Destiny: Bungie's New Adventure (Why I'm Beyond Excited)

If any of you either know me personally of have followed this blog for a decent amount of time, it will come as no surprise to you that I have an impossibly large amount of love for Bungie and the universes that they weave. I wanted to write this article several months ago, but there was so little information known about the game that doing so seemed very counter productive to the point. Now, with the release of several Bungie ViDocs (Video Documentaries) there exists concrete information about the studios next adventure. The game is still in alpha and comparatively there is still very little known about the game, but still I think now's the right time to geek out about it.

A living universe to explore with art design straight from the gods.

This game is built for immersion from the ground up. The philosophy behind Destiny is for players to venture out into the world and tell their own stories, build their own legends. I love exploration in games, and it's something Bungie does very well. Even in the later more linear Halo titles, there were days where I would meander off the path and explore the expansive levels on my own. 

Not only is the game built from the ground up to be explored, it's built from the ground up to be played with friends, cooperatively. Let me paint a picture.

Post apocalyptic, yet beautiful and hopeful. 

You are on traversing the ruins of Old Russia on planet earth, you come across a great wall enclosing the abandoned city behind it. As you approach the ruins of the great wall, you see something in the sky.  A spacecraft flying towards you, breaking the invisible curtain of space. The craft curves upwards and someone beams down beside you from the ship. A friend. You venture together in the great wall and defeat the foul creatures who had claimed it. As you head out the other side of the wall you see something in the distance; an alien ship of unknown origin is headed right for the city. From all around the area, you see other players running to join the fight. No matchmaking, no menus, no lobbies. 

You will come across other players as naturally and as seamlessly as you would come across other people in your day to day life. This is something that excites me. To be able to be on my own journey and meet others and unite with other players for a common goal without loading screens or lobbies.

Anywhere you can see, you can go.

Let's say you're on your way to do a story mission, but something catches your attention, maybe you notice a fleet of other guardians ships flying to a particular location and decide you want to go where they're going. You can. A mountain in the distance that would in our current generation would be a 2 dimensional piece of background art? Nope. All playable space. I imagine that there are some boundaries eventually. The game can't go on forever, even with the next gens boost in power, but there's no question that Destiny's landscapes will be large and diverse. 

In Destiny we can customize our characters to our hearts content from our armor and weapons to our gender, class, race, and faction. We can customize our own personal aircrafts (although no word on wether or not we can fly them, but I'm gonna assume we can.) We can join in on public events, play raids, strikes, campaign, competitive multiplayer, or simply play in the sandbox of the games living and breathing world. 

While details on these other game modes are currently still under wraps, it should be expected that they will be every bit as fun as we can hope for them to be. While Destiny isn't exactly an MMO, it does have elements of it, which means the game needs to be connected to the internet to play it, which makes sense considering the game is designed so you run into people and public events are a large part of the game. Though you need an internet connection to play, no subscription fee will be needed, so fear not ye MMO faithful.

Mythic Science Fiction.

Bungie is fantastic at creating fascinating lore and rich sci-fi universes. So to see them drift a little into the realm of fantasy, makes me extraordinary excited. It's science-fantasy isn't something explored in many games, and hardly in any first person shooters, so the fact that Bungie is not only working with something familiar with but with something different, is a great thing. Destiny's universe looks to be something I could lose myself in for hours on end, and I look forward to doing exactly that when the game releases for Xbox One and PS4 sometime early next year. (My money's on a spring/summer release.)

I wish I could write more, but again, the game is still in pre-alpha, so Bungie is being very conservative with the things they bring to the public. However, since Bungie has stated so many of their promises with confidence, and they never break promises, it's safe to say that what is true today will be true when the game launches. They've been working on Destiny internally for about 6 years already, and they've been working on it on paper for about 9. A lot of planning is going into this game and it's looking better and better every time I see new information about it. 

This is in Halo 3: ODST which released in 2009.

