Pokemon's complexity

Pokemon...yeah

What appears to be a simple game upfront is actually very deep and complex, yet accessible. The base idea is simple; make those little Pokemon fight until they get stronger and you can challenge the bosses.  But, each Pokemon is different. Each one has different statistics in the category of HP, Attack, Special Attack, Defence, Special Defence and Speed, each affecting how it performs in battle. This opened up opportunities to give Pokemon weaknesses. Fire is weak to water, water is weak to grass and grass is weak to fire. But it doesn't stop just there; Psychic is weak against dark, dark is weak to fighting, fighting is weak to flying, flying is weak to electric and..well, you get the idea. Each Pokemon can learn four moves, some which is learns naturally or some through technical machines and each one is different. Each move has its own element like fire or ice which are strong and weak against opposing types. Each move also has a power rating, determining how powerful it is and an accuracy rating, which determines how accurate it is. Each move also has PP, which shows how many times it can be used. Strong moves have low PP, whereas weaker moves don't. Some moves affect stats, like attack or defence and some inflict conditions like paralysis, freeze, burn, poison, sleep and confusion. Convinced it's Pokemon's deep yet? What's that? You said yes? Well I heard no so I'll keep writing. Each Pokemon has its own ability. These range from upping water type moves when HP is below a certain point, to being immune to ground attacks, to giving the opponent's the status condition it has, or eating a berry early. By the way, Pokemon can use items. Potions heal HP and other stuff like elixers restore PP and full heals take status conditions. There are also held items to give effects like small healing or increasing the power of a certain type of move. Pokemon evolve when they hit a certain level which improves their stats, but means they learn moves slower and some don't learn them at all. And all this merely affects battle, I haven't begun to talk about exploration, the financial aspect, breeding, the story or the Pokedex. Really, Pokemon is quite deep and has had a lot of work put into it. Each game may keep the basics, but only because the basics are so good and thoughtful. COD on the other hand...BANGBANGBANGDEAD! Effort? What's that? 

Pokemon; awesome, amazing and acclaimed

Oh Pokemon how I adore thee. Ever since a young age I have always loved playing these games. Choosing my starter, training up a team of Pokemon, beating the Gym leaders; bliss. I think Pokemon has a great game plan going. Hook kids in when they're young and seal the deal with surprisingly complex RPG gaming. AWESOME!!! Pokemon Blue Version was the first game I ever owned and played and I spent a lot of time on it, but not as much as I would playing Pokemon Ruby, which was the next one I owned. I'd played Pokemon Silver and Crystal, but only on a plane. Pokemon Ruby...oh the memories. I played the hell out of that game. It was only natural to then play Pokemon Fire Red and soon after that, Pokemon Emerald. Those games have embedded memories into me which I will never forget. Anyhoo, Diamond came next and then Platinum, these two have left me with fond memories. And now POKEMON BLACK IS IN MY HANDSS!!!

Doctor Who RPG

Special credit goes to "Me" for finding this.

Wii U will be a success?

Maybe not. Nintendo's unreleased new system has already achieved a small cult following, but will it sell to the masses? There are no announced IP's for one, making this just another option on the marker, with no pull. The controller may look cool for some, may scare others away. Admittedly, it looked big in the trailers, but when you take a closer look, it's pretty small. But, the biggest problems with this are the graphics. Some rumours are going around that it isn't as powerful as the current PS3 and with the next Xbox right around the corner, what will people do when they find a console with super graphics as opposed to dated ones. With Nintendo, it's always been quality of games over graphics, like the N64 compared to the Playstation or the DS compared to the PSP, but in a gaming landscape where graphics are a major pull these days, if the Wii U doesn't have the graphics to match the games, what happens? Even I'm not that excited for the console, but if some awesome games come out for it, then sure I'll grab it. But I guess only time will tell how well it'll sell. 

