MAguilera

I (like many of us, I assume) listen to a lot of podcasts.  In those podcasts there has been lots of discussion about whether or not Left for Dead 2 is coming out too early and how awesome Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is going to be.  In a confluence of playing Okami and listening to the Mobcast discuss excessive multiplayer in games.  Then it all came together.  We need a new Cal of Duty, we don't need a new Left 4 Dead. 
 
Despite CoD's epic multiplayer, at its root there is  a single player campaign with a story.  Prior to hearing about leveling up techniques for CoD4 I heard about a scene where you dropped a bomb from a plane through one of those "scopes."  The scene was described as disturbing because of how impersonal it felt.  Point being, there was a story that was on some level compelling people to play it and experience emotions.  This is why the "cycle" of games exists in the first place.  You play a game until you have exhausted the story, and then it is time to come out with a new one.  Who cares if game #2 is on basically the same engine as game #1 (see GTA: 3, Vice City, San Andreas) because you were doing things with a new character, or in a new story, or in a new setting.  It wasn't about the mechanics because the story defined the experience. 
 
Let's look at Left 4 Dead, or perhaps Team Fortress 2.  There is no story, despite the fan-fic people want to write about how a BLU Pyro can befriend a RED Scout.  The "story" exists in the wonderful happenings during a game with multiple people.  That story is new each time you start the game up, and as a result the amount of time the game can last before the story gets "stale" is extended.  This is the case with Left 4 Dead.  They punch in a "story" with the cool movie idea, but it isn't a narrative, but rather a situation definition that gives structure to the story you create.  The need for a new Left 4 Dead would be based on mechanics.  "Look at what we can do now!"  Better match-making, new net-code, upgrade systems, Forge, all of these are reasons to have a new multiplayer game.  But many of them can be handled with patches to existing games.  Aside from a total overhaul, there is little reason to have a new disc in your hands.  If that was the case, you still might as well wait for a while since your old product is still kicking and creating great new stories.
 
So we need a new CoD.  The time is up on the old one and there is a story in there that will be compelling.  We don't need a new Left 4 Dead.  Their "stories" are still being created a new, and while new features/modes sound like a good idea, they can be handled with incremental improvements rather than a total overhaul.  Will I end up buying L4D2 anyway?  Probably not.  I'm poor, and I'm still having a blast with TF2.  But as soon as Episode 3 hits I'll buy it for the story.

I listen on the train. 
 
Still, things that don't require sound seem good.  And the ability to pause at any point without breaking flow would be nice.  So I guess things like a turn based strategy game (Civ, etc.) or a puzzle game might be nice.  Maybe a platformer (or open world) as long as the sound isn't important.

So I've been playing Okami for months now.  Yes, months.  I'm a teacher, and don't have much time to put into games.  It takes me a while to finish things, and as a result I'm not too concerned with playing what's new.  I got Okami on the Wii through Goozex since I never played it on PS2. 
  
But 'months' isn't solely due to my bad schedule.  This game is remarkably deep.  I know I didn't pay a lot of attention to the game when it first came out, but I don't remember 'depth' being part of the discussion.  I remember the art-style, creative mechanics and Zelda-clone discussions, but not depth. 
 
I think at this point I can describe the story as "epic."  Not necessarily for the same reason as God of War (although I think I am about to fight two volcanoes), but because of the length of the story.  It's like I'm playing the Lord of the Rings . . . the books.  The story keeps going, and finding new places to go.  After I fought the main villain Orochi I though I'd be done.  But then his body spit into a big black mist and I had to travel to new lands to deal with the issue.  
 
Then a new bad guy emerged named 8-tails.  But he was just pestering the north lands . . . apparently there is a new badguy who is bothering the eskimo people of the North. 
 
Back to my point.  This game is incredibly deep, with a fun story that keeps on going.  I don't remember any of this press when it was coming out.  This is similar to the best Zelda experiences in terms of changing worlds/scenes and evolving bad guys.  So, did I just miss the boat on that press or did no one really mention that this game has this depth?

Dreamcast hit when I was in college, so it was a perfect time to find other people with time on their hands to play games.  We quickly shelled out $70 a pop to get two of the best arcade stick I have ever owned (it was so good that I later rewired it to work with a PS2) and played Soul Calibur and Power Stone long into the night.  This was also the first system to pull me back into football games since Joe Montana on the Genesis.  NFL 2k was a great game that looked amazing.  Eventually we spent hours playing Chu-Chu rocket (a game that I will immediately buy if it comes out on XBL or WiiWare) and bathing in the surrealism of the game and its ability to just mess with people.   Then there was MDK, which was funny and awesome.
 
All in all it is probably the console that I have my best memories of, despite its short run.  PS2 and N64 got a lot of my playing time when not studying in college, but nothing really came close to the fun we had with the Dreamcast . . . except for Shenmue, that game was painful for me to play.

There is a good article on 1up (can I say that here?) about the abundance of WWII games.  The author (Scott Sharkey) does some decent analysis pointing out the ridiculous number of WWII games in comparison to other wars.  But there is one point in the article that I think bears particular attention: 
  

I've almost finished unlocking all of the cards, and I am currently frustrated with the red-green-black deck.  There are lots of decks that are poorly designed in the game.  So far I've chalked it up to parity.  But this deck is particularly bad.  If I don't get just the right mixture of mana and creatures right off the bat, I feel like I am sitting there for a long time before I can do anything.   
 
Obviously this is just my opinion, and one made in the middle of being frustrated.  But it leads me to ask the question: what is the worst deck (assuming all extra cards) in Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers? 
 
Please back up your statements.  Preferably without using the phrase "your mama . . . "