Second Opinion: 1080 Snowboarding vs. Snowboard Kids

Despite the current lack of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, I recently got my hands on two snowboarding games for the Nintendo 64: Snowboard Kids by Atlus & Racdym, and 1080 Snowboarding by Nintendo. Both are titles I have fond memories renting as a kid, and both are titles I haven't touched in years. So which is better than the other? Well... they're different. But to explain which of the two quantifiably does what it does better... that would take more... explaining. In pondering such an... explanation (somebody give me a thesaurus), I flashed back to a certain review by the Video Game Critic. No, it's not Sonic 4, although it did generate negativity where I saw none. Yup, he/she/they gave Snowboard Kids a C+, whereas 1080 scored an A-, and apparently, that is cause for my concern. Looks like it's time to dust off the Second Opinion brand again!

1080 Snowboarding Publisher: Nintendo Developer: Nintendo Release: Nintendo 64, 31 March 1998 Genre: 1-4 player Sports/Racing Save: Battery, 1 file Rarity/Cost:Common, US$5-15	Snowboard Kids Publisher: Atlus Developer: Racdym Release: Nintendo 64, February 1998 Genre: 1-4 player Sports/Racing Save: Controller Pak, 121 Pages Rarity/Cost: Moderate, US$15-25

Design:

First of all, I can tell you up front that 1080 Snowboarding is more or less a straight-up racing game on snowboards, in which the main mode involves series of one-on-one races. Snowboard Kids, on the other hand, plays with that formula. One, you can pick up items to slow down your rivals or boost yourself. For this reason alone, the Video Game Critic aptly describes this as "Mario Kart on snowboards". So what kinds of pickups can one expect? More than can be described in his/her/their traditional one-paragraph reviews, that's for certain, but he/she/they do have something to say on the the matter:

[SK] Some weapons are incredibly cheap, like one that simultaneously drops pans on all of your opponent's heads (really?).

Ah yes, the dreaded pie pans. (Or possibly washtubs; I hear that's a real thing in anime.) Now, what he/she/they don't tell you is that there's actually a fair balance to the item allotments. The more effective goodies like the pie pans are more frequently given to players falling behind, whereas leading players are more likely to end up with lowly rocks (for tripping opponents with). Compare it with the Mario Kart series, and let me know if you manage to find a Blue Shell within the top three places.

And two, despite the one-way nature of snowboarding, the game manages to work in a lap system: at the finish line, you scoot over to a gate and ride a chair-lift to the top of the course. But it's not all good, as the VGC describes:

[SK] Each race requires several "runs" down the slope, and you need to enter a tiny lift gate at the bottom of each hill to ride back to the top. Why did they make these gates so tiny? They are so easy to miss! [...] The races are longer than Lindsay Lohan's rap sheet, so if one guy pulls way ahead it turns into a dull affair.

Alright, I will concede that fighting with your opponents to get the next seat on the chair-lift is not the best way to put this concept into practise. Why not just make it a cutscene -- or better yet, a skippable cutscene?

[1080] There are a nice variety of modes including match races, time trials, slalom events, long jumps, half pipes, and "contests" that mix up the challenges.

[SK] The single-player mode challenges to beat all the tracks, and you shouldn't overlook the mini-games which include a rapid-fire snowman shooter.

Both games feature stand-alone time trials and score trials, where you pull off stunts for points. By virtue of its unorthodox format, SK offers an exclusive mode where you shoot stationary snowmen. But unlike SK, in 1080 you can attempt these auxiliary modes on any track available in the central mode, and then some. However, what the Video Game Critic doesn't tell you is that "Long jumps" and "half pipes" merely refer to individual courses playable in one Trick Attack mode. Draw.

[1080] A nice two-player split screen mode is included and the cartridge automatically saves high scores.

[SK] The problem is, saving your progress requires 121 pages on a controller pack [sic], and that's pretty much the whole thing!

Yeah, that's a lot of space, I said understatedly. Frame of reference: a regulation-size Controller Pak holds 123 pages of data. This is one reason why my youthful preferences drifted more towards the N64 and away from the CD-based PlayStation: the ability to save progress without and additional purchase. The chance that my file might not be on the copy I rented the second time around was a chance I was willing to take. Point 1080.

Control:

[1080]The trails are more narrow than other snowboarding games, but it's not a problem since analog stick provides just the right degree of control. [...] Also, I noticed that some characters have trouble nailing their landings even after performing simple tricks.

[SK] The tracks are wide enough and the analog controls make it easy to carve.

Okay, this is where I beg to differ. In my experiences with 1080, the game offered me anything but the right degree of control. I could literally (not literally, mind you) never get my boarder to coast in a straight line, since every single turn left him or her faced at some angle. Which becomes problematic because there's a health meter, if you can believe it, and when it drains you have to trade in one of your limited "lives". Whilst ultimately playable, the unstable controls of 1080 provide for a serious case of "Your Mileage May Vary". At the very least, 1080's control setup boasts a feature missing from SK's: holding Z makes you duck down and go faster, without having to jump once you let go of the button. Point SK.

You can hardly ever keep straight in 1080 Snowboarding.

If I may be permitted to make an observation of my own, I shall compare the trick systems of both games. In 1080, the B button and Control Stick are used for grab tricks and the R for spins. On the other hand, to do spins/flips in Snowboard Kids, you have to hold the Control Stick before jumping, not in midair. You can also do grabs by pressing and holding one of the C buttons, but for some reason you can only perform one grab per jump. Combined, these rules make the stunt system in SK far more awkward than in 1080. And when doing tricks yields rewards other than points in a separate mode, it's kind of important not to mess that system up. Still, both these titles were planned and released before Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (PlayStation et al., 1999) came and standardised the extreme-sports genre, so either way you might encounter a degree of early-installment weirdness. Point 1080.

