E.T. - Atari

There have been several bombs over the years that have shaken the gaming industry and angered fans to the point of no return. While the Virtual Boy, Superman 64, CSI games, and basically any film-to-game adaptation have pissed gamers off for years, one title stands above them all and strikes fear into the hearts of anyone who dares to cross its path - E.T. This game nearly destroyed the industry in the 80s, has been immortalized as the worst game in existence, and is the benchmark for any bad video game. However, some have argued that this game doesn't deserve the reputation that it gets. Is E.T. for the Atari 2600 honestly as horrible as the books claim? It's time to crack this case open and find out.

The video game crash of 1983 was a very hard blow for the home computer industry. Between the price wars and ridiculous amounts of game releases, companies were feeling the squeeze and began to take any route necessary to create a profit. Console after console was announced for '83 release, and some of these same companies quickly turned around and pumped personal computers into the market with the advertisements reading, "Why buy just a video game?" and "Why distract your child from school? Buy them a personal computer instead, and prepare them for college." Video games were developed for all of these consoles plus some games for the personal computers, and, unfortunately, the market for all of these products simply wasn't there.

The squeeze was worsened when the personal computer price wars came to a head. Rival companies slashed the prices of their products without warning, and the competition had no choice but to follow the lead. The price slashing continued until rival companies could no longer continue the slashing and bowed out of the personal computer market.

While the walls were quivering around him, Warner Communications CEO Steve Ross sealed a deal with Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures to make a video game adaptation of the E.T. film. It was widely announced that E.T. would be released for the Atari 2600 during Christmas season of 1983 and that the company had paid between twenty and twenty-five million dollars for the game's license - add inflation and watch the numbers fly. Despite opposition from Atari CEO Ray Kassar and a break neck deadline set for September first of that year, the game would become a reality and would be developed by Howard Warshaw of Yars' Revenge fame.

Warshaw was forced to scrap several original ideas due to time restraints and instead focused on a viable game that could be created within the amount of time given - which was about five to six weeks. He tried to add in a sense of being lost and confused in the game - as E.T. had been in the films. Instead, gamers were frustrated and infuriated with the final product of the game and returned their copies for refunds. Some even sent their copies directly to Atari. Despite this, Warshaw has mentioned even as late as 1997 that he believes his work on the E.T. game was good considering the time frame given[1].

An estimated four million copies of E.T. were produced while only 1.5 million were sold - and, again, many of those were returned. The overproduction, poor sales, and huge payout for the game's license hurt Atari tremendously. The company reported a $536 million loss for 1983, and was later split up and sold by Warner Communications. The console division of the company was sold to Commodore International founder Jack Tramiel while the arcade division was sold to Namco in 1985. The company was officially considered defunct in 1984.

Despite all of this evidence presented, there are still people to this very day who will claim that E.T. isn't a bad game if one simply reads the instructions and tries to play the game rather than critique. Finding their end of the argument intriguing, I decided to cast my bias aside and do exactly as these individuals have asked. So, sidekicks and henchmen, I present to you the pain and suffering that I had to endure in order to come to a fair conclusion.

In closing, E.T. truly is one of the most boring, ridiculous, and downright bland video games to ever grace existence. It's nearly impossible to play without a manual - or so GameFAQs.com told me - and it's just as impossible with a manual. I think we've thoroughly proven that E.T. for the Atari 2600 is in fact the worst video game ever produced and a murderer to boot. So what is left to do with any copy of this game? Smash it with a gavel so this case can close.

There is no justice for this atrocity.

Hey, sidekicks and henchmen. Swift Justice is officially back, and it's time to look at another case

Video game violence is a topic that will go on either until they're obsolete or until mankind is destroyed by a savage army of darkness. This topic has been raging on since the early 1990s, and it's definitely not showing any signs of slowdown. But I don't want to bring up something that has been talked about over and over again(especially by me in The Brutal Truth at DebasedtoThis.org); I want to get to the bottom of this and find out which game is the most violent.

DooM

DooM was a game that really stirred crowds up with its gory violence, controversial ties with Columbine, and satanic themes. It was one of the first games to hand the player a chainsaw and simply say, "Go nuts."
Most critics attacked DooM due to its satanic theme more so than the violence, but parents and the media alike later felt that the ability to make custom maps and participate in brutal deathmatches through networking could cause the younger crowd to crave violence. The argument came to a head when parents and the media pushed a false story that columbine murderer Eric Harris created a Columbine simulation for DooM to practice his killings before committing the actual act. No proof of the existence of these maps have ever been found.
Overall, this game is considered revolutionary and extremely violent for its blood and bullet pumping action.