Fun fact: this game will be amazing.

How Anime Died ... For Me

This isn't game based, but it's something I've noticed a lot recently and it might relate to why I can't find enjoyment out of games like Kingdom Hearts or any Final Fantasy that isn't Final Fantasy 3. However, keep in mind I'm not talking about single films like "Howls Moving Castle," I'm talking in the vein of Death Note, Code Geass, Bleach, Full Metal Alchemist etc.

I've Seen It All Before

It's disappointing to think about, but once I've completed one anime I've basically got a blueprint for how the following series will go. It's one of the shortfalls of animation in general. Repetition is difficult to avoid. I feel like every scene I've ever seen in every anime I've ever watched is a direct clone of another scene from another anime, and it's a strange feeling of Deja Vu and nausea. 

I've already seen the hero shove food into his mouth at mach speed I've seen the clash in the sky, I've seen the pointlessly long opening and closing credits, I've seen the quiet girl who seems to have the same archetype in everything, I've seen the perverted side character and the guy whose art style is slightly different from everyone else's just because. I've seen the confident hero, and cocky anti hero, and the two dimensional villain. I've seen the half naked women bathing in the hot springs, the obvious fan service, the low budget inspired slapstick, the over dramatized groups of thugs that appear perfectly okay with being cannon fodder, the bath scenes, the contrived and convenient methods of bringing back dead characters, the same exact sword sequences, and the heavily choreographed yet still incredibly repetitive fight sequences, the two dimensional characters that stick around forever.

Swords will always lead to this

I've seen it all before. A lot of these tropes are used in film and games as well, but the issue here is repetition. In film people have inspirations that vary from one another. Different styles of conveying different scenes, this is because there are multiple things about film that are actually difficult to replicate. In anime, it's the exact opposite. Mouth movements have been standardized to a single sound to allow for flexible dubbing and due to the detail in the art and animation, studios benefit from retrofitting previous animations with new coats of paint. In fact, Disney is famous for this.

Disney animation takes a long time mainly because a vast majority of classic Disney movies use actual footage that's been traced over frame by frame. Though an impressive finished product, it makes for an impractical way of animating, so they simply re-skin scenes they feel they can use again.

Just a small example

Anime, while not traced over found footage, goes through the same constraints. Unlike Disney movies, however, anime needs to continue to be produced on a frequent basis, mostly lasting to the point of convolution and overstaying their welcome. Because of this basic need for frequency in production, cost effective measures need to be taken, I.E standardized design. 

Design suffers for cost efficiency and become generic

I have to say, I can't necessarily blame the studios for cutting these corners. Anime is expensive to produce and I like to think that the main reason for cutting costs for production is mainly to allow those who work on it to earn a fair living wage. Still, when all is said and done, it's repetition that killed anime for me. There are still shows that I vastly enjoy. I enjoy the nostalgic value of Dragon Ball Z, and the choreography and concepts of Naruto. I enjoy the idea of Death Note, and Cowboy Bebop. I can enjoy Rurouni Kenshin and Ghost in the Shell, but all the interesting concepts explored by these shows lose their value as their stories drift on past their glory days. While Naruto begins as a fascinating take on ninjas and the use of elements, it quickly drifts into mindless caveats and convoluted situations. 

So perhaps it's more than just repetition. It may also be an overstaying welcome. Where most TV shows have learned this lesson the hard way, anime has not. Few animes offer proper closure because they go on seemingly forever. Although this may not count, Avatar: The Last Airbender is my favorite example of a show ending in it's glory. It was a great show, never stale, great animation, and most of all it knew where it was going. It offers closure. I know Avatar is a 'cartoon' not an 'anime.' So? It does what most anime should do, and it does it well. Not to mention cartoons often last longer than animes do. How long has The Simpson's been on again?

Too long, yet still not as repetitive as One Piece 

Why BioShock Infinite Left a Lasting Impression on Me, and The Last of Us Didn't ...

