with complimentary invisible spikes

For some reason, merely touching many enemies can inflict sometimes fatal damage on your character. It usually doesn't even matter where you touch the foe, either. Just tapping a Blooper's dorsal fin knocks a chunk out of Mario's health. They must have some sort of damaging forcefield installed or something.

And this hardly seems fair, doesn't it? I say Mario should be able to kill his foes from touching them. I guess I'll just have to settle for the Starman until that day comes...

The above is but one more drop in the giant bucket of bizarre gaming happenings. Look at pretty much any game and you'll be staring an oddity right in the face. Whether it's an indestructible wooden door or an endlessly huge inventory, I can pretty much guarantee a game will have at least one physical impossibility within. But, if games were totally realistic, I don't suppose they'd be any fun, would they? Games are fiction, not fact. But still, a little less spitting in science's face would be nice.

Discuss This Article on the Forums

The Duck Has Spoken.

The never-questioned and omnipresent video game oddities

There are some strange things that always happen in video games. Things that break many of the laws of physics, but we almost never question them. Why? Because they've always been there, ever since the beginning. So here are some insane occurrences and inconsistencies present in almost every game, but you most likely don't notice.

Enemies are rarely dismembered or maimed by swords

This is probably the weirdest of them all. No matter how many times you swipe at an enemy with a sword, they rarely bear any scars or injuries even remotely related to a sword attack. Really, one good swipe with a sword would kill almost any living being, yet it often takes many more than that in the world of video games.

Somewhat related to the above is the light sabers in many Star Wars games. In the movies, does one blow from a light saber not cause severe damage? Doesn't happen in any of the video games I've played.

Bullet-proof hero

Ever watch CSI or any show like that? Often the victims are found with one fatal bullet wound on their body, with maybe one or two additional wounds. That is rarely (If ever) the truth in a video game. Unless it's a headshot, you're likely to get hit quite a few times before being brought down by an enemy. I could take my character in Godfather, run into the middle of a Cuneo gunfight and stand there for a moment, getting pelted with bullets, and survive. My character will merely jerk a bit when hit, and that's it. He should be dead by now!

Jeez, reminds me of that woman in the second Austin Powers movie. "Why won't you die?!"

I never knew Octoroks carried wallets

In almost any video game, killing a monster will yield a cash reward. Y'know, because Tonberries have bank accounts. Have these monsters killed other foes in the past and looted them for some unknown reason? Or perhaps we just keep running into the enemies on their way to the corner store. Because, you know, Tektites need bread, eggs and milk, too.

Weakest enemies up front, if you please

Isn't it convenient how you always start off a game next to incredibly weak enemies? Why can't you ever start in a town with some level 70 monsters kicking around? In Pokémon, you always start off in a small town with no gym leader, incredibly weak wild Pokémon, and with the first gym less than three towns away. Maybe game characters just have really awesome luck. Or really good real estate agents.

Can't touch this

Apparently, Princess Zelda is Superman in disguise. What other explanation could there be for her surviving all these bombs, arrows and sword slashes I keep dishing out? Unless she's merely a figment of my imagination, some allies just can't be injured. Well, not by you, at least. I once emptied my entire ammunition stockpile on Sonny Corleone in The Godfather, only to have him emerge without a scratch. Then, five minutes later, he gets whacked by a few guys wielding tommy guns. I guess the bullets were kryptonite-tipped, or something.

Those houses are deceptively spacious

Run around any town in Final Fantasy or Pokémon. Chances are, you'll run into far more people than there are accommodations for. These people must be hobos or something. Or perhaps Pokémon trainers are too awesome for housing. Either way, somebody's hiding something from us.

Or it's a developer's oversight. That's a possibility too, I suppose.

New weapon = Boss' weakness

In any Zelda game, the weapon you find in a dungeon is key to defeating the boss monster within. Your newly-acquired bombs make quick work of King Dodongo, and your bow and arrow make the battle against Phantom Ganon possible to win. Where's the logic in this? Does Ganon put the weapons in the dungeons for kicks? I suppose has hidden camera in all the boss chambers, and he charges his buddies to watch.

"Watch, watch, Link doesn't know that Stallord has two forms! Look... Ha! That's great. That'll be five bucks, Aganihm."

So, those are several things that occur in many video games, and you've likely not noticed at least one of them. From Super Mario to Jak and Daxter, every game has it's fair share of oddities. I suppose you just stop noticing after a while...

The Duck Has Spoken.

Mini-article: How different could the next Zelda be?

Okay, decided to whip something up quick for those of you who don't wanna hear about the PS3. Also, I had to write this up while I had it all up in my head.



Before Nintendo released The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, they told us it would be the last traditional Zelda game. Something big is going to happen to make the next installment incredibly different, and I've been thinking up just how the franchise might change...

1: Link no longer being humanoid. Think about it: All these twenty years we've been playing as an elf-like Hylian. But what if that were to all change? I feel Wolf Link in Twilight Princess may have given us a certain glimpse into the future...

What if Link were some totally non-human being? A Zora? A Goron? Or even a real animal such as, for example, a dog? It's never been said that Link needed to be humanoid. The next Zelda could really be something different...

2: No longer medieval?. I've been hearing this one for ages. People are thinking that maybe the Zelda series will no longer take place in the medieval-like era of which we are accustomed. After all, how many generations and centuries of Links can go by before we actually see some technological advancement? Could there be a futuristic Zelda on the horizon?

Or what if it turns out to be the opposite? What if it's some sort of bizarre, pre-history land of caves and proto-humans? What if Link's just some saber-toothed tiger hunting Neanderthal? Or is this just too weird? You really can never tell with Nintendo...

3: What if there's just no more Link? What if the hero's bloodline just dwindles out, leaving only normal citizens to fight against the legions of Ganondorf? It could become an epic story of new-found heroes and unexpected powers. Perhaps another lies inside the land of Hyrule... Another with an amazing power hidden within...

4: What if Zelda becomes the main character? It is called The Legend of Zelda, after all! This could also work in conjunction with the previous possibility. Zelda leading a resistance of make-shift warriors against the tyranny of the evil ruler Ganondorf, fighting with what little remains to make things right again...

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

Whatever this significant change turns out to be, I'm sure it will be one hell of a ride once it begins. A brand-new Zelda is in the works as we speak, and it could be the greatest thing to ever happen to the franchise.

The Duck Has Spoken.