E3 2014 Impressions

Another year, another E3. Being as the PS4 and XBox One are now out in the wild, this year was never going to be as exciting as the last, but I for one was pretty interested to see how Sony and Microsoft would follow up the blowout that was E3 2013. For most people, this year was probably about Nintendo. The Wii U has been struggling for almost 2 years now, and is only now beginning to pickup steam. Mario Kart 8 is a big success, Smash Bros 4 is rapidly building excitement, and there were a lot of big Nintendo franchises people were hoping to see this year. Ubisoft and EA were there too, as they always are. For some reason. I saw it all, and even took notes this year, so here are my thoughts on E3 2014.

Microsoft

Unfortunately for Microsoft, it seems like they are still battling the perception that there is nothing to play on the XBox One, and thus no reason to buy one. I think this is expected so early in a consoles life, now that multiplatform releases are so prevalent, but Microsoft seems to be struggling with it a bit more than their competitors thanks in part to their focus on non-games during the consoles reveal. Microsoft put on a pretty good conference though. They focused on the games, showing a good 20 or so titles, including some interesting exclusives. Sunset Overdrive still looks like a wonderful collection of color and smarm, Platinum Games' Scalebound is sure to be a hit (because they are Platinum Games and they cannot fail) and Ori the Blind Forest is intriguing to me. I'm sure the Halo Collection and Halo 5 were very exciting to people, too.

My biggest complaint though, is that I don't think Microsoft really managed to break their image of generic games for college guys. Not a lot of what I saw in this 90 minute presentation deviated from "shoot and race and stab people with up to 4 players!". I'm also becoming rapidly more annoyed by phrases like "available first on system x!" or "exclusive console release on system y!". I don't really want to watch a trailer of a game that is going to be included in another conference, I don't want to watch cinematic trailers, and I don't want to watch fake gameplay footage wherein some shmuck walks on stage and pretends they are actually playing the game. Microsoft definitely isn't the only one doing these things, but somehow it annoys me more when they do it. I suppose perhaps I am just biased against Microsoft, but there you have it.

EA

I seriously doubt that anyone went into EA's conference with very high expectations. They aren't a very well liked company on the whole, and being known as the sports/sims guys who buy other companies doesn't really help. I will say however that their conference started out very strongly. Showing Star Wars Battlefront before saying a word was certainly heartening. I'm not usually a fan of musical presentations at E3, but following Star Wars up with a lady with a Cello playing to the Dragon Age Inquisition footage was pretty awesome, too. In fact all of the Dragon Age footage was pretty awesome to see, and I'm sure a lot of people are very hyped about it. Unfortunately after Dragon Age EA's conference changed from a decent show, to what was in my opinion, the worst this year.

But then EA started saying words, and it was all over. They managed to talk about a lot of games without actually saying much of anything about them, and they said a lot about their annual franchises which, let's be honest, there really isn't much to say. Bioware announced that they are working on a new Mass Effect and an unannounced game, Dawngate was confirmed to exist, and there was a lot of talk about sports, which I've always assumed the demographic for E3 really does not care about. I think my favorite was GOLF WITHOUT LIMITS on the Frostbyte engine, with no loading between holes! Mirror's Edge 2 was officially unveiled but again, we didn't get much out of it except that it is in fact Mirror's Edge 2. That said, it's good to see, as Mirror's Edge is a well loved game with a very unique and refreshing aesthetic and concept. Then we got a good look at Battlefield Hardline, which looks a lot like it did last year when it was Battlefield 4.

Ubisoft

Following in EA's footsteps came Ubisoft. Historically their conferences have been about little more than Assassin's Creed + awkward live performance + something, and has hinged on being quirky and French as well as the divisive Aisha Tyler as host. This year had seemingly more games than others, but still delivered on it's MO. Probably the thing that has stood out to me the most about Ubisoft at E3 this year as well as last, was the immaturity of their conference. E3 is the biggest platform video games have, and I think it reflects poorly on us when the face you choose to show to the media and investors is Aisha Tyler saying things like "It's hella fuckin smokey as shit, apparently it's 420 in this bitch". I held the same opinion last year when we opened with a trailer containing nudity. I'm definitely not trying to say these things aren't ok to have in games, but trying way too hard to be edgy isn't exactly the best way to legitimize our favorite pastime.

Anyways, rant aside, Ubisoft's conference was at least a bit better than EA's but not by much. Far Cry 4 had no gameplay, but there was a very engrossing intro cinematic that I liked a lot. Conversely, Assassin's Creed Unity had both cinematic and gameplay, but a worse showing than in the Microsoft conference. Just Dance is yet another annual franchise, The Crew has yet to give me a reason to care about it and Shape Up seems like a mediocre exercise game, despite seeming better than what's already out there. The Division and Valiant Hearts win the award for most depressing trailers ever, which made me lose interest in the game and conference both. Ubisoft closed with Rainbow Six: Siege, which seemed like a decent enough game, but was so staged it's really hard to judge. I find it amusing that Ubisoft is also catching a lot of flak this E3 because of their use of a female hostage in the Rainbow Six demo, and the lack of playable females in Assassin's Creed. Oh Ubisoft. Maybe one day you will learn how to present yourself.

Sony

Ahh Sony. The defending champion. They wrecked Microsoft last year with their cheaper, more powerful console and less restrictive feature list. This year the race is much closer, and Sony's conference much more complacent. There were a lot of subtle little jabs at Microsoft that came across as a bit distasteful to me, like throwing a punch after the bell has rung. Sony's conference was also really poorly paced, opening quite strongly, and then transitioning into boring PSN features and weird pieces of hardware. These new things may well be things people care about, but we aren't going to know until they are released, and as cool as YouTube is, it's not a great way to build E3 hype. The show ended with should be some pretty exciting games, but after the boring middle, there was no hype left.