Mortal Kombat

Being blamed for everything except for the current recession in the US, Mortal Kombat has always boasted its violent content and received a ton of criticism for it.
Mortal Kombat received most of its controversy for being the first video game with digitized characters that included gore and the ability to kill the opponent after a match is complete. Mortal Kombat creators Ed Boon and Jon Tobias have confirmed that the Fatality system and digitized blood were added to give the game an edge in order to make it stand out.
The release of Mortal Kombat II created such a stir that the ESRB(Entertainment Software Rating Board) was introduced to help parents make wiser choices about what video games their children should play.

Manhunt

Manhunt is a series that is practically structured around the definition of violence. While it may not be the bloodiest and most graphic game in the ESRB-rated "M" bin, there is no denying what one must do in order to progress through the game: kill. It's a matter of kill or be killed, and the player is given several ways to complete the task.
Some would say that the ESRB was created just for games such as Manhunt, and I couldn't entirely disagree. This series is violent - that's not up for debate. But even with its somewhat realistic violence and mature theme, it still doesn't exactly push the envelope and leave anyone in shock. Simply put: we've seen worse.

Thrill Kill

Despite not being a series, this game needs to be considered simply because it tried so hard. As disgusting and gut wrenching as Thrill Kill could be, it doesn't really count because it never saw the light of day. However, the game's extremely violent legacy can't be ignored. Ultimately cancelled after Electronic Arts purchased the rights to the game, Thrill Kill was created to piss off soccer moms all across the country.
Also touching on sexual themes and various fetishes, Thrill Kill was a game about murder - no sugar coating at all. Instead of health bars, players would fill up a "Kill Meter" and perform brutal, Fatality-like murders on opponents. It was also filled with some of the most screwed up, vile characters that could come from any twisted imagination.
If it were actually released, Thrill Kill would probably be the most violent and brutal title to this very day. It would probably also be looked at as the biggest gimmick title to this day.

Resident Evil

This series forever changed a gaming world that was perhaps too happy and shiny at the time. The Resident Evil series(Biohazard in Japan) used the fiends that George Romero popularized to begin the survival horror series of games. While fear is a major factor of the series, violence doesn't exactly take a back seat.
There is enough gore to fill a few spa tubs throughout the Resident Evil games, and there are also plenty of ways to bring it out with pistols, shotguns, rifles, rocket launchers, and plenty more. There are also plenty of ways for the player to die in zombies, mutated dogs, mutated crows, the infamous lickers, spiders, a huge crocodile, parasite-infected villagers, amphibian-like creatures, oversized snakes, mutated sharks, and much more.
While the series is indeed violent, it is rather mild when compared to other series out there. The creators of the Resident Evil series tried to lean more toward fear than gore, and I commend them for it.

Mutant League Sports

The Mutant League Hockey and Football games are notorious for their dark theme, violence, and gore. Although the characters are mutants and no actual humans are involved, there's still landmines blasting players to pieces, weapons being thrown onto the rink, and the ability to win a game by killing enough members of the opposing team.
The violence featured in the Mutant League sports games may not be bloody, but it's definitely hardcore. Aside from the ability to kill the majority of the opposing team to win, the player can also choose to kill the referee if they don't agree with penalty calls. The hockey version of the series has fans constantly throwing axes, chainsaws, swords, and other weapons onto the rink for teams to use against one another. However, instead of the expected gushing of blood and possible loss of body parts, the players fall over and roll around if attacked by these weapons. Eventually they will explode in a mess of gore and bones(or parts if it's a robot player), but the rolling around part makes the violent action laughable.

Ninja Gaiden

Normally I wouldn't consider this series to be in the same league as the other games that will appear on this list, but Ninja Gaiden II for the 360 and PS3 was a downright gorefest that had no apologies.
The entire series has a violent theme to it, but blood was never really a factor until the series reset itself with Ninja Gaiden for the original Xbox. Although the blood wasn't on a massive scale, it was still enough to distinguish the reset Ninja Gaiden from the original series in terms of violent content.
The release of Ninja Gaiden II introduced players to an all out bloodbath. The addition of so much gore could be considered humorous at first and ridiculous after the shock value had long gone. This release alone took a series that was never really considered overtly violent and placed it side by side with titles that made a name on violence.