I'd like to preface this article by saying that I genuinely loved both games. I already wrote an article comparing them, but I don't want to get into direct comparisons and arguments about wether or not one is better than the other. The great thing about artistically strong games like these is that they are art. What I do want to address is why I feel BioShock Infinite left a bigger impression on me than The Last of Us did. Also, possible SPOILERS are ahead.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET PLAYED OR COMPLETED

BIOSHOCK, BIOSHOCK INFINITE, OR 

THE LAST OF US - TURN BACK NOW!

Sorry. I just refuse to ruin any of these amazing experiences for people who haven't yet played them.

Let's get going.

Familiar Territory

I genuinely consider The Last of Us to be the first big budget game to really nail the feeling of a zombie apocalypse in every sense; from story to atmosphere to tone. The realism in the game is astonishing and the tension is top notch. The characters are believable and the setting is beautiful. However, it's that very strength that is it's weakness. We've seen the zombie apocalypse. We've seen it done well. We're familiar with the archetypes of character's evolutions in these situations. We've seen these plot twists. It's familiar territory done astonishingly well, but it's familiar territory nevertheless. 

BioShock Infinite has the benefit of having a completely unique setting and story. We've not seen this is a video game before, or any medium for that matter. A city in the sky built by a religious defector of the United States who uses the manipulation of quantum mechanics to manufacture his status as a powerful prophet in the 1910s? It's unfamiliar territory, and it's new to us. BioShock Infinite has a lot to say and by the end of the game we feel as though we've just been through a mind bending experience. The music, the world, and the atmosphere all merge into this incredibly unique experience that I've never experienced in a game. 

Profound Ideas

By the end of BioShock Infinite we are left to contemplate so much. The game explores racism, religious extremism, revolution, multiverse theory, quantum mechanics, abuse of power, nationalism, political idolatry, time travel, humanity, rebirth etc. It asks profound questions. What is free will? Is choice an illusion? What is the difference between the malevolent dictator and the violent revolutionaries? Are we our own worst enemies? 

There are questions the player will have upon completing the game. It doesn't hand everything to you at the end. It leaves you with the biggest piece of the puzzle, but it's up to the player to piece it together. The second time playing the game gives it new meaning. You understand what the world of the game is saying. You understand the nuances that you may have missed before. Making those connections is a fascinating experience. It was much like the end of the original BioShock when you finally understand the significance of Atlas's particular way of speaking only on a deeper and more profound level. There is not a single thing in BioShcok Infinite that is in the game for the sake of being in the game. It's all there for a reason, and having completed the game 10 times and finally pieced that puzzle together, I can say that with the upmost confidence. 

Expect The Expected

At the end of The Last of Us we're left to contemplate wether Joel was a good person or not. Is it selfish to abandon the chance to save the human race in order to keep what you love intact, or is it smart? It asks us what we're willing to sacrifice and for what? Unfortunately, this is again familiar territory. We're asked to contemplate exactly what we were expecting to contemplate simply because the situation in which the game takes place is so familiar. Perhaps if The Walking Dead hadn't been so recent The Last of Us might've hit a little closer to home, but it doesn't break new ground in what it does so much as it breaks new ground in how it does it. The Last of Us, again, is the finest example of capturing the feel of a zombie apocalypse, but if they had just deviated from the norm just a little bit, it probably would have been even greater. 

To this day I think deeply about the ending of BioShock Infinite, and I only ever think of The Last of Us when BioShock Infinite is mentioned simply because the two were so closely compared for so long. The Last of Us is definitely an amazing experience and I very much doubt you'll forget playing it. It's one of those games that you'll likely remember several years from now, but in terms of leaving a lasting impression? In terms of blowing minds? In terms of asking unique questions in new ways? It's not likely to be something you'll think about too often. The Last of Us is a story to be experienced. BioShock Infinite is an experience that will make you think. If there's any reason BioShock Infinite left a lasting impression on me, it's this:

It's well beyond unfamiliar territory.