On the whole Sony showcased a more colorful selection of games, thanks to the likes of Entwined, Abzu and No Man's Sky. It had it's own share of exclusives too, with the likes of The Order 1866, Bloodborne and Uncharted 4, though none of their presence were very surprising. Unfortunately they were also stricken with PS4 ports of PS3 games (Grand Theft Auto V and the Last of Us), a trend that I find somewhat annoying. I also really enjoyed the tongue in cheek introductions that Magicka 2 and Grim Fandango got. I think a lot of people were hoping for some kind of showstopper from Sony, as well as some Kingdom Hearts of Final Fantasy. Unfortunately we didn't really get any of those. I think the closest we got to a showstopper was No Man's Sky, which is a game we saw at VGX and, despite being really pretty, struck me as kind of ephemeral.

Nintendo

Finally, we have Nintendo. They have always kind of done their own thing both in and out of E3. As I said at the beginning, there were a lot of eyes on Nintendo this year, especially after the previous 4 conferences all ranged from mediocre to straight up awful. I don't think Nintendo knocked it out of the park. I think a lot of people are still waiting for a lot of things from Nintendo. But I think they did well enough. They wasted a lot of time trying to convey just how much love and care goes into creating the games they showed. It is a sentiment that is important, but one that I think they conveyed without the diatribes, and one that doesn't really engage the viewer. What I will say is that this year Nintendo really made great use of the digital medium through which they were presenting, with Robot Chicken sketches and CG Reggie/Iwata.

As expected, games like Hyrule Warriors and what little there was to say about Wii U Zelda generated a lot of hype. Smash Bros was surprisingly excited to see, despite there already being large amounts of information about it out there. I'm a really big fan of what Nintendo is doing to stylize their graphics in games like Yoshi's Wooly World and Kirby and the Rainbow Curse. Even if it's done to mask the Wii U's inferior graphics capabilities, it makes for a really cool aesthetic. Xenoblade Chronicles X is a game that I was really excited for going into this E3 (and still am) but the footage they showed during the presentation I found to be ugly and uninteresting. The clear surprise act here was Splatoon, though. A third person arena shooter wherin you control a squid trying to cover the arena in more ink than your opponent. It's a surprisingly clever and elegant game, I'm a little dubious as to how well it will actually sell though. The whole Nintendo aftershow kind of killed the hype for Splatoon though. In fact the multiple day long after show is pretty lame on the whole to me, but to each their own I suppose.

In Summary

So who won? What are the standouts? After the first day, this was Nintendo's E3 to lose. They definitely pulled it off in my mind. I didn't see as much as I wanted to from them, but their conference got me excited in a way that none of the others did. This E3 made me feel like soon my purchase of a Wii U will be justified, and there are at least 3 games that I definitely want to own ASAP, which is 30% of the games in Nintendo's presentation. Also Nintendo's Smash Bros Invitational is probably the most hyped I've ever been about E3, but that wasn't a conference so it doesn't count, ok? I think Microsoft had the second best presentation, but I find I am more interested in the games that Sony had to show. I didn't see any "must have"s out of either of them, but about 3-5 "would play"s out of each. On the whole I would say this E3 was pretty mediocre. But then every E3 seems to end up more mediocre than I hope. I would say that this year was slightly ahead of the average. I saw some cool games, I saw some cool presentation ideas, and I didn't see too much that actively offended me.

4 Reasons A Link Between Worlds is the Best Zelda Yet

Back when Nintendo was just pushing the 3DS onto an unsuspecting world, there was a lot of talk about where the Zelda franchise was going. Skyward Sword had been in the works for a long time, and now Ocarina of Time was getting a pretty major facelift in the form of Ocarina of Time 3D. So naturally people started to wonder, if Ocarina of Time was getting remade, what was next? Many people have rallied long and hard for Majora's Mask, though unfortunately that has not yet come to fruition. However, it didn't take long before Shigeru Miyamoto himself piped up saying he would love to remake A Link to the Past. 

Now I don't know if you know this, but I love me some Link to the Past, so I was pretty hyped about the possibility of a remake of my favorite Zelda game. Then along comes word that A Link Between Worlds was coming, and was a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. I was instantly interested in the game. I didn't even make the connection at the time, that this was our HD remake. We probably aren't going to get an HD Link to the Past. At first this realization made me kind of sad, but I think it's for the best. A Link Between Worlds is probably a better game than an HD Link to the Past could have been. A Link Between Worlds is probably the best Zelda game to date, in fact. Here are some reasons why:

1) The Controls

It wasn't that long ago that I talked a bit about the importance of good controls. They matter a lot. You can tell a game is going to be fun if you pick it up and just controlling your character feels good even without goals or challenges to overcome. A Link Between Worlds has this feel. From minute one you can tell just how responsive Link is to your slightest nudge on the circle pad. He rockets around Hyrule at what seems like a blistering pace, and yet it never feels like he is out of control. He goes where you want, when you want. It seems simple, but it goes a long way when you can't blame stupid deaths on bad controls.

Of course a lot of this precision comes from the simple fact that the 3DS uses the circle pad to control Link's movement. If you think about it, just about every 2D Zelda game has always used the d-pad for character movement. This of course comes with the inherent disadvantage of only being able to handle 8 different directional inputs. So it's not really a big surprise that given the 360 degree movement of the circle pad, A Link Between Worlds feels like a breath of fresh air. Granted there was Four Swords Adventures on the GameCube, and it's controls never really felt quite so awe-inspiring. But we won't talk about that.