Grand Theft Auto

The GTA series didn't start off as a very graphic series, but it still packed plenty of car slamming, gun toting, mass murdering action to get players hooked and begging for more. It wasn't until the series went 3D with GTA III that people really took notice of the violent content the series offered.
I have no real idea why people suddenly realized that this series is violent and guns exist in the games until it went 3D, but people really flipped out when the third game became popular. The game has blood, machine guns, pistols, knives, and the ability to mow people down in a car, but the two previous games also had these things. I can agree that the content in the 3D games may seem pretty realistic and may influence some dumb kid to copy the actions shown, but there's another series that makes GTA like a trip through Disney Land…

Postal

If the world needs a game that reflects its ugliest attributes, it can turn to Postal. This game can make anyone lose hope in humanity with its insane amounts of gore and downright fucked up ways to kill someone. Ever wanted to use a cat as a silencer on your gun? You can do it here. Ever wanted to catch someone on fire and piss it out? Postal is there for you. How about shooting someone up and chopping the remains to small pieces? Again, you need Postal.
This game goes to the extreme with materials that are violent, disturbing, and openly offensive that also give off a hint of dark humor.
For title of most violent video game, I rule in favor of Postal simply because it displays several bad yet true characteristics of humanity and civilization - stretching the boundaries of course. It's not a title that gains as much controversy as other violent games, but it's far from timid and can even be offensive to the most hardcore of gamer. People will be talking about the legacy of Postal for years to come.

Case Closed.
Justice has been served.

Current Gen Systems

Hey, sidekicks and henchmen. Here's to over a month of Swift Justice and, hopefully, many more cases. Let's open this week's case.

The great console wars continue to grind on as this console generation approaches its mid-life. We've seen blockbuster announcements, great products, and the great eBay wave when the Wii and Playstation 3 finally hit shelves. It has indeed been an exciting and stimulating time to be a gamer. However, despite all of these events, one shall eventually beg the question of whether this has been one of the greatest or worst generations in the history of console video games. I will attempt to maintain a fair and balanced stance while reviewing the evidence.

There are normally two main arguments – one for either side – when it comes to this question. One side believes that this could possibly be the best generation in console gaming due to the overt power that the systems boast and lush graphics that seem to be second nature to these beasts. However, the other side argues that this could possibly be the worst generation because of a severe lack of originality and innovation – which I'm assuming includes Nintendo's Wiimote controller. I believe that both sides are not entirely incorrect in their claims.

The graphic power of the three systems is indeed something to behold. But have the graphics of this current generation stomped the graphics of the previous into the ground? Take a look at the Halo series as an example. It's quite obvious that the graphics in Halo 3 are far more polished than that of Halo 2(especially considering the 360 has a fillrate of 4 gigapixels per second while the original can't even reach one gigapixel per second), but is it so superior that it is awe-inspiring? Is Super Mario Galaxy so far ahead of Super Mario Sunshine that the latter looks archaic in comparison? Does Metal Gear Solid 4 remind the player that they're a generation behind if they dare touch Metal Gear Solid 3 again? My answer is yes and no.

Based on opinion with rational thought, I can clearly see the different between the sixth and seventh generation systems when compared. But the impact doesn't seem to be quite as hard-hitting as if one compared the fifth generation consoles to the sixth. For example, the visible difference is extreme when Super Mario 64 is compared to Super Mario Sunshine. There is also an extreme visible difference when Metal Gear Solid is compared to Metal Gear Solid 2. Comparing the visuals of Goldeneye 007 or Perfect Dark to the first Halo or Doom 3 displays an awe-inspiring if not violent difference in graphic capabilities. But I want to offer more than just my opinion. I want to offer evidence with my case. I will present the polygon counts and pixel pipelines.
Nintendo 64: Fast3D microcode – 100k highly accurate polygons per second | Turbo3D microcode – 500k to 600k highly accurate polygons(possibly used for games such as Goldeneye 007 or Jet Force Gemeni)
Nintendo Gamecube: 648 megapixels per second
Nintendo Wii: Nintendo won't even tell us

Sony Playstation: 360k flat-shaded polygons per second(180k textured mapped and light sourced)
Sony Playstation 2: 2.3 gigapixels per second
Sony Playstation 3: 9 billion pixels per second(this figure is widely disputed)

Microsoft Xbox: 932 megapixels per second
Microsoft Xbox 360: 4 gigapixels per second

The first thing I want to point out is the pixel count that Sony claims the PS3 is capable of. Nine billion pixels per second demolishes the capabilities of the Playstation 2. Keep in mind that there is more to graphics than a pixels pipeline count, but such a huge gap between the two systems is mind-shattering. I don't understand why Nintendo wants to keep the graphic capabilities of the Wii so badly. They have already admitted that they didn't try for graphic system this go around, but why do they feel the need to hide the specs? That leads me to believe that they're laughable in comparison to the Gamecube. Finally, the Xbox displays a jump in technology between the original and the 360 but not a tremendous one – they were only four years apart afterall.