Graphics:

[1080] The graphics are superb, with awesome mountain backdrops, icy ridges, and blowing snow that looks so real you can feel the chill! I actually had to wear a hat, ski pants, and ski boots just to review this game. Most of the six courses are fairly realistic, and even the more unusual courses never go completely over-the-top like those in SSX (Playstation 2, 2000). [...] The sound of crisp snow crunching under your board is awesome, and I like the way snow flies as you slice through it.

[SK] The courses are very inviting with their well-groomed trails and bright blue skies. The night track is downright spectacular with gorgeous lighting effects and a quaint town backdrop. The tracks feature plenty ramps, cliffs, tunnels, and bridges to keep things interesting. [...] Most trails have appealing winter themes, but what's up with the "grass valley" stage? Who in the [expletive] [sic] wants to snowboard on grass? That doesn't even make any sense! There's also an amusement park track that's equally dumb - and unnecessary.

Somebody's gushing about games they like. Alright, bias aside, I can safely state that 1080 goes for a straight snowboard simulation, whereas SK takes a more fantastical bent. Both are reasonably competent at what they set out to do. On the one hand, 1080 fits in more details, like the trail of compressed snow behind your boarder, and the wind whipping at his or her clothes. But I don't know about "superb"; slowdown is occasional, the camera seems to have a fetish for "Dutch angles", and character animation is on the lifeless side.

As for Snowboard Kids, yes there is the occasional stage which takes place on non-snowy surfaces, like Green Valley (pictured below), Dizzy Land, and the unlockable Sand Mountain. And you consider that as valid grounds for criticism? Seriously, dude? Whatever happened to your spirit of whimsical fun? I mean, when your game features (alleged) 10-year-olds smacking each other about with snowmen, pie pans, and Cartoon Bombs, what else could you expect but something a little off-the-wall? And besides, it's not like grass, rocks, or sand have different physics than snow, so in essence, they all play the same! ...Granted it would be a nice technical achievement for them to have done so, but hey, gotta save something for the next console generation. Besides, why not talk about the character models, each easily discernable from one another and decked out with these giant noses, it's just... so... KLOOOOOOOOOOT!!! =^_^=

...

Yes, folks. A cat-emoticon. You see what ya made me do, Snowboard Kids!? Draw.

Grassy courses in Snowboard Kids, because why the [verb] not.

[SK] Power-ups and weapons are provided by creepy clown icons.

And another thing: no, that's a dog on the item boxes. You know, the same dog who runs the board shop from the main menu? Do you even do research for your reviews? Oh wait, you ignored Dimps' heavy involvement in Sonic 4, so I guess not.

Audio:

[1080] One negative aspect of the game is the soundtrack, which dishes out some of the most repetitive [noun] I've ever heard in a video game.

Alright, I'll agree with you there. The music in 1080 tries to emulate real house and rock music, which given the limited music synthesizer and storage space for samples proffered by the Nintendo 64, is no small feat. Unfortunately in doing so, they made some of the songs just plain annoying, in particular the track from the first level, Crystal Lake (no relation to Friday the 13th). SK, on the other hand, has decidedly more in common with "traditional" video game composition, with a stronger emphasis on instrumental melody, and is stronger for it. I for one especially liked the minor-key theme from the Night Highway course. Point SK.

Final Statements:

[1080] [...] 1080 is a phenomenal title that's hard to put down. Before SSX came along, nothing could touch this.

[SK] Bonehead design decisions not withstanding, this lighthearted racer will keep you in good spirits during the cold winter months.

Dear Video Game Critic, forgive me for not indulging in such gushing praise of 1080 Snowboarding. I still maintain that the unstable motion physics leave much to be polished up, but the straight-up racing and trick mechanics provide more than their share of satisfaction. But if I had to pick a proverbial deserted-island game, I'd personally prefer Snowboard Kids, for its creativity and innovation not only in the snowboarding sub-genre, but the kart-racing sub-genre from which it claims inspiration from. Yes, execution is nine-tenths of the law when it comes to reviewing video games, but it's also important to understand the designers' intentions, and I do wish the Video Game Critic could be more receptive in that regard.

1080 Snowboarding: Control: 2 1080s out of 5 Design: 3 1080s out of 5 Graphics: 4 1080s out of 5 Audio: 2 1080s out of 5 Value: 3 1080s out of 5 The Call: 65% (C)

Snowboard Kids: Control: 3 pie-pans out of 5 Design: 4 pie-pans out of 5 Graphics: 3 pie-pans out of 5 Audio: 4 pie-pans out of 5 Value: 3 pie-pans out of 5 The Call: 75% (B-)

So that's my review, but before I go, I've got one more punch to throw. Subsequent with his/her/their review on Snowboard Kids, the Video Game Critic published a review of its sequel Snowboard Kids 2 (Nintendo 64, 1999), which unfortunately had bestowed upon it a D+ rating. While some valid complaints were brought up about some less-than-desirable mechanics being carried over from the first game, the majority of the review was just him/her/they kvetching about its choice of non-traditional settings. No seriously, comments relating to the snowy settings -- or lack thereof -- literally compose half the review -- and mind you, I've been real particular about the use of the word "literally", mind you. And to that I say, OH MY GOD WHO THE [verb] CARES!? IT'S FUN!! Yes, pure simulations have their place in the market, and a well-deserved place at that. But when you have the immense power of a virtual world at your disposal, what's wrong with letting your imagination run wild? It would've been nicer if you spent more time examining what did get improved from SK, like the trick system; you can now do more than one grab per jump! So yeah, the same experience as SK, only with more and better content. If you don't mind shelling out an extra ten bucks for a used copy, I'd easily recommend Snowboard Kids 2 over its sequel, plus a bunch of sour grapes to the haters.