2) The "Magic" Meter

One of the things that A Link Between Worlds does best is making little changes that challenge the Zelda norm. Zelda has been around forever, and there are so many mechanics that have just existed from game to game, virtually unchanged in 20+ years. One of the biggest, but subtlest things A Link Between Worlds changes is the way it handles items, and more to the point, ammunition. You don't have to collect bombs or arrows or magic. Every item in the game uses the same resource; a "magic" meter which regenerates at a pretty rapid pace.

This actually has a pretty profound effect on gameplay. At first I was a little dubious, because it means for example, I can only shoot x arrows in y period of time. But gradually I realized that because this meter always refills itself, I had so much more freedom to use items. There is no saving your magic so you can use the Fire Rod to solve puzzles, or holding on to arrows to use them on the boss. You can throw bombs at random enemies all day and it's all good. It makes combat seem a lot more free to be done how you see fit, rather than relying on your sword to do everything. It cleans up the UI nicely, too. It's interesting, because I noticed a similar effect with the more freeform magic system in the Adventure of Link, but for the past 25 years the series has steered away from that.

3) Truly 3D 2D

Link Between Worlds occupies this intriguing space wherein it's a game which is fully rendered in 3D, but it plays like a 2D game, but requires you to think in three dimensions. It's kind of amazing really, that with 3D games having existed for over 15 years, it's a game masquerading as 2D which nails the third dimensional game play better than most "proper" 3D games. Never does a puzzle say " look up, there's a switch on the ceiling you can't see, LOL 3D". Instead it just takes advantage of the fact that in 3D you can so easily render multiple elevations, change perspectives, transition to the backside of a wall, whatever.

The top down view means you can always see exactly what the designers want you to be able to see, but it's still a world where you can merge with and walk around on the walls and smoothly transition between different elevations. I mean sure, we've been pushing blocks onto lower floors for a long time now, but A Link Between Worlds forces you to look at every room in an entirely different way. Every wall has the potential to be a road. The only other game I can think of that has a similar feel to it is Portal. And I think we all know that comparing anything to Portal is pretty glowing praise.

4) The Nostalgia Dance

Let's be real here for a second. I was always going to love a Link Between Worlds. My body is physically unable to dislike a sequel to A Link to the Past just because of my history with the game. So as you can probably imagine, a Link Between Worlds is nostalgia overload for me. The sounds enemies make when you die or when you pick up rupees made me happy. The orchestrated songs from Link to the Past delighted me. The almost identical overworld map gave me all the feels. How many times have I made the journey between Kakariko Village and the Eastern Palace? This time felt little different from when I was 6. It feels like every nook and cranny of A Link Between Worlds was constructed with a nod to fans of A Link to the Past.

What's more impressive though, is that underneath all the similarities, A Link Between Worlds is it's own game. Every iota of this game perfectly maintains the feel of it's predecessor, but it's a brand new experience. The motto of this game may as well be "the same, but different" because it's stamped all over the place. Despite the similarities it still delivers on substance for returning players, and it's still hugely enjoyable for those who are not. The game is great with or without the nostalgia factor, and the fact that Nintendo has managed to strike such a great balance is pretty impressive. Although with that said, I'll never forgive them for changing the way the tempered sword sounds.

Radiant Historia Thoughts

It's no secret that the JRPG genre isn't exactly flourishing as it once did. Not outside of Japan anyways. Yet while the well dries up and the big franchises flounder, a little company called Atlus has our backs. It's thanks to them that we have games like the Shin Megami Tensei and Etrian Odyssey series. They were the ones who published the likes of Ogre Battle and Growlanser. The were even responsible for bringing Demon's Souls and Disgaea to the north, where they were wildly successful. In recent years Atlus has become the west's biggest and best source of the JRPGs that AAA studios won't make any more. So when I was told that they had made a superb Chrono Trigger inspired JRPG for the DS, I knew I had to play it. In fact, the game was so popular that Atlus had to do a second run of production because it was so in demand once people knew it existed. I've finally managed to find the time to devote to the game, and so I thought I would give my impressions, having beaten it in it's entirety.

Radiant Historia is a game about timelines, and as such evokes a lot of comparisons to Chrono Trigger. The basic idea is that the game is split into two timelines, and the player has the ability to jump to any key event experienced in either timeline. The idea is that if you play a single timeline, you end up running into roadblocks, and to progress you much either go back in time or spend some time in the other timeline in order to acquire a new ability or change a key event. The idea is that the world is quickly charging towards it's end, and before the game has even begun the world has been doomed several times. It up to the protagonist, Stocke, to manipulate events and lead the world down a different path. Interestingly enough, this leads to a lot of interesting situations where the decision that keeps the world alive isn't necessarily the decision that is best in a given situation. Many choices you can make will lead to a scenario where the world ends, resulting in a "game over" ending. 

What's interesting about these endings is that none of them are all bad. They all give the impression that your decision had a positive impact, but in the end it did not divert the world's path to destruction. You won the battle, but the war was ultimately won. Then you simply go back in time and pick the other option, and unfortunately this is where the game's cracks begin to show. As intriguing as the time traveling system is, it's both incredibly repetitive and surprisingly linear. The game may seem wide open at first, but you quickly find that the way forward is always to play one path until you hit a dead end, then switch paths until you hit another one, and repeat. Similarly, because you spend so much time jumping between key events, you end up covering the same ground over and over again. There are many points where you cannot avoid the intermediary events between key points, and all the scene skipping in the world doesn't mean you won't be running through Lazvil Hills and the Gran Plains a dozen times over. 