Is Call of Duty Finally Losing Ground?

  Back in 2007 we saw Call of Duty become a juggernaut in the gaming industry with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Ever since that year we've seen a slew of titles that have tried to emulate the series. It is undeniable that Call of Duty has left it's mark on the industry. Games like Homefront, Medal of Honor, even Crysis and Halo took notes. For a while it seemed Call of Duty was too big to fail. It was an annual series and consistently broke sales records with each new release.

  I'm going to be brutally honest here. I genuinely dislike the series. I owned Call of Duty 4 and I even enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 for a little while, but people can only handle so much redundancy. The games came year after year with such little innovation that it quickly became stale.

You know a game is stale when I can show you a 

screenshot and you can't tell which game it's from.

  Regardless, it still sold millions, but with E3 in our memories and the excitement of new hardware, new intellectual properties, and promises of greater experiences fresh in our minds, is Call of Duty finally on death row? This is the first time that I've felt confident in this answer but, I honestly think it is. We are at a point in time where we are demanding more from our games. For the next generation of consoles we want experiences that we haven't had before. Call of Duty couldn't be further from a fresh experience if it tried.

  The curse of having a popular franchise is that the risks that the developers are willing to take in said franchise are minute. If you change too much about the game it ceases to identify with fans and it becomes a different intellectual property and if a new intellectual property launches it lacks the name recognition of the series which will hurt sales. 

When you're biggest marketing point is the ability

to play as dogs, you should probably 

reevaluate the situation.

  This is the first year in what seems like ages that Call of Duty didn't have a presence at the E3 press events. The first we saw of it was at the official Xbox One hardware reveal and the promise of the developers was this: dogs and a deep story. Destiny promises open landscapes and persistent worlds in which players will travel through the solar system all without loading screens or starting menus. Dead Rising 3 promises a persistent online world without loading screens, the ability to use anything as a weapon, unique and varied artificial intelligence systems that learn from player interactions to create the best zombie apocalypse game in existence. Call of Duty Ghosts promises ... dogs. 

  Not only are there other games that are promising better experiences than the folks developing Call of Duty, but Respawn Entertainment, ex-CoD developers, are making their game better than Infinity Ward is. Have you seen Titanfall? It's Call of Duty + Mechs + Persistent World + Parkour + Jetpacks.

It's like Mirror's Edge, with Call of Duty, 

with Hawken, with Crysis.

Awesome.

  Titanfall is basically Call of Duty, but fresh, fun, and unique. This is exactly what we want. I wanna jet pack out of a giant mech, and latch on to the brain of an enemy mech and shoot it's brain until it explodes. I want to rip the pilot our of a mech like ripping a heart out of the enemy. That's just cool. I'll admit, I enjoyed playing Modern Warfare 2. It's mindless fun, running and gunning, and it's nice to just relax and not think too much when playing a game. I totally get that, but just because something is mindless doesn't mean it can stay the same forever. If you sell the same product to the same people every year, they're going to get bored. Titanfall is definitely looking up to being a great mindless run and gun game with some awesome twists and I look forward to playing it, because like it or not we can't run on games like The Last of Us. Sometimes we need to blow off steam. However, if Titanfall follows the same path Call of Duty is now on, it wont last. Annualizing Titanfall would be an awful idea and hopefully the folks at Respawn Recognize that. 

  I honestly believe Call of Duty is on the decline and if there's any game that's going to take it's place I have a feeling it's going to be Titanfall. Of course Titanfall doesn't release until spring of next year, so if anything's going to dethrone Call of Duty Ghosts in 2013 it's GTA V, but that's just my guess.

  Will Call of Duty still continue to sell millions? I don't even remotely doubt that. There will continue to be fans of the franchise who will pick up Ghosts by the millions, but I can say with certainty that in the year 2014, Call of Duty will not break any sales records and will fall behind. A 2013 sales record being broken for the franchise is more likely, but even that I'm skeptical of. 