Second Opinion: Super Mario Bros. 2

As you may recall, for my April Fools' Day special this year, I converted my review on the Super NES version of Doom into video form... in the style of the Irate Gamer. At first I had only seen a few episodes of his show, and despite his occasional lapses of research failures and hypocrisies, there were some moments of his I genuinely liked. I watched more of his show as I was working on my episode, and it was then that I chanced upon his "review" of Super Mario Bros. 2 for the NES. This, ladies and gentlemen, was the moment when I lost all respect for the Irate Gamer as a critic. There was so much he overlooked and just failed to care about that it instantly became one of those opinions I refused to recognise. And so, here's what I have to say about what the Irate Gamer had to say about...

Super Mario Bros. 2

• Publisher: Nintendo
• Developer: Nintendo
• Platform/Release:
• NES, October 1988
• Game Boy Advance, 10 June 2001 (as Super Mario Advance)
• Genre: 2D Action (Platformer)
• Players: 1
• Rarity/Cost:
• NES: Common, US$10-20
• GBA: Common, US$5-10

"If you line up all the Super Mario games in order, one of them just sticks out like a sore thumb."

You mean Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, the one game out of those five in which you don't even play as Mario? ...Still good, though.

"Now when you start this game, you'll have the choice of picking from four different characters., all with their own special abilities. Mario is the regular fighter, Luigi is the high jumper, Princess Peach can hover in the air for extended periods of time, and Toadstool, well, he's pretty much worthless."

Toad is not useless; he's the fastest digger out of all the four characters. Which comes in handy in places such as the levels in World 2, which have deep digging passages.

"[...] You'll notice that the gameplay has been totally altered. First they did away with the ability to smash your enemies. Instead, you'll have to pick them up and toss them at other enemies in order to kill them."

Okay, look. I can understand annoyance at the loss of instant gratification, like the kind you find when you stomp on an enemy in Super Mario Bros. and it goes away right then and there. But SMB2 plays by its own set of rules, and if you're comparing it to a completely foreign system, then you're not going to have fun with it. Which, might I argue, is the point of video games on the whole, no?

"Second, this game is only a one-player game. It's totally different from the original in which you can play two players."

Funny thing about that: in its earliest stages of development, SMB2 was conceived as supporting two player co-op, but this feature was deemed not fun enough and scrapped early on. Also, the multiplayer offerings from the first SMB were of the take-turns variety.

"And remember that invincibility star? Well, yeah, they pretty much [verb]ed that whole thing up, too. Instead of now finding the star, you'll have to go around collecting five cherries that are scattered around the levels. And after you collected that fifth cherry, you've got to wait for it!"

Look at that scene again. Not only did he cut away from that footage in order to artificially stretch it out, but he also slowed down the footage itself. Yeah, I can tell. I re-created that scenario, and the time it took for the Starman to rise up from the screen and touch my player was exactly 10.85 seconds. And besides, it's not like Cherries are hard to find, in most levels.

"And while we're at it, this game could really use a lot more power-ups, too. Some spots in the game are so over-crowded with enemies, it's insane."

Wimp.

"At the end of the game, you'll finally meet up with the last boss, Wart, who ends up just really being a pushover. All you have to do is throw vegetables at him when his mouth is open, and he'll choke on them and die. And yet again giving kids another reason not to eat their vegetables."

Your hero, ladies and gentlemen.

"Released only in Japan, [Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels] continues where the first one left off. All the same enemies, power-up items, even the maps look the same. This right here is the perfect predecessor to the first Mario game."

When you said that part about the same items, you showed a Poison Mushroom - an item not found in the first SMB. Also, let me emphasize one of the words he said: predecessor. I'm not sure if he didn't notice that, or if he's just really stupid.

"I did some more research, and found something that's guaranteed to flip some [noun]. Years earlier, a game was released in Japan called Doki-doki Panic. [...] It's the exact same game! And we're not just talking about copying the layout of the levels - everything has been stolen! The enemies, power-ups, music, everything! If you compare both these games side by side, they're the exact same video game."

Funny thing about that: the game in question (full title Yume Kojo: Doki-doki Panic) was made by Nintendo themselves - with Shigeru Miyamoto at the helm, to boot. So would ya mind telling me how Nintendo could've ripped off SOMETHING THEY CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!? Oh wait, it gets even better: DDP was originally conceived as a sequel to Super Mario Bros. in the first place. That explains why items like Starmen, Coins, and the Pow Block (from the 1983 Mario Bros.) were in there to begin with.

If you want to know more about Doki-doki Panic (and if you want to see me totally show up the Irate Gamer), here you go: The game was released for the Famicom Disk System in 1987 as a tie-in with Fuji TV's "Yume Kojo '87" (English: "Dream Factory '87") promotion. The major difference between this game and SMB2 is that it has a save function and unlimited continues, but you can only switch characters in between worlds or when you start or resume a game. Also, each of the four characters progresses separately, so to get the best ending, you have to beat the game four times, once for each of them.

"Even the characters in this game have the exact same abilities as the characters from Mario 2! I mean, look: here's Mario, Luigi, Princess, and yeah, even the worthless Toad."

You may have matched the DDP and SMB2 characters by looks, but not by abilities. Technically, the character you labelled as Mario's counterpart, Papa, has Toad's abilities, and vice-versa for Imajin, the guy you labelled as Toad's counterpart. Oh, and if you find the fact that DDP's Mama shares the role of SMB2's Luigi to be hilarious in hindsight, then we have so much to discuss.

"It's unclear as to why they copied [DDP] in the first place. But many have speculated that the real Mario 2 game was just too much like the first one."