This goes doubly for the side quests, unfortunately. Side quests tend to be a lot more interesting, and a lot more fulfilling, but also a lot more frustrating. Many quests will require you to progress much further into the timeline before you can complete them, and some even require you to skip between timelines. When you stumble across an object and think "oh hey, that guy back in that place at that time needed this thing", it's very satisfying to make that connection. But for every time that happens, there's two where you completely forget who wanted the object, where they are located and what exact time window you need to be in to talk to them. What's more, after jumping back and forth in time so much it becomes very easy to forget what happened in what timeline, what you need to actually do to progress from event A to event B etc. Actually completing all of the sidequests without a walkthrough is an extremely monumental task, but it really didn't have to be if the game just had a proper quest log and a better indication of how to progress along a timeline you've long since forgotten about.

But enough about timelines and all that jazz. One of the most interesting parts of Radiant Historia is that it has one of the most interesting takes on turn based combat I have personally witnessed. It goes a bit like this: Your team of three faces off against opponents who are arranged on a 3x3 grid. Some enemies take up 2 or 4 or 6 or even all 9 enemies, but most only take a single spot. Among your arsenal of abilities are skills which can knock enemies about, allowing you to position them in opportune locations for killing expedience. Knock an enemy on top of another one, and subsequent attacks will hit both enemies. Further, you can also do things like knock them into the air, onto traps, out of buff tiles on the ground, etc. Adding to this is the fact that every party member has the ability to switch places in the turn order with any combatant. This can be used to switch the order your guys attack in, or you can swap with enemies in order to try and bunch all your allies' turns together for big combos. It's a novel system that in many cases feels as much like a puzzle as anything else. What's the best way to group up the most enemies as you can? Or is it faster to burn one down at a time? Which character has the best abilities for this situation? Will you need buffs more than movement abilities? etc.

However, as with the timeline mechanic, this battle system is definitely not all roses either. First and foremost is the fact that the game seems to have rather poor battle pacing. Each area contains a TON of enemies, and especially considering how much time you spend walking back and forth through the same old areas, the fights can get old fast. While you have the ability to avoid most enemies on the area map, towards the end of the game you start to need experience quite dearly. Couple that with quite low availability for some of the party members, and it becomes a question of, "grind now or grind later?". Now if you had told me this in the first 15 hours of the game, I wouldn't have minded. The battle system is pretty fun. But eventually around the half way mark through the game, battles just get very grueling. The average number of enemies you fight goes up to about 5, and weird things start happening with the turn order. All of a sudden it becomes apparent that how fast your characters are doesn't matter as much as how close their speed is to eachother (so they can build proper combos). When enemies ambush you, you start seeing battles where you can't even attack until you've hopefully survived all 5 enemies attacking 2-3 times. The result is battles just get less desirable, you want to avoid them more, but bosses actually start getting pretty hard. Thus the aforementioned grinding conundrum.

As far as the plot is concerned, the game presents a pretty compelling story. As I mentioned earlier, the idea is that you have to try and nudge the world's destiny on a path that doesn't lead to destruction. Unsurprisingly this involves all the tropes of an evil empire, beast tribes that hate humans, people misusing mana etc etc etc. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot I can actually say without spoiling it. What I will say though is that as the game went on, I was very interested to see where each plot line would lead, and how they would inevitably join back up again. Around the 1/3 way mark things start to get really interesting and it really motivated me to push on through the lul that comes soon after. However the plot, too, is not without issue. Once again we come back to the repetition the time mechanic brings. Because you have two separate timelines that advance in parallel, things often seem like they are going at a snails pace. Until you near the end of the game, it's often really hard to see how things are relevant in the big picture, especially when you start mixing up the history of each line in your head. In the end of the day the payoff is pretty good though. I found the ending to be very touching, in a way that very few games ever are.

I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say here is that I'm very conflicted on my final opinion of Radiant Historia. It's chock full of really interesting ideas. At times those ideas are very well executed. At other times the game drags like nobody's business. There was a stretch of about 8 hours within the game where I went from loving it, to hating it to loving it again. In the end of the day I would probably conclude that Radiant Historia would be amazing if it was about 25-30 hours long rather than 40. I think the truth behind Radiant Historia though is that, judging by the lack of advertising and the limited initial run, Atlus probably just had some crazy ideas they wanted to play with. I doubt it was ever intended to be more than a fun little experiment, and I suppose in that regard it succeeded. Whatever the case may be, I would still recommend that any avid JRPG fan give it a go. If you are willing to overlook some of the issues I outlined above, then it could easily classify as one of the best JRPGs released in the last 5 years. Even if you can't see past the flaws, it's a one-of-a-kind experience. It truly has the makings of something great. Whether you think it achieved that or not may well vary from my own opinion.

E3 2013, Sony Microsoft and Nintendo Impressions

So, E3 is going on, and as always the big news is in the form of the Big 3's conferences. Of course, Nintendo  didn't hold an actual conference, instead opting instead to do another Nintendo Direct, but we will include them anyways. This year's E3 is extra special, because it's the period of hype for the next generation. Information on the next round of consoles (sans the ailing Wii U of course) is just coming to light, people are forming their allegiances, and Microsoft and Sony are fighting tooth and nail to earn said allegiances. It's an exciting time to be a gamer, to be sure. So in honor of E3, I thought I would discuss my thoughts on the the big 3's E3 presence, and my thoughts going forward with the next generation.