Why the Wii U is Struggling

I'm not gonna give you sales percentages, figures, or any of that, but I will say this. The Wii U is not doing well. To put things in perspective, it should be noted that in the last few months the Wii has been outselling the Wii U. That's not remotely good. So what's the problem with the Wii U? Why is it doing so poorly? To answer that question we first have to look at how Nintendo handled their new console launch.

It's a Wii U ... no, wait ... that's the controller.

Is this a Wii controller? I'm so confused.

Now, I'm not an idiot. I knew what the Wii U was immediately when I saw it. This is a new console that utilizes a second screen controller. To the hardcore gamer this is obvious information. The problem with that is that they marketed the new console in a way that would be most easily understood by the people who were the least interested in buying it in the first place. The gaming landscape has changed, so let's be honest with ourselves. Hardcore gamers are not in Nintendo's camp anymore. The casual market is the market that Nintendo has committed themselves to. The Wii set a precedent that Nintendo was the family friendly console, the console that focused on gimmicks and family friendly entertainment. 

A vast majority of people had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the Wii U was. People thought it was a Wii peripheral, some thought it was a handheld, and some even thought it might have been a Wii slim. The marketing was unclear and now they're paying the price, but is that they only thing they messed up on? No, Sir. 

This is a next generation system. The Wii U is not.

In the last generation, Nintendo made a console that was vastly inferior to it's competitors in terms of versatility, processing power, and graphical capability, but it made up for it by being the cheapest console on the market, having a simple but unique twist on motion controls, and being 100% backwards compatible. The Wii U did none of this. The Wii U is fairly expensive, the control design is essentially just a tablet with an analog/button layout, and it's backwards compatible for Wii games only. That's not so bad. I can play Super Smash Brothers Brawl and ... um ... Oh.

On top of the fact that the new console offers none of the benefits of it's predecessor, it was also kind enough to maintain all of the same detriments. It's a vastly inferior console to it's competitors. The PS4 and Xbox One have 8 gigabytes of RAM in total to utilize and optimize the UI and performance. These systems are capable of doing things not even possible on this generation of hardware and games like Watch Dogs and Destiny are fine examples. The Wii U has two gigs of RAM total to utilize the UI and performance. 

To put this in perspective, understand that the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 all had the same amount of RAM available: 512 MB. The reason the Nintendo Wii was much less powerful that it's competitors was because of how that memory was allocated. In the next generation, not only is the Wii U left in the dust when it comes to power and memory, it's RAM is 43% slower than the Xbox 360's. 

This is the Xbox One. It's as powerful as 8 Wii U consoles

combined. 

The problem with the Wii U is this: It's already the weak link. 

We live in a society in which technology advances drastically every single day. When your technology is out of date in today's world, you've already fallen too far behind. The Wii U has one gigabyte of RAM to utilize for games. That's almost two Xbox 360s. Power is important. We don't need to change the way we play games. We don't need fancy tablets to take the place of our controllers. We want hardware that's strong enough to facilitate the ambitions of the developers. The Wii U doesn't have that. 

The PS4 and Xbox One allow for independent game development, persistent online worlds, and enhancements to the way we operate our systems and play our games. The key word there is "enhancements." What Nintendo has been trying to do is change the way we play games, not make our games play better. That's the fundamental issue with the Nintendo brand as of late. "We've got a tablet for a controller. You like normal controllers? Well, we sell that separately, but most of our games are specific to the touch screen controller, so I guess you'll have to deal with it."

Xbox 360 (LEFT) Xbox One (RIGHT)

Microsoft did the exact opposite. They took the controller that worked and enhanced it. They fine tuned the way the triggers and bumpers worked, they integrated the battery pack, they tightened the dead zones on the sticks, and they redesigned the D-PAD. They took what was already good and made it better. You want to use motion/voice controls with Kinect? No? Well, you don't have to, but if ever you want to try it out, it's always available to you.