Partial credit, for once. See, Nintendo of America was the one who chose not to sell the original SMB2 abroad. Partly because it was more of the same, but mostly because of its intense, "fustrating" challenge, and at such an early stage, NoA did not want to risk Mario's popularity with a product they felt others would not appreciate. Now, The Lost Levels has been re-released numerous times (I've played it as part of Super Mario Bros. Deluxe on Game Boy Color), and I agree that it puts you to the test, alright. But still, better late then never -- or better late than on time, in this case.

"Now, I was never a big fan of Super Mario 2, but a few years ago, they released it again, and this time for the Game Boy Advance. Super Mario 2 was given a complete makeover, and the end result is amazing. I can honestly say that for the first time, this truly feels like a Mario game."

Even though the level designs and core mechanics have gone unchanged?

"They totally revamped all the levels..."

By which you mean they simply changed around the enemy placement and added five red coins per level.

"...included a lot more power-ups, mixed in with some interesting enemies..."

Both of which are merely larger versions of things already present in the game.

"...and now finding hearts to replenish your health is so much easier."

Allow me to say it again. *ahem*

 
WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMP!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, dude? If you think a game holding your hand is a deciding factor of quality... well, you may be right some times, but this is not one of those times! You must secretly suck at gaming -- and this isn't the only example. It has come to my attention that you could only get through the first few levels of subjects like Resident Evil 5 and Robocop 2, and you only made it as far as you did on Final Fantasy III and Ghosts & Goblins because you cheated. Hoo boy, I can't wait to challenge you to some sort of showdown somewhere along the line.

So what do I think of the game? It's certainly well-executed, no surprise coming from a Nintendo product. Sure, the pick-up and throw mechanic is different than what we're used to, but with the way the game revolves around it, it becomes second nature fast. (And if it doesn't, it's you that needs to change.) My biggest beef with the original version is its lack of a save function, but unlike a certain someone I just talked about, I'm no crybaby. I understand that back in 1988, this was an unconventional and not exactly cost-effective feature, so I know better than to judge it for that. Besides, that's what the ports are for. All things considered, Super Mario Bros. 2 scores 90%, an A-.

Second Opinion: F-Zero vs. Mario Kart

It seems the Video Game Critic site is up to its usual tricks. You may recall I blasted the site before, or specifically its review of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I. While I still stand by my opinion without regret, for once, that's not why I'm here. I'm actually bringing them up as a makeshift celebration for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's 20th anniversary. (A full month-long celebration is out of the question, since I don't know quite as many SNES titles enough to be nostalgic about them.) If you would kindly take the time to dig around their Super NES section, compare their reviews for F-Zero (D) and Super Mario Kart (A+). You'll notice the former got a near-failing grade whereas the latter got the highest mark possible. And what do I think? While I'm nowhere near as bitter as with the whole Sonic 4 debacle, I still have some counter-points to make.

F-Zero Publisher: Nintendo  Developer: Nintendo EAD  Release: Super NES, 23 August 1991  Genre: Racing  Players: 1

Super Mario Kart Publisher: Nintendo  Developer: Nintendo EAD  Releases: Super NES, 1 September 1992  Genre: Racing  Players: 1-2

First, let's take an objective glance at the games themselves. Both are racing games which simulate 3-D graphics by scaling and rotating a flat 2-D map in real time. This ability was courtesy of the much-touted Mode 7 graphics mode of the Super NES. But both games take vastly different approaches to the same idea. F-Zero takes place in a futuristic setting and uses sleek hover-cars, whereas Super Mario Kart puts the familiar faces of the Super Mario series onto small-engine go-carts. As you can guess, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison: both are racing video games, but they taste - err, play differently.

First off is F-Zero. Having been released first - along with the console's launch, as a matter of fact - I would imagine much of its nostalgia value came from the novelty. This happens to be a point the Video Game Critic and I agree on. Unlike most other racing games, in F-Zero you are eliminated if you fall below a certain rank. You also have a power meter which depletes from crashes; your ship blows up when this gauge empties. Should either happen, you can try again at the cost of one life. You get one single-use speed boost each lap (starting with the second), and you can recharge your power by driving over repair strips, like a pit-stop.

Second is Super Mario Kart. As per the name, SMK features the likes of Mario, Luigi, Bowser, the Princess who was still named Toadstool at the time, and four others racing on go-carts. After each race, the top four-ranking racers get points based on their position, and the winner of the cup is whoever has the most points after the last race. Come in at fifth place or below, and you'll have to pay a life and try again. SMK's other big innovation is the use of power-ups which can be collected by driving over "?-block" markers. Some help you, like the speed-boost Super Mushroom or invincibility Starman, and others attack opponents, like the green and red Koopa Shells or Banana Peels. Unlike when you take damage in F-Zero, getting hit with one of these items only stops you for a couple of crucial seconds.

With the objective stuff out of the way, let's look at what the Video Game Critic had to say about the two games:

F-Zero: "[...W]hile the illusion of movement is smooth, the surface is noticeably flat and quite pixelated."

Need I remind you that this was early technology. In still pictures, I'll admit the rotating effects make the track look unimpressively jagged, but bear in mind you'll spend most of your time in motion - sometimes over 500 kilometers per hour (310 mph), as a matter of fact. Compare that to the carts in SMK, which doesn't even show your speed. Whatever they're doing, it's probably not enough to break the speed limits on most major highways.

F-Zero: "To compensate, Nintendo made the tracks as flashy as possible, but they tend to look gaudy."

Well, that's just a matter of opinion, now isn't it?

In a related story, let's consider the soundtracks of the two games. Both have their ups and downs, with F-Zero's music lying mostly in the synth-rock area and SMK taking a more mellow slant with its tracks. Taking both at their best, I'd give the edge to F-Zero's score, some songs from which I found more exciting and even memorable. Having been composed by Koji Kondo -- only the guy who did the music for Super Mario Bros. -- helps.