Microsoft

If you've been following the information pertaining to the Xbox One, then you know that Microsoft had nothing to lose and everything to gain from E3. Their focus on non-gaming media and their stance on used games and internet requirements turned a lot of people off, at least among the vocal minority. On the whole I would say Microsoft put on a pretty good conference, though. People wanted to see games out of Microsoft, and they got them. Of course many of the games on display were in fact titles that will be available on PC and/or PS4, but people seemed pretty excited for the most part. I can't really claim that anything really caught my attention aside from Project Spark and Titanfall in terms of games, though I'm a fan of the in-built streaming capabilities. We know the PS4 has similar, but I would certainly prefer stream to Twitch (partnered with Microsoft) than Ustream (partnered with Sont). Oh, and there was a rape joke, that was fun.

When all was said and done, I don't really feel that Microsoft came out of their conference too much better of than they were, though. People said they wanted to see games, they saw games, and yet all they were talking about was the elephant who remains in the room, and the $499 price point. I feel like Microsoft tried to just sweep the talk of DRM under the rug and hope games would make people forget, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I think the better approach would have been to subtly show how the online requirements and DRM can work to the player's advantage. Obviously they aren't going to get on stage and discuss all the features everyone is up in arms about, they are there to build hype not draw attention to their detractors. Yet, if I had seen a good reason for an Xbone to be constantly online, then maybe my opinion on the console would change. Instead, we got Smart Glass awkwardly and aggressively shoved in our faces.

I think Microsoft has managed to seal their own fate on this one. As soon as they announced the price point that was all anyone was going to take out of that conference, and it's a doozy. What confuses me the most about the Xbone continues to be the question of demographic. Who is supposed to buy this thing? Microsoft has touted this thing as the one device that will take over your living room, seemingly aimed at everyone. Yet, between used game restrictions, online requirements and a $500 price tag, it seems to me they have managed to alienate every demographic in some way. Sure, it's understandable that packaging a kinect with it will drive the price up, but casual or non-gamers aren't going to buy this thing at that cost. The same is true of college students, whom I assumed was the primary demographic.

I don't know what Microsoft does going forward. It seems to me their only options are to back pedal, and hope they regain enough good will to not be a total disaster. Perhaps the more likely course of action is that they simply stick to their guns and try to stay lean and economical. No doubt regardless of whatever missteps the Xbone will still sell many, many units. If they can maximize their income from every unit, then maybe they can hang on. Either way, it would certainly seem Microsoft has thrown away any chance at the top spot in this generation.

Sony

In truth, Sony didn't need to do much. The advantage was theirs to throw away. All they had to do was show up, not murder any puppies, and be heralded as the great prophets of gen 8. Sony basically did just that, and then some. There were several games on show, including Final Fantasy Versus XIII (rebranded as FFXV) and Kingdom Hearts III, and indie titles like Transistor and Octodad. In truth the games were kind of secondary in this conference, to me any ways. It was predictably a bunch of trailers that didn't say much about the games in question. I will say that I was very impressed that Sony managed to get live demos of both Assassin's Creed IV and Watch Dogs, despite Ubisoft not doing a live demo of said games in their own freaking conference. There was also a first look at gameplay from Bungie's Destiny, which at first didn't do it for me, but as it went on and the RPG features came to light, my interest was piqued.

I think the biggest thing about this conference was the subtle things like the language they used. It seemed to me like every word in Sony's presentation was chosen very carefully, and it went a long way. I loved the referential humor that they knew the people watching the show would get. More to the point though, Sony clearly had been paying extremely close attention to what Microsoft's detractors were saying. Almost point for point, Sony had something to say about every one of the Xbone's weaknesses. Oh, you are obstructive to indie's? Here's 20 minutes of indie games on PS4. You restrict used games? Yea, we don't. They may have well have been shouting "PS4 does what Xbone don't", but instead they were just taking subtle jabs there weren't off-putting, but reassuring.

Then there was the final nail in the coffin. They announced the $399 price point, and it was all over for Microsoft. Not only is the PS4 significantly less restrictive, more powerful, devoid of  major privacy concerns and just more gamer friendly in general, but it's $100 cheaper. That makes a big difference. That means more early adopters, which means more third party developers, which means more exclusives, which is ultimately all that it comes down to. The PS4 even has some small advantage in their Gaikai cloud streaming service, but what that ultimately ends up looking like has yet to be seen. On the whole, it would seem that the PS4 is in a decisive lead some 5 months before either console is released.

Nintendo

It's very strange to me that Nintendo seems so far removed from the competition of late. Ever since the last generation started it's felt like Sony and Microsoft have been duking it out, and Nintendo has been off in the corner doing their own thing. This has never been quite so apparent as with their approach to this year's E3. Sony and Microsoft are battling for supremacy, holding huge 2 hour conferences in E3. Meanwhile, Nintendo's console has been out for 7 months and they put together a 40 minute pre-recorded presentation from the empty 7th floor of their office in Japan. In truth, it really wasn't any different from every other Nintendo Direct that has been put out, except that it happens to have happened during E3.

In that light, I would say that on the whole, the presentation was pretty unsurprising. Every game that was shown was either an already announced (or, at least known to be existing) game, or a highly predictable one (zomg, who would have guessed! Mario Kart, ON THE WII U?!?!?!). Of course there isn't anything wrong with that. Nintendo has subsisted on their first party titles and handhelds for over a decade now. People love their Nintendo franchises. None the less, there is clearly a lot of excitement behind the announcement of the next Super Smash Bros (apparently entitled simply "Super Smash Bros" ?). With games like that, a closer look at Wind Waker HD, and another look at Platinum Games' Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2 it seems likely that Wii U sales will begin to pick up.