The comparison of the graphic capabilities of the fifth, sixth and seventh generation consoles at this point is left to opinion. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I was extremely impressed when I saw that the shardy, often unpolished graphics of the Playstation and Nintendo 64 were replaced with the smooth, detailed images that the Gamecube and Playstation 2 were offering. Again, comparing the Mario from Super Mario 64 to the Mario of Super Mario Sunshine will show an extreme graphic overhaul. Comparing the Sunshine Mario to Galaxy Mario seems to merely present him as shinier. The same can be said for the Halo 2 Master Chief and the Halo 3 Master Chief.

The argument of originality confuses me to a degree. In a time where consoles are doing things that have never been done before, some feel that we are being treated to unoriginality. Perhaps the originality exists in choice of titles, but the consoles themselves seem to be very original.

The Xbox 360 offers up a wide array of conveniences and perks to add replay value that were absent in the Original era. One small tidbit that gamers take for granted is the achievements. While achievements are by no means must-haves, they certainly add a replay value that makes gamers keep jamming away on their favorite games until they've achieved all of the nerdpoints. There's also the option to go on Xbox Live and show off the amount of achievement points one has on their personal profile – something else that was strangely absent from the previous console. One feature that I know I love is the wireless controllers that also act as remote controls for the console and the fact that no adaptor is needed to play DVDs. There's also the ability to purchase tons of kickass older titles via the Xbox Live Arcade. Maybe I don't understand the argument, but the 360 looks to be jam packed with sweet new features to me.

Also, take the Wii for example. It gets major originality points simply for the Wiimote – it's like a Power Glove that all of your games are designed for AND it works! Take into account that the system is backward compatible with all Gamecube titles and I'm already sold. But the system also offers the nunchuck add-on, the Virtual Console, and Wiiware. Perhaps it's the most gimmicky of the big three, but it certainly has its share of cool, new features to share with gamers.

As for the Playstation 3…that one I can understand. Aside from a Blu-ray player and a controller that can operate for thirty hours on a full charge, I don't see much innovation. But then again I'll admit to being bias against the Playstation 3. At least it looks like a cool grill, right?

For the most part this case relies on one's opinion rather than actual facts. It's a fact that the bar on power and graphics has been raised with each generation, but it's more of opinion on whether developers took advantage or not. Personally, I don't see the innovative power and graphics that were present with the last. But, again, the argument is fueled by opinion.

However, the innovation argument relies less on opinion and more on facts. Other consoles haven't offered what the 360 has offered us. That is a fact. No other remote-like controller has worked as smooth and effectively as the Wiimote. That could be categorized as opinion and debated, but the Nintendo supporters are going to have a lot of material to back up their arguments.

This is a tough case. There are so many opinions that can be presented. I believe that I have no choice but to throw this case out due to opinions outweighing evidence.

Justice is served.

(Do you object? Login to the forum and give your testimony)

32X

Happy late Dreamcast Day, sidekicks and henchmen. It's time for another edition of Swift Justice.

It's no secret that the Sega 32X failed in the market. However, many consider the 32X to be one of the biggest failures in gaming history. With such gems as The Virtual Boy, the Philips CDi, and the Atari Jaguar already occupying that list, I began to wonder if calling the 32X one of the biggest failures was a fair depiction of the hardware. It's time to sort out the evidence and see if we truly were sold epic fail in a box when we were kids.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the 32X was designed to be an add-on rather than a stand-alone system. The idea for the 32X surfaced when Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama ordered the company to come up with a 32-bit console by Christmas of 1994. Sega of Japan met up with Sega of America, and their first idea of an upgraded Sega Genesis with a 32-bit processor was scrapped mainly because they felt that nobody was going to buy a second Genesis. It was Sega of America's Joe Miller who proposed that the new system actually be an add-on to the Genesis. It was released with what many considered to be a suicidal price of $159 – compared to the release price of $190 for the Genesis in '89.

The first aggravation is that both the Genesis and the 32X have to have power in order to operate. Not only does this create a cluttered mess at the wall socket, but it also means that the Genesis must be in working condition for the 32X to operate. Take that in for a moment – I know I had to. If for some reason your Genesis breaks and will no longer turn on, you are now the proud owner of a $159 paperweight. High five.

