Why I Don't Like Open World Games

A year ago, I watched my friends foam at the mouth as they murdered thousands of innocent, hard-working, married pedestrians on the streets of "Grand Theft Auto Anything Goes Who Cares It's Just A Video Game City 5: About 3 Games Too Many". Conversation eventually led to the declaration by one of my friends that no person ever has been disappointed to hear that a game was to be made "open-world". I secretly disagreed with him but couldn't figure out why. Turns out the only thing that would render me sedimentary enough to sit down and develop my thoughts on the topic would be eating two colossal pieces of cheesecake from The Cheesecake Factory back-to-back, then sitting down to finally catch up on the internet's newest series "Selena Gomez Has More Nude Pictures: About 3 Galleries Too Many".

I don't like open world games because I think they are hardly ever done right. Open world games only ever do 1 thing in a variety of different ways: provide the illusion of choice- essentially a lie that the game is giving you "choices" when really, it is not. Let's examine each variation of the deception separately:

The first variation of the illusion of choice gives players the following two options:
A) Complete missions necessary to beat the story
B) Complete missions NOT necessary to beat the story

So let's begin. You are given a game with an open world. Right off the bat this means one of two things: You will be given permission to do things you are not required to OR it is a bad game.
You are free to abandon what the game demands you to do, granting you permission to do almost whatever you want. Let's assume though that what you want is to complete the story. Open-worldedness is a liberating freedom, but how much this freedom contributes to the game has yet to be determined (as far as this article goes). Think about this: Let's say that the developers of a game take their time to write out a story with great characters, twists, growth, and plot BUT they give you side missions that are completely optional. Why? Why give players the option to NOT play content that you spent valuable time creating? This is the same as having them tell you that you only need to play 60% (or whatever percent of the game is required) of the missions to experience 100% of the game. VALIDATION YOU ASK FOR: If you complete Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time but you don't get the Biggoron's Sword (an optional mission), can anyone tell you fairly that you HAVEN'T played OoT? No. Giving players optional missions is the same thing as me telling you that I have written an incredible book and it's fine if you skip 40% of the pages, as long as you get to the end. Having optional missions, even creating parts of the world that don't NEED to be seen, is the developer's way of admitting that they know not every player will want to play everything on the disc, instead of insisting that every player should. I wouldn't be very convinced by Nintendo that some Super Mario game is worth playing if they gave me the option to not play half of it. The way I look at it, open worlds are the developers admitting that at least some of the game is not worth playing. And also, if you have an open world game WITHOUT optional missions, then why have an open world at all?

The second variation of the illusion of choice is giving the player the next duo of options:
A) Explore the World
B) Don't Explore the World

Now this is a good one that basically boils down to a simple question - Do you HAVE to explore the world in order to beat the game? We have to discuss incentive for a second - Question 2: WHY would I want to explore a world? Well there are a lot of reasons! Let's start with a good one - In order to find optional weapons. Optional weapons or items are usually things that make the game either easier or funny. They, however, seldom make the game more fun. Think about this: If a weapon existed in the game that made the game generally more fun, why would the developers make that weapon optional? Wouldn't developers want something that makes the game more fun to be experienced by everyone playing it? But I digress (not really). Optional weapons are things that make the game either easier or funny but do you need them? Can you complete the game without them? If you CAN complete the game without them, then it would seem that developers wasted time designing items that some people will never see, and (**this is important**) if you CAN'T, or it would be extremely difficult to, complete the game without them, then they aren't optional! The whole idea behind the illusion of "choice" is that you really never have one, and if you never have any real choice, then what the fuck is the point of an open-world?

The second incentive to explore a world is to find Side-quests. These are popular in RPGs and I can already hear my friends yelling at me, justifying the inclusion of side-quests in RPGs. Often, in RPGs, you need to complete optional side-quests in order to gain experience to level-up your character so that you can more easily defeat certain bosses. But that's the thing- if you NEED to complete optional side-quests in order to make progress, then they aren't optional! You are once again being tricked into thinking that you have a choice, when really, you don't. The residents of open-worlds are always the providers of optional side-quests, but if you MUST complete the side-quests in order to increase the strength of your character in order to progress, then all the open-world does is trick you into thinking that you've accepted a task you didn't have to, when really, you did, and the only real option you have is to accept the mission, or use an avatar that cannot ever win ever. All I ask is that the game doesn't lie to me! Don't tell me I have a choice not to do a certain side-quest if I am going to undoubtedly regret it later! Game devs could alternatively distribute appropriate amounts of EXP during the main story so that side-quests become redundant and obsolesced, or just include the side-quests as part of the main story, eliminating the "option" entirely. Now I can certainly think of linear games with optional side-quests, Sonic Unleashed and Lost Kingdoms II come to mind, but the optional missions in those games are once again hardly optional, and now that I think about it, I don't remember the game ever telling me that they were. There is something to be noted about the difference between additional levels that help you progress and side-quests that compensate for what the main story could not provide.

