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

 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.)

  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 achievement 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.

 Awhile back I decided to download the demo for Diablo, its an awesome game that I plan on buying. Anyway, I was looking for other games similar to it, and I downloaded the demo to Dungeon Siege. It wasn't like Diablo at all, at least in my mind. In Diablo, to attack, you have to click multiple times to continue attacking. In Dungeon Siege, to attack, you click once and your avatar continues to attack unaided. For some reason, my brain gets turned off on this sort of method of attacking. Don't get me wrong, KoToR so far has done this kind of attacking very well. But I come to Diablo, and KoToR for different things. I come to KoToR for a realized universe, while I like Diablo's action more than its story. (You need to kill satan) So, what do you guys think? How do you think I can overcome my Dungeon Siege problem? I guess I'll just have to check the options for an option to turn one-click combat off. Regardless, Sacred Gold should fill that 'not Diablo, but Diablo' void.

or Why I Prefer the Safe Bet

I love original and fun video games, but original and fun video games cease to be

called original they moment they are declared successful. Because successful games, though

they might be fun and original, are what developers actually develop (or try to develop)

all the time. I bring this up because many are feeling bitter towards Modern Warfare 2,

Halo 3: ODST, Guitar Hero 5, The Beatles: Rock Band, etc. for pushing many releases such as

Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Red Dead Redemtion, and even some

original titles such as Bayonetta, Heavy Rain, and Singularity. However, we should not

feel resentment towards Call of Duty as a franchise, because it was also once a new IP at

one time. You as the consumer have voted with you dollar, and have reaped what you have

sown, so quit your whining. However, if you did not vote with your dollar, you still don't

have right to complain. "But Popcorn, what ever do you mean? I didn't vote with my dollar,

why should I suffer the delay <Insert Game Here> because of another games overhyped

success?" to you I say, "Well, its simple really. With <Insert Game Here>'s delay many more

people will be able vote with their dollar after the crowded holiday season on <Insert Game

Here>, which will in turn fund the publisher and developer to make sequels to <Insert Game

Here>." In short original IPs, if they are successful or if there is enough demand for a

sequel, there usually is one. Franchises like Left 4 Dead, Warcraft, Guitar Hero Halo, Call

of Duty, Half-Life, Diablo, Metroid, Mega Man, and even such an old character as Mario all

started as an "original" concept.

I suppose this piece is turning into an economics paper, but before I delve more

into the effects of the dollar on franchises, let me state that I am uber-excited for a

single "original" game this year. A little game called Borderlands caught my eye in a Game

Informer cover story. With words like millons of guns being thrown against bold statements

of "diablo meets halo" I just couldn't wait until I could start tearing it up on the planet

of Pandora. That was in September of 2007, with the launch promised for a Christmas 2008

release, then Tuesday, March 11, 2008 it was reported by Kotaku* that Borderlands would

move to sometime in 2009. I was a little disappointed, but by then Fallout 3 had been

shown, and I was uber-stoked for that. I've yet to pick up Fallout 3 for several reasons,

(waiting till I was at the appropriate age, money, not having played the previous games,

Game of the Year Edition, etc.) but at the time I was foaming at the mouth for Fallout 3.

The release date for Fallout 3 came and went, though, with nary a wink from my eye. I had

chosen a different game that year, Mercenaries 2, which needless to say was not my favorite

game of all time. Why would I choose such an obvious stinker for my Game of the Year

(literally, the only new release I bought in 2008 was Mercs 2)? Well, I had played and

thourougly enjoyed the first Mercenaries, and wanted to see a sequel. Obviously, I was

disappointed, not because Mercs 2 was a bad game, but because Mercs 2 didn't capture the

feel or fun of the first game. Games create personal opinions, and personal opinons have a

nasty way developing nostalgia. Nostalgia in turn, will color ones judgement of the other

games in the franchise, for good or for ill. Which is why I wanted Mercs 2 (aside from the

upbeat ad campaign song), my judgement of the first game colored my judgement for the 2nd

game. Which now brings me to Borderlands (in a roundabout sort of way), the only way of

knowing if I should buy this game or not is only my judgement, (albeit colored by my

judgement of other games, ad campaigns, and prerelease footage) and not nostalgiac value.

Because I've been judging the game on its own merits, I've determined that this is where I

want to put my 60 bucks. Although, I haven't gotten to the bit about why I prefer the safe

bet. Which is why I'm going to another paragraph.

So, why do I like the safe bet? Because its safe, I know I won't waste my money on

a crap game. At least, it used to be that way, most things are popular because they are

good. Everything else thats popular is popular because the people who buy the not good, but

popular thing are stupid. I know its a cliched argument, but I believe its true, case in

point the Twilight book series (to be fair, that's more of a case of 'sex sells' than an

acute case of stupid). So when a franchise that is critically acclaimed and popular its

usually something I like to look into. When said popular (but still good) franchise butts

into a holiday release calendar with all the fanfare of the second coming, don't forget

that a lot of these franchises (COD, Diablo, Warcraft, Guitar Hero, Halo, etc.) started out

just the same as a lot the original titles of today. So, peace out, have fun with whatever

game(s) you'll be snuggling up to this holiday season, and I hope to see you online.

If you liked this article/editorial/economics paper/rant go ahead and comment and tell me

what you liked about it. I'll be doing an unboxing of Borderlands, and a review (if I get

it, appropriateness may play a role in getting it for me) on my youtube channel.

www.youtube.com/c0l0nelp0pc0rn

Sources:

*http://kotaku.com/366619/borderlands-delayed-to-2009