Another bad reality for the 32X is that the first batch of games for the system was severely rushed to meet the Christmas of '94 deadline. There were reported glitches galore – some glitches even forced the system to crash – poor quality in the games, and the games failed to use the Q-sound audio system that the 32X possessed. They played like garbage, they looked like garbage, and they sounded like garbage. That can't be a good launch.

However, even with these issues, there was still a heavy amount of demand for the system – at first. Sega of America was prepared with 500,000 units to sell, but the orders were supposedly in the millions. But, after all of the complaints had been made, the returns were complete, and people completely forgot the system, the 32X finished out its lifespan with a disappointing 200,000 units officially sold.

So what happened to this system? Many people point out the fact that consumers knew the Sega Saturn would be on its way in just six months. Game developers were also abandoning the 32X to prepare for the Saturn because they felt it would be the "true 32-bit experience" from Sega. Industry veteran Steve Snake pins the blame for disappointing fans onto the media. According to Snake, titles that performed without issue on the SNES and Genesis were pushing the 32X to its limit with the very little amount of material that was added to, what Snake calls, these "Genesis ports." But he also says that the over-hype from the media didn't help the situation in the least as magazine readers were expecting an arcade experience from home.

I assumed that the 32X didn't belong on the worst consoles of all time list simply because it worked and didn't harm players – unlike the Virtual Boy. But, after researching, I have to admit that it has to be one of the largest failures in the history of the video game industry. It was rushed, it was developed far too late, its Q-Sound system was difficult to work with, and it acted like a parasite. I'd like to say that Sega didn't make any major mistakes after this car wreck, but I'd be lying.

This could easily go on the list of the worst add-ons/consoles(because they dared to call it that) in the history of the industry. I admit that I wasn't originally sold on that claim, but, upon research, the evidence has become overwhelming. If you were one of the kids who received a 32X as a Christmas gift in '94, then my condolences to you. That fail in a box was real. Why couldn't they have worked on something that was actually a system that also outperformed the 32X? They could call it the Neptune or something. Oh, wait...

Justice is served.

Dreamcast

Hey, sidekicks and henchmen. Welcome to Swift Justice. It's time to look at another case.

As the turn of the century came about, there was plenty to talk about in the world of gaming. Sony was working on a new Playstation model, Nintendo was casually dropping hints about the new Dolphin console, and Microsoft announced that it was entering the console wars with its Xbox. However, the company to stand in the limelight and have the last laugh in the 20th century would be Sega with its Dreamcast. Several gamers still argue to this day that the Dreamcast was possibly the greatest console ever made, but exactly how much weight is there in this opinion?

One simply can't discredit Sega's US advertising campaign. While Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would all use a more run-of-the-mill style of advertising for games and the system, Sega was bold. While many religious Americans were expecting the Rapture to occur on September 9th of 1999(9/9/99), Sega was flaunting the release of its powerhouse on that same day with several commercials that would show the Dreamcast logo and the release date at the bottom of the screen. They were also known for showing several characters from various Dreamcast games interacting with one another in random locations. It was a move to show off the system's graphic capabilities, and it grabbed attention.

There was also the extremely inventive controller that the Dreamcast brought to the table. A first glance would suggest that perhaps the controller is a bit bulky and possibly even overbearing like the original Xbox controllers, but I thought it was a pretty snug fit. The control stick is in a somewhat awkward place, but it's a breeze to work with once one gets the hang of it. As stock as all that sounds, it can easily be forgiven when one looks at the Visual Memory Unit – or VMU. The VMU was a gimmicky memory card for the system, but it packed a lot of cool. Not only could it save game data, but it could also download mini-games onto its flash drive that players could play around with after removing the VMU from the controller. There was a LCD screen, a D-pad, and two buttons on the VMU so one could scroll through saved game information or play a mini-game. A window was cut into the controller so the VMU screen was visible to display various cool things like one's health when playing a Resident Evil title. The bad thing about the VMU is it practically ate watch batteries when not plugged into the controller, so I hardly ever played mini-games with it.

There were lots of other gimmicky controllers and add-ons for the Dreamcast – like the microphone so NFL 2K noobs could argue over the rules – but the VMU is what always comes to mind when I think of the Dreamcast. No other console has tried to do anything like this, and I think it's a shame. Perhaps the competition knew it was beaten in that category.