F-Zero: "There are a lot of CPU-controlled racers, and slowpokes you lap present serious hazards, thanks to F-Zero's 'pinball physics'. [...] It stinks, man."

I'll admit, the physics really bummed me out, too. The (un)funny thing is, a lot of those "slowpokes" you mentioned don't even count for/against your rank, and only serve to populate the track. I suppose if you look at that against races in other games, where there are only six or four vehicles on the track at a time, then this might be a good thing. But when these extra cars only serve to demonstrate the annoying physics model, then it's hard to admit that.

Super Mario Kart: "Thanks to some marvelous SNES 'Mode 7' effects, the ground moves and rotates smoothly below your kart, conveying a sense of speed. [...T]heir textures range from smooth, to wood, to gravel."

And how is this different from when they did the exact same thing in F-Zero? Both games also have different surfaces here and there; advanced tracks in F-Zero feature low-speed rough, low-traction ice, and other gimmicks. That said, I can attest that F-Zero has a far better sense of speed than SMK, something I previously alluded to.

This brings up my major issue with Super Mario Kart, especially when compared to F-Zero: the vehicle physics. Unless you're puttering at a snail's pace, a long-enough turn in SMK will inevitably result in a drift that makes you overshoot your target and slide off the road. (Among all the game's characters, Toad gets hit with this problem the least.) The manual drifting, which is a crucial feature in future Mario Kart games, only makes it worse in SMK. In contrast, the vehicles in F-Zero handle remarkably more car-like. You still have to slow down and brake for most curves, but you never run the risk of sliding out of control. Being able to "strafe" with the L and R buttons is also a nice touch which could give you a much-needed edge to your turning radius.

Super Mario Kart: "[...T]he two-player split-screen mode is even better. The outcome of each race is usually in doubt, but never feels unfair or cheap."

I assume you're talking specifically about the multiplayer races in SMK. The AI in single-player tournaments isn't exactly what I'd call fair; take a tumble on the 1500cc (hard) difficulty, and you may never get (back) up to first. Certainly, though, having a human opponent should level the playing field somewhat, so I'll give you that. Also, whereas F-Zero lacks any sort of multiplayer mode, SMK supports two-player races and the genre-defining battle mode. It makes me wonder why they couldn't have put multiplayer support in F-Zero. Maybe a little more time in the oven would've helped...?

In conclusion, while I believe the Video Game Critic's opinions of these two games was too extreme, he did bring up some valid points. F-Zero's fame to this day survives mostly on nostalgia, given that it was among the very first games powered by Mode-7 graphics, but it has a crucial advantage over Super Mario Kart in that it plays better. On the other hand, SMK wins points for innovation, from the use of in-race items, to the two multiplayer modes. Still, neither franchise would become what I'd call "great" until their second entries (Mario Kart 64 and F-Zero X), both on the Nintendo 64.

F-Zero Control: 4 out of 5 Design: 4 out of 5 Graphics: 4 out of 5 Sound: 5 out of 5 The Call: B (80%)

Super Mario Kart Control: 3 out of 5 Design: 5 out of 5 Graphics: 3 out of 5 Sound: 4 out of 5 The Call: B- (75%)

Next Episode: It's funny I should mention the Nintendo 64...

Second Opinion: Star Wars Episode I

As I write this, I'm going through a little Star Wars phase, re-watching the movies and all that.  Not that Star Wars has ever really been my favorite or defining fandom, but I've enjoyed, if not appreciated, it in whatever form I've experienced it in.  And yes, that includes Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  I tell you what, it feels unsettling having been born too late to catch Star Wars in its prime, like most of its fans on the Internet seem to be.  Before seeing The Phantom Menace in theaters, I was only mildly familiar with the original movie, A New Hope, as well as Shadows of the Empire, the N64 video game which took place parallel to part of the original trilogy.  As time went by, I became more willing to accept at least some of the so-called flaws of the newer movies.  But the relentless three-part lambasting given to each of them by the Distressed Watcher really rubbed me the wrong way and, for my first experience with the guy, tainted my impression of him.  I won't be tackling his reviews of Episodes II and III, because in the case of II, I actually agree with him.  At best, that movie was kinda blah.  As for III, I thought it was kind of good, but it falls apart at the end.  But his comments on I shall not escape my wrath.  Let's hear what he has to say:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

"It looks like Star Wars.  It sounds like Star Wars.  But The Phantom menace doesn't feel like Star Wars. [...] This is the Star Wars universe as a desolate husk, now devoid of all that made it magical and endearing.  Instead of character development, we get elaborate costumes.  Instead of a coherent plot, we get a mess of special effects.  Instead of visual integrity, we get an absolute mess, where every frame is stuffed to the brim with as much [...] as possible.  The space battle is no longer a carefully-paced struggle in the stars, full of suspense, but an incomprehensible jumble of lasers and ships. [...] The lightsaber duel is no longer a fight to the death with a real sense of urgency behind it, but a choreographed ballet, where every move looks practiced, polished, and sterile."

I said it with Sonic 4, and I'll say it again here: is Star Wars only supposed to be like the first movies?  Has the absence of new material for over 15 years since Return of the Jedi numbed fans' willingness to adapt?  Apparently, but that doesn't mean I have to play like that.