And then there was "X". The next game from Monolith Soft, the rumored Wii U successor to Xenoblade Chronicles. In truth, I think I'm more excited about this title than any other I have seen from E3 thus far. I mean it's like Xenoblade, but high def, with more awesome mechs, mechs which the player can ride, and it's a more proper RPG. It looks pretty amazing, and is the first Wii U title I have seen that really screams "you need this console. You cannot miss this game". Of course I was always going to grab a Wii U once Zelda games started being released, but X might finally be the first third part core game that really pushes the Wii U into peoples' homes.

"Top 10" Zelda Games

A while ago I made a post wherein I listed off every Final Fantasy game in order from worst to best, based solely on my own opinion. I also mentioned that I wanted to do the same thing for The Legend of Zelda, and so that's the plan for today. The fact of the matter is, Final Fantasy and Zelda have been the two series that I've held dear for pretty much my entire life. There are many other series I've liked, but none have ever quite earned the same regard in my eyes. So you can imagine how annoyed I am that neither series has released a solid game since about 2002...

ANYWAYS. I'm gonna shut up now and move on the the actual point to this post even existing.

(14)

I mentioned in a previous post what the general train of thought regarding The Adventure of Link is, and truth be told, I subscribe to that train of thought. The fact of the matter is that the game is a massive departure from the series and is lacking in most of the areas that make Zelda games so great. It's soulcrushing difficulty makes it a game that is supremely difficult to enjoy. Back in the day when being frustratingly hard was the norm, it may have been a different story, but today it just makes the game unplayable.

The game is certainly not without redeeming features though. If the game were not so hard (or if you've mastered all the tricks you need to make it through alive), it would actually be pretty good. It's RPG elements like leveling up and visiting towns are very neat additions that add the the game's depth. It also maintains a lot of the feel of scouring the world for all the hidden little items and upgrades, something which I consider absolutely core to the Zelda franchise. There is fun to be had here. There just isn't much. I certainly don't plan to play the game through again.

(13)

My feelings on the original Legend of Zelda are pretty similar to my feelings on the original Final Fantasy. It's a game that we obviously owe a lot to. In fact I would say that The Legend of Zelda was more of a trailblazer than Final Fantasy. The fact of the matter is, however, that it suffers a lot because of it's age. The controls can be pretty finicky until you get used to them. Much of the game's hidden goods are hidden in unreasonable locations that could only be discovered by literally checking every square inch of the game. Really this is the kind of stuff that you more or less expect out of a game released in 1986, but it does make the game pretty unappealing to a more modern audience.

Truth be told though, if you look at the game objectively it's pretty impressive. The fact that Nintendo managed to create this game on the NES is kind of amazing. It's a huge, open game in a way that games simply weren't back then. For a kid back in the day, being able to sink ridiculous amounts of time into this game was a godsend. The secrets may be super obscure, but man are there a lot of them. The fact that you pretty much need a walkthrough to play this game isn't great, but I think it's one of the few games that's worth it for any serious gamer to play through even today. If for no other reason than because basically every line of dialogue in this game is now an internet meme.

(12)

If I'm totally honest, I'm a bit of a fanboy when it comes to Zelda. I manage to get excited for every one, and Spirit Tracks was no exception. If there was one Zelda game I could have done without playing though, Spirit Tracks would definitely be it. The NES Zelda titles are at least culturally significant, but Spirit Tracks is just a straight up mediocre game. It's better in ways than Phantom Hourglass, but worse in other ways. It has some pretty interesting mechanics, but I think when it comes down to it, I just feel like Spirit Tracks is missing the Zelda spirit. It look and sounds like a Zelda game, but for most of the game it feels like an imitator.

That said, there are good parts in this game. It takes forever to get to them, but they are there. Most of the game is overly easy and uninteresting, though. The train aspect of the game is interesting and does a decent job of making the world worth exploring. There are a moderate amount of places to go and things to do off the beaten path. It can also be kind of zen just riding along while your train chugs along to the music. Ultimately though I found the whole train gameplay to be kind of lame. It tends to be either uninteresting or really frustrating. It was a pretty good idea for making the world interesting and explorable while still being pretty restrictive (something they needed to do on the DS), but in the end it feels like a shell of a game.

(11)

Truth be told, it's a little hard to know what to say about Four Swords Adventures. I feel like a lot of people don't even know it exists, or get it confused with the Four Swords mode of Link to the Past on the GBA. I wouldn't really blame them, either. It's only barely a Zelda game, it wasn't really marketed all that much (to my knowledge, anyways) and it's kind of a headscrather why a "full" game was made out of this. That's not to say it isn't good or anything, it's just a bit of a confusing title all around.

Unsurprisingly, it's a game that is significantly better played with 4 players. I never had that opportunity but I can imagine it being a lot of chaotic fun much like the original Four Swords. What I will say though is that even if you are playing in loner mode, they did a pretty good job making the game work with a single player. Switching between different formations and controlling four Links at once is definitely an interesting experience. Some of the game's dungeon crawling isn't half bad, either. Its just a bit unfortunate that so much of the "Zelda" elements were stripped out of the game to accommodate the four player madness. A necessary evil, but one that makes this game a bit of a hard sell.

(10)

So clearly I didn't like Spirit Tracks a whole lot, but I feel as though Phantom Hourglass did a little bit better. Despite the controls, gameplay etc being pretty much identical, I think Phantom Hourglass created more interesting situations for those controls to shine. The concept of having a timed dungeon that you have to traverse over and over again is a bit flawed, but at the same can be pretty interesting. Maximizing your time and uncovering new shortcuts as you get new tools can be kind of neat. They also try really hard to make use of all the bells and whistles the DS has to offer, which is neat even if it doesn't end up working in many cases.