The library of games doesn't exactly slack for the system either. Though not as polished and amazing as the libraries of the other three would become, the Dreamcast gave lots of fun choices such as: Sonic Adventure, Mr. Driller, Shenmue, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Mortal Kombat Gold(my favorite), Resident Evil Code: Veronica, House of the Dead 2, Virtua Fighter 3: Team Battle, Phantasy Star Online, Zombie Revenge(I liked it at least), the King of Fighters series, Power Stone, Prince of Persia, Marvel vs Capcom 1 and 2, Jet Grind Radio, Dead or Alive 2, Capcom vs SNK, and the NFL 2K/NHL 2K/NBA 2K sports franchises were actually good. There were even titles that were still being released for the system until 2007 in Japan – a good six years after the console's official death in the market.

However, I still don't believe that this list is that jaw-dropping compared to the libraries of the other three sixth-generation consoles. Playstation 2 fans could produce a list a mile long, Gamecube fans could compare the great Nintendo exclusives list to it, and the Xbox fans could mention Halo 2 a good thousand times while still bringing up plenty of noteworthy games. Not to mention that a fair chunk of the Dreamcast games that I mentioned appeared on the other three at some point. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but I don't believe that the Dreamcast outdoes the others on this subject.

Do you object? Let me know in the Swift Justice thread of the forum.

The Dreamcast's hardware isn't really that impressive when compared to the other three, but it was something to rave about in 1998. It sports a 32-bit CPU clocked at 200 MHz, can produce a decent polygon count per second for its time, 16 MB of memory, it uses the GD-ROM technology with a max capacity of 1.2 gigs per disc. However, it was definitely starting to show its age by 1999 when the Playstation 2 was unveiled in Japan and American gamers got their first glimpse at what Sony had in store for everyone very soon.

Compare the Dreamcast to the Playstation 2's specs of: 64-bit CPU "emotion engine" clocked at 294 MHz, 32 MB of memory, a higher pixel count, and DVD-ROM technology with a max capacity of 4.7 gigs per disc. There is certainly some age difference in the global market, and that comparison is quite a beating. The worst part is the beating only gets worse when it is compared to the systems that were released three years after '98. Add in the fact that the Playstation 2 acted as a DVD player while the Dreamcast didn't and you've got one hell of a beating in the back alley.

The big innovation that the Dreamcast provided was a built-in modem for online gaming. It's common knowledge that it was the first console to actually be built for Internet play, but some may not know that the Dreamcast was almost three years ahead of the others in the online play race. Both the PS2 and Xbox didn't offer online play as soon as the systems were released. The PS2 began its online network a good eight months after its release and required owners to purchase the network adaptor to get online, and the Xbox, despite having a built-in broadband adaptor, went online with Xbox Live in November of 2002 – nearly a year after its release. The Gamecube…isn't worth mentioning when it comes to online play.

However, the online capability really didn't catch on. It was slow(the good ol' 56k days), both sides could pause the game and alter rules in sports games – I actually saw my friend go back and forth with this guy for fifteen minutes once just switching the rules – and communication was a bit hard to do without the release of the microphone yet. The keyboard was the only way to chat up with someone while trying to switch between it and a controller - though some might see that as a blessing.

What can I say about the Dreamcast that is fair? I can definitely say that it wasn't a failure like some call it. It had some cool ideas, and it brought us online play that we never truly appreciated. The system had the last laugh in the 20th century, but it practically disemboweled by the competition in the early 21st century. It's obvious that Sega wanted back in the race after the Sega Saturn failure and was willing to release a product several years earlier than the competition.

Their decision worked for the most part. The Dreamcast was THE talked about system for quite some time. It captivates imaginations and created a ravenous following rivaled only by the Nintendo Wii. Unfortunately, the grasp on the market was merely a short burst.

Would I give up my Dreamcast that sits comfortably underneath my television? It would have to be pried from my cold, dead hands first, and I'm certain that every other Dreamcast owner feels the same way. The Dreamcast packed enough excitement and innovation to control the market, but it lacked the power to hold control for long in the world of competition. It deserves its cult status.

Justice is served.

8-Bit Classics

Hey, sidekicks and henchmen. It's Friday, and it's time for another edition of Swift Justice.

I absolutely loved the 8-bit era. There was nothing better than sitting at home on a lazy Sunday with a bowl of Cap'n Crunch and a killer run of Xevious. Naturally, I was pretty stoked about the idea of the Virtual Console and Xbox Live Arcade when I heard about the ideas. Here was my chance to easily collect all of the old games that escaped my grasp as a young collector. But with the announcement of Capcom's Mega Man 9 came plenty of praise and skepticism. I sought out to understand why some where skeptical while others like me were jumping for joy.