In the case of the space battles and Jedi duels being too overstimulating, as far as we know, this was George Lucas's intention from the very first movie.  In DVD commentaries and other material, he himself says he was limited by the filmmaking capabilities of the 70s and 80s.  By comparing The Phantom Menace next to the pre-existing sequence of movies, as if the long gap of time never happened, we can see this progression.  Moving from the Death Star battle in A New Hope, to the Death Star II battle in Return of the Jedi, up to the battle above Naboo in The Phantom Menace, each battle has more and more units on either side.  Apart from this being what I'm sure real-world armies would do in real-world wars, this was no doubt done to up the spectacle factor.  Whether or not it succeeds here is another story; they never focus on any of the pilots other than Anakin, who doesn't even know what he's doing.

The same goes for the lightsaber duels between various Jedi and Sith.  Having all the Force-fueled acrobatics you see here wouldn't make sense in the older movies.  In them, Obi-wan was old, Darth Vader was old and part-mechanical, and Luke is young and relatively untrained.  On the other hand, the prequel trilogy presents a world where the Jedi are active and at their prime, until... you know.  (Order 66 in Revenge of the Sith.)  As for whether or not it's better, I'll leave that for the readers, but as far as I can tell you're just throwing around those words as disapproval for the movie as a whole.  By hating enough of it, you start to hate everything else about it as well.  And that's no good.

"The witty quips of Han Solo have been replaced by the mirthless griping of Obi-Wan Kenobi.  The wisdom of Alec Guinness' Obi-Wan Kenobi has been replaced by the vacant platitudes of Qui-Gon Jinn. The naivete and charm of Luke Skywalker has been replaced by the high-pitched, sitcom-style [...] yammering of Anakin Skywalker.  Everyone in this movie is as flat as can be.  Amidala has no personality whatsoever.  Obi-wan is relentlessly like a PMSing Bantha."

I'll yield you this: the acting in The Phantom Menace was pretty terrible.  It seems as if nine-tenths of the cast was under-acting; Keira Knightley as the not-queen of Naboo has it worst in my book.  You know you're in trouble when you're out-acted by a battle droid.  And just to remind you that I have "standards", part of what made the original trilogy fun for me to re-watch was the playful bickering between Han Solo and... pretty much anyone else he came in contact with.

Going back to The Phantom Menace, it's a shame some of the better actors were horribly underused.  For one, there's Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi chief Mace Windu, although blessedly, he was given much more screen time in Episodes II and III.  And how can you not love a movie with a cameo by BRIAN BLESSED!?  ...Seriously, though, among the other actors, I personally enjoy Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn, whose stoic temperment attempts, with variable success, to evoke Alec Guiness's Obi-Wan.  More often than not he seems wise until you think about the suggestions and plans he makes, as evidenced by your "What Would Qui-Gon Do" segments which I'm not even gonna touch.  *sigh* And then there's the two most widely-reviled performances in the film, maybe the entire franchise, which I will take on one at a time:


"The Trade Federation aliens are slanty-eyed, ornately-dressed, imperialistic, and they talk in broken English.  Watto is big-nosed, cares only about money, and talks in a raspy voice.  Jar Jar is lanky, stupid, and subservient to his masters.  And the way he talks is reminiscient of a Southern black man in the slavery era."

...

Wow.  I had never thought about them that way, I said in sincerity mode.  And to think this movie came out of the 1990s, the least racist decade of all time!  I know George Lucas drew from classic film genres when writing earlier entries like A New Hope, but to draw from character stereotypes - and racist ones at that?  ...Now, to be fair, Lucas as well as Jar Jar's actor Ahmed Best (who is, himself, of African descent!) have gone on the record and stated that they did not have any racist intentions regarding the creation and portrayal of these characters.  And on a personal level, when I first watched this movie, I hadn't learned about these kinds of stereotypes, so I couldn't have made the connection.  Good for me.


While we're on the subject, I seriously used to like Jar Jar Binks.  Yeah, I just broke you.  His voice, high-pitched as it may be, just never happened to annoy me.  Speech quirks like his set of slang also seem to hit my funny bone for some reason.  He may also be clumsy, but at least his actions don't screw up the good guys too badly, like I wish I could think of some ideas...  Guess I've blocked them all out.  Good, because I really hate those kinds of things.


"[Anakin Skywalker's] every word is hollow and filled with 50s-sitcom style exclamations.  And he's a goody-goody. [...] How about making Anakin a real person with an actual personality?  Little kids are selfish, they play tricks, they disobey adults, they get angry."

You're right again.  Anakin, as portrayed in this movie, seems to be what we in the Simpsons fandom call "running for Jesus".  Basically, he does no wrong and goes out of his way to do good.  There are very few times when one can pull it off successfully, and suffice it to say this is not one of those cases.  What I think Lucas was trying to do was paing Anakin in such a positive light now so that his fall to the Dark Side of the Force - something we know will happen already - is that much more tragic.  Whether he succeeded or not I'll let you guys debate about, but context aside, he's just not that relatable.  Use character flaws wisely, budding writers, and you will go far.


"Metachlorians, metachlorians, meta-****ing-chlorians. [...] Finding out that the Force is really just a bunch of parasites in your bloodstream is traumatic. [...] Finding out that the Force, the mythical power Yoda spoke of with reverence, is really just a form of bacteria, is like finding out that pixie dust is fungus which grows in the brain, and stimulates a form of telekinesis whereby the subject can levitate their own body.  Science, especially pseudo-science, doesn't belong in a work of escapist fantasy, which is what Star Wars is."

OBJECTION!  ...Sorry, I was imagining this review as an Ace Attorney-style debate.

It's just that I have evidence that - first of all, it's 'midichlorians', not 'metachlorians' - midichlorians and the Force are two separate entities.  Apparently, midichlorians exist inside the body and can, in high enough amounts, somehow allow said persons to channel the Force, which exists outside the body.  Qui-Gon himself makes this distinction when describing them to Anakin, before leaving Coruscant to return to Naboo.  Certainly some of us have wondered how people in the Star Wars universe interact with the force on a technical level, and why some can do it and some can't.  Apparently... not enough.