The biggest downside to the game is that outside of the dungeons, the game feels very empty. traversing the world isn't the most fun ever. It just doesn't feel like there is much out there for you to discover, which makes it feel a lot less like a true Zelda game in my eyes. Ultimately though, it feels like a game that is still worth playing unlike Spirit Tracks. The DS Zelda formula isn't too shabby and it's existence is valuable, but I feel like we really didn't need more than one of them.

(9)

At this point Skyward Sword has been out for a little over a year, and still I have a bit of trouble deciding how exactly I feel about it. On one hand it's motion controls definitely add to the games engagement and tend to make combat more interesting. On the other hand those same controls tend to be at the root of several annoyances, like having to re-calibrate or unintended sword swings. In the end I think a player is more likely to notice and remember the annoyances, which says to me that it wasn't worth the good that came of the motion control. It was an interesting experience controlling Link so directly and I'm glad it exists, but I really hope the next installment in the franchise returns to a more traditional approach.

Beyond the controls though.... Skyward Sword just seems like a big hot mess. The world is huge and not only is it annoying and slow getting around on your giant bird, but there really isn't anything interesting out there. As mentioned previously, this is a bit of a deathblow to any Zelda game, in my eyes. What's more, with the exception only a couple cases, the dungeons are all pretty simple and seemingly uninspired. No exploration and (mostly) bad dungeons most definitely do not make for a good Zelda game. There are a ton of other little things that I could complain about, but therein lies the problem. When the game is good, it's really fun. Most of the time it's doing one thing or another to be annoying, though. It makes for an overlong, somewhat mediocre experience.

(8)

Link's Awaking has always been a pretty amazing game in my opinion. Not necessarily because it's super awesome, but because of just how much they managed to squeeze out of a Gameboy. I don't think a game ever sold me as well on portable gaming quite so well as Link's Awakening. Here was a complete Zelda experience in your hands. It really is everything a Zelda game needs to be, too. It's not a small game, and there are no obvious places where corners were cut like in say, the DS Zelda titles. It's also pretty cool that the game has a lot of little quirks to it that set it apart from the console games.

Why then is it so far down this list? Well, truth be told it just isn't a game that ever really "clicked" with me. Sure, it's an amazing achievement, and definitely not a bad game by any stretch. I always find that it's very forgettable, though. I can pick it up, play for a while, have a great time, and then decide I've had enough and never go back.It's hard to really pinpoint what about the game causes that. Perhaps the simplistic graphics just don't pull me into the world. Perhaps the narrative just doesn't light a fire that gets me going. Whatever the case may be, Link's Awakening is objectively a great game, but not one that ever resonated greatly with me personally.

(7)

For the most part, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons fall into the same boat as Link's Awakening. They are games which are stunningly well put together for Gameboy Color titles. The worlds are more impressive than Link's Awakening, and the mechanics of time/weather changing are really quite neat. They create some pretty fun mechanics and have some really fun and quirky tools. It was also pretty ingenious to implement the cross connectivity and interrelated story between the two games. It's certainly more interesting to me than say, Pokemon Red/Blue's relation.

However as mentioned, I have the same personal issue with the Oracle games, as with Link's Awakening. They are great games, but just don't seem to "stick" to me. I think the Orcale games have it a bit better, though. In truth the only time I played the Oracle games, I did so with my nose in a walkthrough. I hate to miss things, but at the same time I think I ruined the games. I do believe that if I were to play through the games again on my own steam they would be a lot more memorable. This is something I must do at some point. Had I not made the dumb decision to ruin my first run through the Oracle games, they would likely be higher on this list.

(6)

Oh Twilight Princess... Probably the most controversial game in the franchise. A lot of arguments stem from Twilight Princess' "darker" approach. Personally I feel like there is room for both the semi-realistic dark approach Twilight Princess took, as well as the more cartooney style the series has typically used. If anything I thought Twilight Princess took the wrong approach to "dark". It wasn't "dark" the way we were led to believe, it had a lot of black and surreal stuff, but it could have stood to be a lot darker thematically. I think that would have been more interesting. As it stands the game is pretty forgettable to me, I honestly couldn't tell you what the actual plot of the game was.

On the gameplay side of things, Twilight Princess is a really weird mix. On one hand, it has some really good dungeons and some interesting items. Some items (*cough*ballandchain*cough*) are duds, but others *dual clawshot) are real cool. I also really like how the game steps up the combat. Not only does Link get a wider arrange of on-demand abilities, but it also makes you feel like Link is legitimately growing. In most Zelda games Link just collects stuff - tools, heart containers, etc. In Twilight Princess you actually learn new abilities. It's semantics really, but it's neat to me. The big downfall to me, is that Twilight Princess' overworld is dull. It's big, it's annoying to get around, and I don't feel compelled to explore it. The dungeons go a long way to making for a fun game, but it lacks a lot of the magic touch that makes for a truly great Zelda game.

(5)

The Minish Cap is one of those games that, I think anyone who has actually played it would say was underrated. I'm sure a lot of people don't even realize it exists. Regardless, Minish Cap is a lovely little game that really manages to strike true to what it means to be a Zelda title. The world isn't huge, but every inch of it is a puzzle. With the selection of tools available to you, the kinstone system, and the ability to change Link's size at certain locations, virtually everywhere you go holds some secret that you will eventually be able to solve. What it lacks in size, it makes up for in spades with density. Which I think its a smart approach. A game like Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword feels big and empty. If you don't see anything, you aren't compelled to search. Minish Cap leads you by the nose and makes you remember those spots for when you do get that item.