The first thing that was brought to my attention was the fact that Mega Man 9 going back to 8-bit graphics was a little on the strange side. To understand this statement, one must look at both Mega Man 7, Mega Man 8, and Mega Man and Bass(Rockman & Forte) for SNES, Playstation, and Gameboy Advance(or on the Anniversary Collection if you're lazy like me – Mega Man and Bass absent from collection). These games played in the same manner as the original games. Mega Man still gains the robot master's power when the boss is defeated, Rush is available, the Mega Buster is present, robot masters are weakened in a "rock, paper, scissors" format, and the final battle is against the infamous Dr. Wily. Is there any legitimate reason to return to 8-bit for this game other than to use the nostalgia factor in order to get sales from those obsessed with nostalgia and oldschool collectors?

After a writer that I deeply respect pointed out the lack of grounds for 8-bit I decided to do a little bit of research. Nintendo and Microsoft both have been testing the waters for some time on whether people are willing to pay for 8-bit stuff, and I believe it's safe to say that consumers are willing to pay around $8-10 depending on the game. Nintendo has released such classics as Ninja Gaiden and TMNT II; The Arcade Game while Microsoft released the actual arcade port of TMNT and took it upon themselves to publish Ninja Gaiden II a couple of months ago. If this isn't blatantly working off of one another's demographics, then I don't know what is. One releases one version of something to see if holds interest, and the other follows up with an alternate version to cash in on the existing hype.

But it seems that Capcom took the initiative and cashed in on the reformed 8-bit hype that both companies had created. Younger gamers were astounded by some of the titles they missed out on due to age, and the older crowd was wishing for another crack at the 8-bit era. Capcom decided to meet demand, and a new adventure starring the Blue Bomber was announced and sported oldschool graphics rather than the more polished, less outdated graphics from Mega Man 8. Now they can stand back and watch the cash flow in.

Can we blame Capcom for blatantly filling a demand and providing a less polished product because they know what sells? I don't believe that would be fair. People can and will argue that games should not be made simply for a nostalgia factor, but they will be made for this very reason as long as somebody wants it. Supply and demand are not "bad words," and profit is the very word that ensures future titles for us to purchase and enjoy.

As I mentioned in my last From the Shadows* entry experts are predicting that the success of Mega Man 9 will cause a wave of new oldschool games such as possibly Bionic Commando. As cool as this idea sounds, I'm with the crowd that would like to see fresh ideas and new titles rather than 8-bit sequels to older titles. I don't believe that anyone would be brave enough to try this, but I'm crossing my fingers. Besides, would it not be pretty sweet to play a Halo game that resembled Contra? Now I know that I'm dreaming.

In closing, I believe that we should respect Capcom's noble attempt to create interesting in continuing the classics. But, at the same time, we shouldn't be deceived into believing that they're doing it simply for the fans. It's fairly obvious at this point that Capcom is attempting to tap into a fresh, untapped market and draw in some large dollar signs. From a business stance Capcom is doing nothing wrong with these actions, but a standpoint of morality would beg to differ. The only thing that the nay-sayers can do is continue to speak their opinion on the matter and boycott the product to prevent its success.

Justice is served.

"* Read From the Shadows at Debasedtothis.org"

Swift Justice - The Hardcore vs Casual Feud

Hey, sidekicks and villains. I am the Debaser, and this is Swift Justice. I will bring you an original editorial every Saturday here at TheGameHeroes.com, and I am excited to get this started.

This week I want to talk about this entire "hardcore versus casual" mess that seems to have recently boiled over with Nintendo's giant E3 disappointment. The argument certainly existed before this incident, but the flame has become a wildfire ever since Nintendo didn't deliver the goods that fans were expecting.

I shouldn't have to explain the concept to anyone who visits TGH.com, but I'll give the benefit of doubt this one time. The "hardcore versus casual" concept is the idea that there are gamers who are more serious and choose serious games to play(like Call of Duty 4 or Halo 3 for example) and there are casual gamers who choose games because they're fun and easy to pick up(Super Mario Galaxy, Animal Crossing, or Pikmin for example). This idea is pretty much reality for the most part, but the reality begins to distort as gamers argue over which side is better.