Nintendo loves to abandon ideas and I con't understand why? There's nothing wrong with innovation, in fact it's the life blood of the industry. It keeps things fresh and it keeps things moving, but we've already reached our destination. If you keep moving, you're just missing your stop. It's not our controllers that need innovating, it's our architectures. We need to be able to make games deeper, bigger, better. 

I hope the Wii U doesn't end up like the Dreamcast, but it's certainly not looking good. 

BioShock Infinite: Downloadable Content Done RIGHT

I talked a lot about why I loved BioShock Infinite when I compared it with The Last of Us, but I wanted to delve more into the developers of the game and how they treat the franchise and it's fans, and why it makes the game that much better.

What mystery lies beyond these words?

When BioShock Infinite shipped, buyers had the option (and still do) to buy a Season Pass which would give you all future DLC for the game. When I got about 10 minutes into the game, I knew I was going to buy this sucker. My favorite game in recent memory expanded? How could I say no? 

Here's what makes Irrational Games awesome. Today, July 30th 2013, they announced all future DLC for BioShock Infinite, with one simple DLC releasing TODAY and the other more complicated ones being released at a later date. No "day-one-DLC" crap, no DLC after a week of release bullshit, these are expansions that have been crafted after the game's release. This is what DLC should be. It's unfortunate, but we've grown accustomed to buying games in fragments. We buy 50% of the game at launch and we eventually buy the rest as downloadable content. What Irrational Games is doing here is giving us more of the game, while so many other studios are comfortable giving us the rest of the game.

So, what exactly are the DLCs?

It's the Horde mode I've wanted for ages.

The first DLC is Clash in the Clouds, and it's essentially Horde mode. Waves of enemies are unleashed upon the player and you have to survive as long as you possibly can under the ever increasing weight of your challenge. This expansion is available today for download at the low price of $5.00.

There were many people who felt that the combat in BioShock Infinite was weak and inferior to the original, but I really didn't feel that way. In fact, outside of story and plot, I felt the combat in BioShock Infinite was one of it's greatest assets. It's nuanced, complicated, and intricate and it allowed to for some really interesting combinations. The game, albeit, is not easy to play for casual players, but for the core gamer, the combat is just awesome. This DLC is exactly what I've been looking for. I've played through BioShock Infinite nine times, and if there's anything I can tell you, it's that the last six times I played through it wasn't for the story. The story is fantastic and it's one of my favorite video game narratives of all time, but the reason you play a game again is because it's fun to play. So being able to play nothing but combat, no story, no nothing, that's really cool to me.

BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea returns players to Rapture. 

I will sell my organs for this.

BioShock Infinite's next expansion, Burial at Sea, will be a story driven installment that puts Booker DeWitt and Elizabeth in Rapture before the fall. This expansion however will take place over two episodes. Episode One focusing on Booker and Episode Two allowing players to play as Elizabeth. The game will be more focused on survival horror and more on story than anything else. This is another example of Ken Levine's ability to know exactly what his fans want. There are those who cared only for the story in BioShock Infinite and there are those who loved the gameplay. Now, there are options for each of these groups to enjoy what they love without having to buy the stuff they don't want. Players who don't want the Horde mode and simply want the story expansions, and vice versa can buy each separately. This is the way it's done. 

But what's more important about these DLCs, is that they're done right. These aren't tacked on expansions or stuff that was cut from the original game that we're now paying to access. This is new content. Content we specifically asked for. Content we wanted that the developers at Irrational are now working to give us. Hats off to you, Ken Levine. I'd love to shake your hand.

This is Ken Levine. He is awesome.

He is also a genius. 

That is all.

Revisiting Games: Is it Best to Leave Nostalgia Alone?