As far as the rest of the game goes, I always found it pretty compelling. The plot is just present enough to push you without being too overbearing. The dungeons are all well put together and present you with some interesting challenges, and interesting tools to solve them with. One of Minish Cap's strengths is also, undoubtedly, it's aesthetic. Much like Link's Awakening it manages to stay true to what makes a great Zelda game, but also carve out this little niche of absurd little things it does that's totally different from any of the other titles. Some of that is just the fact that hey, you can't shrink down to minuscule Minish size in the other games, but it extends beyond that as well. Whatever the case may be, Minish cap is a surprisingly solid title that puts many of the series' biggest console releases to shame.

(4)

Ahh Ocarina of Time. Ocarina of Time is one of those games that I feel is kind of hard to have a serious discussion about. It's like Final Fantasy VII (except probably worse) in that a lot of people just love it unconditionally and anything negative is heresy. It's not an entirely unwarranted stance to take, either. I remember when the game was in development I read a magazine article claiming it was the best game ever made, and to a lot of people that is still true. I don't subscribe to that belief personally, as you can probably infer from the 3 games left to go after this one. However the fact of the matter still remains that, there really isn't a whole lot negative that you can say about the game.

The game is huge, there's always something interesting to go do, there are actually people around to add depth to the world. That's really what it comes down to, I think. The game feels like the most "real" version of Hyrule out there. You feel compelled to explore it, solve peoples' problems and whatever else. The dungeons are all quite well crafted and between the puzzles and the huge aesthetic variance in each, are all pretty unforgettable. Equally unforgettable is the moment when you first jump forward in time and all of a sudden become a fully grown badass with a real sword, but realize the world has practically been destroyed. The game's execution is just about perfect. The only real issues that it faces are a very standard formula, and being created in the early days of 3D. Even the 3DS remaster of the game can't remove that stank.

(3)

Speaking of the "standard formula", hey look, it's Majora's Mask! Masjora's Mask is an odd one for me. It's one of those games that I just couldn't really appreciate as a kid. Sure I enjoyed it, but I never really got the overall tone of the game, or appreciated how different it was from the norm. For one, the apocalyptic tone to the game is really refreshing, and not something that you see in games all that often. The game is dark in a way that Twilight Princess can only dream of being. The time limit also has the really interesting effect of both compartmentalizing your play, and breaking the game into easy to consume chunks.

I'm always a fan of games that make me plan my actions out, and Majora's Mask is one of the only non-RPGs to do that. Every times you roll back time there's probably a plan bubbling in your brain as to what you are going to do that cycle. Having the Bomber's Notebook is great too, as it creates almost a literal checkbook of things to do, while also hinting at what you need to do to make it happen. Much better than hunting for a stray rock in some corner of the map. It also manages to be really reasonable about applying a time limit and having it be a real and appreciable thing, but without making it overly restrictive. What's more, you can pretty easily feel like you achieved something every cycle. Everything you do feels pretty pointed, and it just feels good to achieve things. I would talk about the dungeons, but in truth it feels a lot like more Ocarina of Time dungeons. Which isn't a bad thing.

(2)

Before I say anything, I should point out that I'm a ridiculously big fan of cel-shading. It's possible to do it wrong, but that's the exact opposite of what Wind Waker did. I don't normally care all that much about graphics, but Wind Waker is a truly beautiful game. It's very crisp, very colorful, and very stylized. Some people don't like it, but I think in a lot of ways it really makes the game. It's not just that though. Wind Waker is just such a bright and colorful game, and to me that is when Zelda is at it's best. Dark games have their place, but vibrant colors just bring a world to life. Zelda games are all about the world and exploration, after all. That said, Skyward Sword was quite colorful, too. I enjoyed the aesthetic of that game quite a bit too, but it just isn't as crisp and timeless as Wind Waker.

Colors and cel-shading don't make a game, though. It's a little hard to pinpoint what does it for Wind Waker though. Lots of people complain about things like exploring the ocean being boring. They are very valid complaints, but not things that I personally ever minded that much. To me it's really neat how the world is subdivided into areas on the map, and each area is guaranteed to have something worth doing in it. Sure the ocean is big and not super interesting, but you know that when you find land there will be something neat there. Though the boat could serve to go a little faster I suppose. Wind Waker is also probably the most epic game in the franchise. The sequence in which you get the Master Sword is amazing both in epicness, as well as being very cool visually with the cel-shading art style. I can definitely see where people would take issue with the game, but for me the only real complaint is that the game isn't hard enough.

(1)

Ahh Link to the Past. I don't think many people would put it at the top of their list of favorite Zelda games. Those people are not me, however. I have a lot of memories around this game, and it's essentially the game that changed gaming from something fun to do, to a way of life for me. Nostalgia aside, I still believe it is the best Zelda game out there. Of course this is a very personal opinion. Objectively you could probably make very real arguments that it is inferior to others. In my mind however, it's the purest Zelda experience there is. Two worlds full to the brim with secrets to discover. Not only that, but two interconnected worlds. While I would say discovering there is a Dark World is less epic than the time skip in Ocarina of Time, I would also say it's gameplay repercussions are much greater. What's more, the Dark World feels strange and evil without just being dark. It's still very vibrant (it's the Golden Land, after all), it just uses yellows and purples instead of green.

On the dungeon side of things, Link to the Past may not have super amazing tools or mega complex puzzles. I think there is something to be said for the simplicity that 2D brings though. Like I said, it feels more "pure". You are challenging your wits. Everything is right there, you never have to worry about missing something because you didn't look up, or what have you. If you get stuck, it's because you haven't figured out the puzzle yet. It's not like many other games of the time either, wherein you can get stuck because the game wants you to do something that isn't obvious. Link to the Past exists in this magical spot where it has all of the charm but none of the downsides to your typical 2D game. It may not have any fancy polygons, but I still consider it the best Zelda game. I've certainly played it more times than any other.