What ever happened to diverse games?
 
There's a raging debate going at the Borderlands board on GameFaqs right now about the art style of Borderlands. (I say debate, but its really a series of troll topics, followed by equally overzealous flamers) This has got me thinking, what is the benefit of a 'cartoony' art style? A few thoughts come to mind:
 

• Trivializing violence
• Offering a 'quirky' and 'different' style to appeal those who appreciate 'art' (Get my feelings on this 'art' I'm yapping about from 'Pilgrim's Progress Revisited' by C.S. Lewis)

• To simply buck the trend

 
Now I love Borderlands' art style, its really high energy and fun, but it has divided the line for a lot of people. This has become a war between Modern Warfare 2/Halo 3: ODST and Borderlands, between the old man and the young man, between the evil and the good. The problem with this undercurrent of revolution is, yet again, that of the new 'revolutionary' game becoming just like the 'dreary' game it just dethroned. Its like overthrowing 'the man' just to set up a new 'the man' that you like the looks of more. (Kinda like the current political situation in the USA right now) So what then? Do we want Borderlands to fail commercially and critically? No, of course not, but unless we are ready to suffer the consequences of buying into a 'new' and exciting IP, that consequence being ushering forth a new franchise like COD, we will always fight this never-ending battle of the older, drearier 'the man' vs. the younger, flashier 'the man'. The truth is, these companies are looking to turn a profit so they can feed their families and keep their business, so they can feed their families for the foreseeable future. So if they can turn them into something they can turn out every year like clockwork, they will, cause this gives them capital to stabilize their business and families. (Which should allow for more new IP ventures, but some companies will go for stability rather than being somewhat of a starving artist) Back to the art style; the art style is the most awesome and unique art style I've seen in years. (Sure it was used in the latest Prince of Persia game, but the world for Borderlands looks so much more interesting than that game) It seriously sold me on this game, but its not because it bucks the trend that I like it. Its because it looks good, it really is like concept art come to life. However, I don't hate COD's art style, I don't like it but it works for the photo-realistic war games. Buy both if you can, don't worry about which one you get if you can't, they both look like really solid games.

 
  
Finally, I got it right.

 Listen you don't have to pay for an "overpriced expansion", but if you don't you're going to wait a lot longer than you would if you just ponied up the cash. Now that the issue of price is out of the way, I'll address the 'it's not worth it' complaint. You decide if its worth it to you or not, nobody else. If its not worth it you, then you don't have to buy it. If you say 'its not worth $60' then that's your decision, that doesn't mean you're getting it for less anytime soon.  Of course, if you're reading this you probably already know all this to be true. So why whine and complain? I have a few reasons why I would.
 

• Industry trend starting of selling expansions, and multiplayer components for the full $60 dollars you probably already paid for it.

• Shorter games (ODST hasn't helped anything, anyway.)

 
The reason why I let Halo in particular get away with this, is because its one of Microsoft's biggest franchises. I don't expect Microsoft to just give away the multiplayer component of their single most popular game on their system. If you do, then you've got a bad case of the entitlements. No, no, no, don't give me 'well Bungie said!' Ah Ah, doesn't work that way. You know why? Because its Halo, people are going to buy it, (and already have, as its passed the 2 million mark in one day) and it will make Microsoft a lot of money. They're a business not your mother, they don't have to undercut a video game just because of a PR gaffe. Incidentally, I am going to buy ODST (hopefully) by price matching at Best Buy. See? I could get my expansion for less than $60, and I didn't whine about it. Of course, this rant will fall on deaf ears, and you'll be convinced I'm a corporate plant, or fanboy. Oh well, flame shields up.

  or Zelda is Really Hard to Follow

I was thinking today about Zelda: Twilight Princess and, to be honest, I couldn't remember much about it. Then I thought that it was simply a case of me not remembering Zelda games in general, but then I started thinking about Ocarina of Time, I sure remembered A LOT about that game. Being one of the most fondly remembered games of all time, I couldn't remember that game more. So, that got me thinking I should replay Zelda: Twilight Princess (Ugh, not something I'm going to do anytime soon.) to see what I missed/don't remember. Then that got me thinking about what makes a game fun to replay. Well, no it didn't really, writing this got me thinking about that, but...Anyway what do you guys on the (insert board here) think is a good candidate for a replayable game.

...That force you to play in a way that goes against the entire nature of the game. I've been playing Halo 3 today to try and finally get the Two for One achievement, (legitimately, not arranging it in the pre-game lobby) and obviously its not been going so well. So, I've decided that I will not play in a way that other people will not play. Time to pre-arrange the achievemnet then. See, I have no problem with the Triple Kill and Overkill achievements in Halo 3, because they promote playing the game like it was meant to be played. Anyway, finished Diablo shareware version and Diablo II Shareware version today. Really fun, hope to get a job so I can get the Diablo Battle Chest.