Recently, I've been revisiting a vast majority of my old games. I'm talking the original PlayStation and GameBoy. I've read many accounts of people revisiting their old games and realizing that games they once loved were actually flawed in major ways, especially since a majority of old games existed before game design was an established 'design' method. Developers back then didn't have a handbook of rules like they do now. It was open season for ideas, and that's partially why we remember them so fondly. They didn't fit with the mold that we've become accustomed to in recent years.

While reading these accounts of disappointment in classic favorites I decided to figure out wether it was best to look back at my childhood favorites without my rose tinted glasses. These are my thoughts on a few select games that I visited that I feel still hold up. Three champions.

THE THREE CHAMPIONS WHO STOOD THE TEST OF TIME

POKÉMON YELLOW

Yes, I popped in good old Pokémon Yellow. Now, I'm not blind, the game still has problems, pretty major ones too. EXP management is a bit of a nuisance, the dialogue is atrociously bad, and the battle system doesn't quite understand what 'turn based' actually means. That being said, the game has still aged rather well. It's very playable, which is more than I can say for a vast majority of the PS1 and N64 library. The battles are fun and satisfying, and the atrocious dialogue provides some nice humor for an older audience.

This will never not be funny.

The game is old, so it doesn't benefit from big budgets and tons of flash, but it's a charming game, and I wasn't disappointed when I revisited it. In fact, I think I appreciate it even more now.

SPIDER-MAN

The graphics are terrible, the loading screens are all over the place, the camera is frustrating, and the combat is awkward. I love it. I remember a simpler time, when games were worlds to explore and stories to experience. One of the benefits of revisiting games like these in the modern era is being able to look up everything you missed when you played it as a child. Games used to be riddled with secrets, and this game is from that time. I had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA that there was a 'what if' mode that would alter the game for a second play through. In todays climate, the developers want you to know everything about their games and they'll market the crap out of them to show you. Spider-Man for PS1 hasn't aged well, but again, I wasn't disappointed, in fact I was blown away by just how many things I missed when I played it all those years ago.

CRASH TEAM RACING

The graphics are terrible ... that's literally all that's changed for me. If this game was remastered Halo Anniversary style, this game would hold up as a monumentally amazing cart racer. The controls are tight, which is quite the feat for a game as old as this one. The music is fun, the tracks are fun, the controls are great and nuanced. Of all the games that I revisited, this one is definitely the best and it's the only one that holds a candle up to even the most recent games in it's genre out of the three champions.  

HONORABLE MENTION

This game has aged very badly, but for whatever 

reason, I loved playing it, and I'll probably play it again

very soon.

I played a ton of games. I played Strider, Spyro, Halo CE, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Grinch, Ape Escape, etc. I love them all, and now that I've revisited them with no rose tinted glasses, what do I think of them? Are they as pristine as I remember them? No. Of course not. The person I am now is a vastly more intelligent person that the person I was when I played these games the first time. I understand design, I understand video games as a medium. I know that there's nothing beyond the border of the game because they are no longer worlds, they are entertainment. Does that disappoint me like it does so many others?

I don't understand why it would? Yeah, some games are better in your mind, but I liked visiting the classics. Some games are worse than I remember them, like Medievil and Spyro, and some games are better than I remember them, like Spider-Man and Ape Escape, and some are just as pristine as I remember them, like Crash Team Racing. It's interesting to see what games actually stand the test of time, not disappointing. The games we loved as children, we'll always love. They were the first and they'll hold special places in our memory. Hell, I revisited Medievil and Spyro and even though I remembered them being better games, I still love them. Because I had fun with them as a kid, and no amount of age or criticism is going to prevent myself from enjoying them in the past. That ship's sailed. 

It's important to be critical, but it's also important to appreciate as well. As bad as a game might seem ten years from now, all that matters is that it's fun now. So do yourself a favor. Revisit your classics. You might be surprised at how accurate or inaccurate your memory is. 

SkyRoads. This takes me back.