The hardcore gamer tends to enjoy a challenge. The idea of competition is exciting and welcoming to him or her. The hardcore gamer usually feels that games lacking challenge are a waste of time. They tend to play first-person shooters, but they can delve into plenty of other challenging genres as long as they enjoy the competition and something is present to keep their competitive spirit up(Call of Duty 4's Prestige Mode is a kickass example of what I'm talking about). Hardcore gamers are known to play one game for long periods of time in attempt to become one of the best players of said game. The hardcore gamer is usually in an age range of fourteen to thirty years old. They don't take losing very well. *

The casual gamer tends to embrace games that are fun and aren't overwhelming. They will try a plethora of different games from different genres, and they don't really care to become the best at any of them. Competition and challenge is okay, but they don't like to be overwhelmed or humiliated. The casual gamer is known to play games that they enjoy or will play multiplayer games that they can share with others(Wii Play and Wii Sports). The casual gamer doesn't really have an age range; anyone can be a casual gamer. They accept defeat with mild irritation most of the time. *

Obviously, the two are as different as night and day, but they can quite similar in certain aspects. Both the casual and hardcore gamer are people who want to be entertained, enjoy video games, and collect video games.

But how can two things so different be so similar at the same time? I believe the answer can be found in a brief history lesson. In the early days of video games, the gamer usually found himself in the arcade. A place of fun and wonder, the arcade provided many different cabinets for awaiting patrons who needed some entertainment on the cheap. For a quarter, one could assume the role of Frogger, Jumpman, or a yellow-ish creature that gobbled up tiny dots and fended off pesky ghosts. It was fun stuff. It was a great way to relax and leave all of the troubles and cares of the world behind for just a short while.

However, fun wasn't the only thing that was offered with these beloved arcade classics. The chance to hold the high score of one's local cabinet of Pac-Man, Xevious, or Donkey Kong was also readily available. Gobble up some dots? Get points. Shoot the bad guys out of the sky? Get points. It was a harmless and enthralling activity that gamers couldn't get enough of.

It didn't take long for the reality that other players could also record their scores to sink in. Certainly it started as friendly competition between buddies, and the loser owed the other a milkshake. But as the number of dedicated players to the game grew, so did the level of competition. Some gamers enjoyed it while others slowly backed away with their hands in the air. "Hey, man. I just want my go," I imagine they would say.

This is my theory on the creation of the hardcore and casual gamer. Simply put, both sides came from the same pool. One enjoyed one specific aspect while the other side enjoyed a different aspect. It was merely a matter of choice and nothing more. There was no reason to get bent out of shape and go on a wild tangent over the difference between the two, and I recall them interacting in perfect harmony with one another as a small boy.

As arcades slowly began to die and home consoles became far more popular than the industry had expected, the hardcore and casual crowds slowly drifted away. They definitely existed, but there was no more competition to differentiate the two. Aside from the usual game that provided a greater challenge than the others, console games didn't really create the same environment. Gamers could always take snapshots of their high scores and send them to publications such as Nintendo Power, but it wasn't entirely the same. It was far milder and less popular.

As online capability became more common in game releases, the competition heated back up. The gamer split into the hardcore and the casual categories again, and two were able to live in harmony again – at least at first. In a mix of what would probably be Internet anonymousness** and a clash of differences, the two sides slowly began to dislike one another and feud over which was superior. The casual gamer would want to try the latest release and jump online to be greeted by the hardcore gamer who is less than pleased that he is paired up with an inexperienced player or provided little to no challenge.

Send me hate mail if you wish, but I'm going to blame this feud on the hardcore side for the most part. Before someone addresses that letter bomb to me, I'd like to state that I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer simply because Call of Duty 4 practically lives in my Xbox 360. I play it for fun, but I also play it for the challenge. I like to see how well I can play compared to my friends, and I do not make losing one of my options.

I blame the hardcore crowd mainly for being intolerant to the choices of others. I can't count how many times I've played Halo 3 or Gears of War and witnessed a new player get flamed straight to Hell and back simply because they didn't know much about the game and simply wanted to try it online. These players were the victims of friendly fire and other lewd, unfriendly actions. This never happened back in the old arcade days mainly because someone would be leaving the arcade with a broken face.

In closing, this feud will go on forever as long as the hardcore gamers continue to act out online because they can and the casual crowd nags them on with insults in retaliation. I sincerely hope that this will change in the future and the gaming community can somehow convert back to the old days.

I find the hardcore crowd guilty of creating this overall unfriendly environment that leads to the feuds we hear about on a daily basis. Justice is served.

-Debaser

* This information is from personal experience. No official statistics were used
** See "The Brutal Truth – Online Gamers" at Debasedtothis.org