I can understand the backlash to it all, though.  When viewers were first exposed to the Force in the 70s/80s trilogy, it was presented as this mystical... thing that could be used to do anything.  By not learning too much about the specifics, we came to have faith in it, and faith can't exist when knowledge fills in those gaps.  What I guess happened when those people learned about midichlorians was that their faith was shattered by fact.  It's just like in the Special Edition of A New Hope when they made Greedo shoot first instead of Han Solo.  It took away from the awesome (in both senses of the word) image projected by the character.

Going back to midichlorians, it doesn't help that a fictional entity without much explanation was explained in turn by another fictional entity without much explanation.  And I should probably take it as a sign that they're not mentioned again in episodes II and III.  Looks like even George Lucas can get the message sometimes.  But come on, who doesn't love a good power level count?  (Yes, Anakin's midichlorian count is 20,000.  Fill in the joke if you want to.)


"R2D2 was owned by Luke Skywalker's mom?  C-3PO was built by Luke Skywalker's dad?  These droids came from Naboo and Tatooine respectively and were both ultimately tied into the lives of Luke's parents?  Then, after decades of just kicking around in the galaxy, they fall into Luke's lap in A New Hope?  You know, there's some things I can chalk up to 'the Force binds destines together', and there's **** like this."

It's points like this, and later ones below, that make it obvious that you haven't seen parts II and III before making the videos for I.  R2 and 3PO were given to Senator Organa - Princess Leia's adoptive father - by Obi-Wan at the end of III.  She eventually takes posession of them herself until the beginning of IV, when she sends them out to Tatooine and meet the heroes of the next trilogy.


"The clear connotation of Obi-Wan's words [during his first meeting with Luke in A New Hope] was that Obi-Wan and Anakin were war buddies.  But in The Phantom Menace we see they meet in peace time and that Anakin is just an annoying little kid."

Ignoring Anakin's annoyance for the minute, they do indeed fight in the Clone Wars during Episodes II and III, and everything in between.  Just be patient.  Besides, you wouldn't exactly call the Trade Federation invading Naboo unprovoked "peace time", would you?  ...Okay, so that didn't happen on the same planet where they met, so forget about it.


"'Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to sufferring.'  That is the worst hypothetical causal chain in the history of hypothetical causal chains. [...] Furthermore, it's not even true!  Fear doesn't always lead to anger.  Fear sometimes leads to sound judgement. [...] Fear is good.  We evolved fear for a reason.  But Yoda never seems to acknowledge this fact.  He was more wise, and more emotive too, oddly enough, when he was a puppet."

It's ironic that you say that last bit, because the Yoda character was still a puppet during his appearance in The Phantom Menace.  I know, next to the all-CGI characters they created for this movie, it's weird, right?  But enough about that.  One could do far, far worse than that hypothetical causal chain... depending on the context.  And yes, the example you provided is a valid case in which fear can be a good thing.  But take racism, for example.  Fear is a possible underlying cause of racism, or hate.  We act out on that hate as anger.  And at least in the long run, the anger we have lashed out with brings us the suffering of not treating the other person like we should (or at least I hope).  Although I doubt Yoda was referring to racism when he said that.  No, it's probably just a transparent attempt to connect this film to the pre-existing trilogy, since we know what happens to Anakin already.  I see what you did there.


I don't have any plans to do a full formal review of the movie any time soon, so tentatively I'm inclined to give it 2 or 3 lightsabers.  While its technical quality is not up to the level of the 70s/80s trilogy, or many other outside films for that matter, but I just don't think everyone's complaints are entirely founded in anything but pure hatred.  That's certainly not what I walked in to these movies with.  For now, we can only hope that the passage of time will give rise to a generation that remembers this stuff more fondly than the vocal minority does now.


This is IchigoRyu.


You are the resistance.

---

¹Michael Okwu (1999).  "Jar Jar jars viewers, spawns criticism".  CNN. Retrieved 2011 Jun. 29.  <http://articles.cnn.com/1999-06-09/entertainment...>.

²Daniel Dinello (2005). Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology. Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 211. ISBN 0-292-70986-2.

Second Opinion: Sonic 4 & Ludacris

I've been dreading this day for weeks.  The Video Game Critic just posted his/her/their review of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I on his/her/their self-titled website, and it's not pretty.  Remember how I discussed the physics foibles, but ultimately said they didn't break the game?  Yeah, they (I'm just gonna use that pronoun from here on) apparently didn't get the message.  They graded the game an F, and the review itself was just freakin' scathing.  Which is why I'm kicking off a new series called "Second Opinion", where I take on other reviews not just because I disagree with them, but because I feel they didn't do a good enough job of explaining their criticisms.  For this example, there's really not much I can say that I haven't already covered in my review for the game, in which I gave it a B or B- depending on the version, but as I examine various points from their review, I might have to dip back into it.

"One of the intro screens displays the Sonic Team logo, suggesting the original development team was somehow involved.  So when did they forget how to program?  By the looks of it, Sonic 4 was developed by Sega's bored intern who had never actually played the original games but had seen a few screen shots."

Okay, right off the bat we've got a partial research failure.  Yes, Sonic 4 was co-developed by Sonic Team, but they conveniently forgot to leave out the fact that most of the gruntwork was done by Dimps, who brought in their experience from the Sonic Advance and Rush series.  And by the way, they gave good reviews, B- or higher, to all five of those games.  So why the double standard!?

"For a real Sonic fan, it takes all of about five seconds of play to realize that Sonic 4 feels all wrong. The original Sonic boasted simple controls coupled with a palpable sense of speed and momentum."