Skyward Sword vs Skyrim: Bosses

Skyward Sword: Bosses in his game are huge and I mean huge! From giant flaming monsters to flying whales to tentacled monsters. Most of these bosses are defeated by using items you acquired in the temple before you fight them, but some rely almost purely on swordplay and shielding. Each boss has at least two stages to beating them. You have their initial stage where you fight them using the item you acquired, but then the stage will change, or they'll raise their defence, of they'll change tactics, forcing you to rethink your strategy. These fights are awesome and are accompanied with fantastic music to suit. Never has hacking away at a gigantic eyeball seemed so appealing. Also, I must add that most of these fights are more challenging than ones in previous games. Chug those health potions. 


Skyrim: The bosses in Skyrim certainly look great, but most of them play out like the normal enemies. Okay, so you rush through a cave filled with frostbite spiders and risk life and limb to get to the obvious treasure at the end. Before you can reach the chest, you come across a slightly bigger spider which does slightly more damage and is slightly harder to kill. That's the boss. There are a fair few more though, like Trolls, but they aren't exactly tough...Giants and mammoths are huge, but all you have to do is keep away from them and blast them with frost and you should be fine. Werewolf boss was...brief. However, hands down the best bosses are the dragons. WOWOHMIGOSHFREAKINDRAGONSPLZDONTEATME%
These guys fight so differently to anything else in the game and are so much fun to engage. Also, they breath fire/ice. Hell yes! 

Twilight Princess haters?

Ah, Zelda games. Each one I've played holds a special place in my gaming heart. What can be said about these games that hasn't already been said. They're fantastic. They're awesome. Most of the are masterpieces. Course, there was one game involving crossbows...
Aside from that, the Zelda franchise has been highly influential and critically acclaimed. Who doesn't like these games? The series has even built up a huge fan base to go along with mainstream success. Take a look at Twilight princess. It Sold around 6.5 million copies. With good reasons the game was...AWFUL?
What the hell? Awful? Who thinks this game is awful? Well, a few people... Some hate this game. They think the storytelling in this game is mediocre at best and that the level design was terrible. Also, the haters claim that this game tried too hard to be dark. I disagree. This game was plenty dark. Not in the same way as Majora's Mask, but it is still pretty unnerving at times. Especially at the end where Midna...no, we don;t speak of that. Anyway, the puzzles, motion controls and story are better than any of the other Zelda games I've played (except for Skyward Sword) Perhaps the only reason that Twilight Princess wasn't as acclaimed as Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask is because they came first. The three dimensional Zelda games are the best ones, however after Ocarina of Time, they began to follow a formula. After the 2D ones changed from stuff like the Minish Cap to Phantom Hourglass, it became a very different style of game. The 3D ones didn't change to drastically after Ocarina of Time. Sure, Majora's Mask had a clock and Masks to wear, but still fairly similar. Wind Waker brought in a boat and an ocean which made things different, but Twilight Princess strayed closer to Ocarina of Time more so than the others, which (for a series with similar but different games) might not have been the best idea. Twilight Princess may have done it better, but it didn't really differ enough to have the same critical reception. Put it this way, if Twilight Princess was the first 3D Zelda game instead of Ocarina, it probably would have been considered the best of all time. Anyway, I love Twilight Princess more than my own children...uh...
It is a great game, and I just don't see where the hate comes from

History tends to repeat itself

Way back when what was considered to be the best game of all time? The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. What was the game that came just before it that some claim also has that status? Super Mario 64. Both revolutionary, Both masterful games. Both still played to this day. Back in the era of the N64, they were THE games (that and Goldeneye) Nowadays, while Nintendo is still popular, there is much more on offer. There are great games like Crysis and Deus Ex and Batman flying all over the place, where does Nintendo fit in? Well, some people hate Nintendo. "Wii sucks" is something that is heard a fair bit. Something I disagree with. I care about games, not consoles. If the Wii has my favourite game ever on it, then its my favourite game ever, nothing changes. See, name two games that remind you or SM64 and OOT. How about: Super Mario Galaxy 2 and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. Both of these games are better than their predecessors and have received great reception both critically and through the fan base. See, if you're an outsider looking in, you might think that Nintendo keeps trying to make the same games over and over again. But these games are handled with so much care and affection that you can't help but love them.