Finally, we have to discuss The Legend of Zelda. Do I mean to suggest the Legend of Zelda should be linear, and relieved of its open world? Well...let's think about this. The game Dark Siders II was essentially an angry, M-rated LoZ game. Exactly the same way Legend of Zelda is, it has a nonlinear (open) world, but a linear story, so all you ever did in the impressively enormous open world was move from point A to B to C to D, etc. until you beat the game. There was about as much incentive to explore as there was in a Legend of Zelda game (not much), so I ask the following: If you're spending an entire game moving in a straight line through an open world, then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF THE OPEN WORLD?? Having an open world is certainly more impressive to look at and experience, but it's all for nothing if it doesn't add anything to the game. As a side-note, this issue is actually addressed 100% perfectly by a game called The Last Story on the Wii. I'll talk about it some other time.

It would seem that I've spent this entire article writing objectively, assuming that everyone plays games for the same reason I do, but remember, this article is about why I, James, don't like open-world games. Now there are some that I like, even love. Pokemon works because the game functions around the idea of exploring a world, and the game just literally wouldn't work without it. Zelda: Twilight Princess is another that just works well, mostly because despite it being an open world, it is small and doesn't overwhelm the player. I am brutally aware that giving the player an option, even if it is a sham, creates a more personal connection between the player and his/her avatar, resulting in a greater sense of immersion, which is the very state that powers the video game industry itself. Open world games can be fun just because they create a greater sense of control, but it should be noted that the only aspect of a game controlled by the player in an open-world game is the pacing of progress, NOT what is required of them. A Sonic the Hedgehog game (not open world) can only be played by either making progress or losing. Open world games are unique in that they can be played without making progress or losing. They allow the player to complete the missions (over which they, once again, have no control) whenever they want. But honestly, I think you get it. Open-world games don't do it for me, except for Spider-Man 2, which is essentially the only reason why I bothered to use the words "mostly, often, and seldom" in this article, as opposed to "always, never, and never", which would have forced me to title this article "An Abundance of Words That Make Me Sound Ignorant: About 3 Adjectives Too Many".

Number 10 Favorite Gamecube Game

My tenth favorite Gamecube game!

Sequels

I've been listening to a band called Autopilot Off recently. They fucking rock and they entered my life the same way some of my all time favorite bands did in the past. Goldfinger, System of a Down, Less Than Jake, Bodyjar, Cauterize, Crush 40, and Autopilot Off were all introduced to me via the video game. When ever I think about certain bands, such as the bands I listed above, sometimes I get brought back to the game that exposed me to that music. In which game did I really learn about Autopilot Off? SSX 3.

So I turned on SSX 3 again for the first time since the middle of the summer today because I wanted to listen to some Autopilot Off and maybe because it just snowed the other day and it was appropriate. After a whole bunch of racing and freestyle runs, I started thinking something rather treasonous:

SSX Tricky or SSX 3?

I think SSX 3 is a better game than SSX Tricky. There. I won't be clever and wait until the end of the whole fucking post before I come out and say it. I love both SSX Tricky and SSX 3, but I prefer SSX 3 over the former. The main question that I ask myself is the following: Why is it that SSX Tricky is the game that I find more people talking about when I feel that SSX 3 is a better game? Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to actually determine the answer to that question, but what I can do is compare the two games so you guys can decide for yourselves. SSX Tricky or SSX 3?

So here we go. The SSX series is a series of snowboarding racing games made by EA Big. There are several installments in the series, including 3 for the Nintendo Gamecube and at least 1 for the Wii (I don't claim to be an expert on Wii....yet). Based on the conversations I have with my friends both at home and at college (so you can tell I am getting a really wide range of people here), it would seem that SSX Tricky is the more popular game. For that reason, it must be the better game! SSX Tricky is an AMAZING game that kept my younger self entertained for weeks and weeks and weeks at a time, but I am not certain if it matches up with SSX 3, personally. I suppose I'll start off by discussing the features both games have in common.

SSX Tricky and SSX 3 both offer 2 main types of single and multiplayer player modes: Race and Showoff/Freestyle (Showoff  in Tricky and Freestyle in 3. They're the same thing.) Race mode has you blasting down huge snowy mountains as fast as you can in an attempt to get from the beginning of the course to the end of the course in less time than it takes your opponent. That's how a race works. Showoff/Freestyle is a mode where you basically have the entire course as your own personal skatepark. You start at the top of whatever course you want, and try to score as many points as you can by doing all sorts of different crazy tricks before you cross the finish line. Each game has several different courses to board on. Each game has an upgrading system where you will get to choose which of your rider's stats you wish to increase, and the abundance of these opportunities increases depending on how brutally you kick your opponent's ass during the race. There are many different boards with all different stats for you to unlock AND there are different clothing options for each character that are purely cosmetic.