In my own review for Sonic 4, I asked you the reader whether or not the Genesis trilogy's engine was better on its own merits.  I have to get this off my chest: after having played Sonic 2, which for the record is my favorite game out of the trilogy, I have to say its engine is truly better than the one used by Dimps.  But still...

"Instead of being fast and smooth, Sonic's movements are awkward and stilted.  The physics are borderline non-existent! These controls would be terrible in any game, much less a high-profile sequel."

Umm... "awkward and stilted"?  "Non-existent"?  No.  No, no, no, no, not quite anyway.  Sonic 4 is still technically, umm, what's the word?  Oh right, PLAYABLE.  Where do you get off on exaggerating this [noun]?  I could argue that the platforming physics of Sonic Colors are even worse, but I still love that game.  Hint hint.  I have also just become aware of Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis, a port of the original game made for Game Boy Advance made by Sonic Team themselves, and guess what?  It really is broken!  As the video below illustrates, it's loaded with physics-related glitches - that's right, literal glitches - which you won't even find in Sonic 4!  So yeah, you officially have NO idea what you are talking about.

"Instead of simply pouncing on a foe, you're forced to perform a "homing attack" made unpopular by the marginal 3D Sonic titles of recent years.  Who in the [expletive] asked for that?!"

You say the homing attack was made unpopular by the 3D series?  Again, I call BS: bias sighted.  Remember, I remarked that it would've seemed like a more natural evolution if Sonic 4 was released directly after Sonic & Knuckles.  And let's face it, the homing attack is not the worst thing to come out of everything released after the Genesis Trilogy.  Let's take a moment to thank our lucky stars that...

• the Chaotix, elastic Ring tethers,
• collection quests,
• an unruly camera, horrible voice acting, fishing, treasure hunting, robots,
• the latter two of which must be done in order to get to the "good" stuff, which wasn't even that good,
• guns, motorcycles, and that DARN fourth Chaos Emerald,
• hoverboards, even more characters we'll never care about,
• minute-plus loading times, implied romance between Sonic and a human girl,
• forced racing,
• werehogswolfhogs,
• and all-around unplayability,

are nowhere to be found in Sonic 4.  So yeah, this is technically what we asked for, and they technically delivered.  Video Game Critic,  allow me to redirect you to that curse I placed on you at the end of my Sonic 4 review.  Or there's always Sonic Colors; you seemed to like that.

But wait!  Because I'm such an antagonistic little nerd, I'm throwing in another second opinion absolutely free!  This time around I'm matching wits with someone I hold far less animosity towards at the moment: The Rap Critic from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com.  In most of his episodes, he's taken classic songs like "Nuthin' But a G Thang" and "Today Was A Good Day" and given them ratings like of 2 out of 5, and you know what?  He made me agree with them!  But the inverse has happened once: taking "My Chick Bad" by Ludacris and Nicki Minaj, a song I felt was mediocre and rating it 5 out of 5 - as far as dance songs go.  Er, what?  And after spending so much time nitpicking the lyrics too!  You do not make such a negative review and give the song a perfect score just because it's got a good beat and you can dance to it!


...Okay, so maybe the song isn't that bad.  It's got its bouts of laziness, what with repeating lines from the chorus into the verses.  Speaking of which, why did he have to down-pitch his voice on the choruses?  It saps away most of the gusto he brings to nearly everything he's done, this song included.  And don't get me started on those unlinked similies; I thought you were above that Luda!  Then again, this was after he co-starred with Justin Bieber, so take that as you will.  But the message of the song isn't the usual rap fare.  Instead of bragging about himself or objectifying a girl, he's smashing the two roles together: bragging about his girlfriend.  Looks like rappers are making some progress in terms of becoming respectable human beings, even if at the end of the day she's still regarded as his possession.


The thing that improved my opinion of this song more than anything else came from an unlikely source: co-star Nicki Minaj.  My first experience with her was her verse on "Bedrock", and I think we all know how that turned out!  ...It sucked; and let's just say Nicki did nothing to make it any better.  So you can imagine my surprise when her performance on "My Chick Bad" was far-removed from the trashy, stoned-out valley girl she came across as on that other song.  Nope, this time around, she's taken inspiration from the horror-movie slashers of old.  On this and some other tracks, she's been described by others as a female Busta Rhymes; I'm loath to make a comparison that lofty, but she is close in my book.  Her delivery is brimming with the energy of the insane, with verses filled to the brim with syllables, and her look in the music video is what brings it all together.  Lemme tell ya, if the mental asylum's looking for you, you're headed in the right direction.


The Rap Critic asked himself whether he liked this song just because it was by Ludacris, and I'm gonna have to answer for him: yes he does.  It's not deserving of that treasured five-out-of-five rating, which he has done only one other time to date, but with the help of Nicki Minaj, this song is a trip into madness unlike anything out there.  All things considered, I'd have to give it three horror slashers out of five (C).  That's Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and Mike Myers.  No, not Michael Myers from Halloween, but frankly, what's the difference anymore?






I also have one final, personal note to make.  On Saturday I was offered a position for a healthcare software company, and I accepted.  My first day will be tomorrow, at the beginning of the month.  I don't expect this to affect my output on the SDP by much; after all, it doesn't take me too long to write an entry, even with all my procrastination.  But for something I've been waiting nine months for, I really want to share this joyous news with you.  I hope you enjoyed this debut installment of "Second Opinion" (unless you're the Video Game Critic), because I have more beefs along the way.  I've got more episodes planned involving Star Wars Episode I and a comparison of F-Zero vs. Super Mario Kart.  Also be on the lookout for another new series called "Sticking Points", in which I'll take you through the hardest games from my childhood and beyond.  Now that LordKat's ceased production of his video series "Until We Win", I suppose you could call this a spiritual successor to that.  After all, sometimes we must make the change we want to see in the world.