So both games have the same basic formula. And I'm not kidding, like, they are pretty much the same idea. Same equation and formula. No risk taken from Tricky to 3. This presents us with a unique opportunity where we can just literally compare the two games track by track, move by move. It's not like comparing Super Smash Bros. Melee's Adventure Mode to Brawl's Subspace Emissary, where they are completely different but are forced to be compared. SSX Tricky and SSX 3 have so much in common that it is incredibly easy and natural feeling to compare the two. It is a case like Minute Maid lemonade vs. Country Time lemonade where we can just say "This is better because I like it more." So. Obviously the games aren't EXACTLY the same, they just function the same. They look different, feel different, and play differently despite their concepts being akin. So we only have a couple of different things to compare, and a side by side comparison would be most efficient.

Let's start with the characters. Pretty much the same characters give or take a few newbies added to SSX 3 from SSX Tricky. Personally, I feel that the updated graphics that come with a game being newer does wonders for the SSX 3 character roster. It looks better since it is the same art style, and because it is newer. Visual appeal goes to SSX 3. Also, IM SORRY, but as much as everyone loved the announcer (Rozell?) in Tricky, SSX 3 has a real soundtrack complete with the auto-synching feature. Which means like, if in these rock songs, normally, there is a quiet section, then that quiet section is going to be played while you're in a dark cave. Then once you come shooting out of that cave, the chorus of that song is going to slam through the TV speakers, and the best part of the song is going to be pumping through while you're high in the air about to land and shit all over your opponents. Like how music is in a cheesy summer-movie made in the 90s? That's what SSX 3 does. Sound goes to SSX 3 as well.

Courses. Perhaps the tracks in SSX Tricky are more memorable. Maybe this is the result of nostalgia or because I've spent more hours total playing Tricky when compared to 3. I do feel that there was less emphasis on the course designs in 3. They don't feel lazy, in fact, they really are awesome. But, like, for example, the name of each course in SSX Tricky is blown thrown the TV speakers every time you select one. In SSX 3, they are not. And because in SSX 3, you can technically access a majority of the courses from an open-world-ish hub, you may play many courses without even knowing their names. Perhaps what I am trying to avoid saying is that even though the courses in SSX 3 are really damn fun, they do all kind of look the same - just a bunch of snow and a bunch of ramps. Fun, but I mean, Tricky has Tokyo Megaplex on its side....courses go to Tricky.

Finally, with a 1 to 1 score, we have how the game feels. Tricky does an amazing job of incorporating the element of doing tricks with the controls that can feel button-mashy but work, into a game that is not necessarily always about doing tricks. Maybe you'll want to tone the showoff inside of you down while you're ripping through tougher courses in SSX Tricky. This is because in Tricky, accidentally performing tricks you never wanted to do happens often and can REALLY fuck you up. It is very easy to accidentally stop performing your front flips (for example) while you're upside down. So like, you're blasting through a course, and a surprise ramp pops up from out of no where. Because you didn't see the ramp until it was too late, you're still holding up on the control stick, because holding up on the control stick makes you accelerate when you're on the ground. BUT in the air, holding up makes you flip, kinda. So before you know it, you're upside down, you're in the air, and you're about to eat shit and once you do, it's over. Time to press Restart. SSX 3 completely fixed this problem. In SSX 3, you automatically complete your flips every time they are executed. It's like the bottom of your board is magnetized to the snow. It makes doing double front flips on flat ground possible, but who cares how unrealistic that is? If you're going to spam tricks all day during the race, you're going to lose anyway. The point is that SSX 3 has solved the one problem SSX Tricky had with its trick system- you pretty much automatically land them every time. You still have to avoid hitting trees and stuff, but there is no bullshit when doing the tricks; each one can be performed with confidence. With the installation of SSX 3, the SSX series has finally worked out every kink in the system that links doing tricks to going fast, and for that, SSX 3 takes the best-feeling trophy.

Looks like SSX 3 wins 2 to 1. Of course, this is all just my opinion. I cannot discredit the volunteer opinions of my friends - SSX Tricky MUST be an awesome game since so many people always want to play it when they see that it is in my library. I couldn't resist getting the sequel because I was curious, but perhaps some of you may join my side one day. SSX 3 I do believe is only 5 or so dollars on Amazon. Enjoy, and don't forget that whether it is in a game or in real life, yellow snow is piss. Don't eat it.

Playground Series: What the Hell Am I Playing?

I'm sure by now, you guys are sick of hearing me say things that aren't about video games, so fuck me apologizing for not writing in a while. Let's just roll the next review out.

Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg


I've recently acquired about 20 new Gamecube games. So, where do you start playing? I figured I would start up 1 or 2 long games and 1 or 2 short games at a time, and just collect other games to save for later in between. One game that I wound up playing during all of this gaming madness was Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg. I only read a little bit about this game in Gameradar's list of top 50 Gamecube games http://www.gamesradar.com/best-gamecube-games/ before I decided to never think about it again, simply because I could not imagine what I was reading actually being a real game. Well I am here tonight to discuss how I formally withdraw my original opinions of this game, and replace them with a whole new perspective on the concept of hatching eggs.

Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg is an addictively ridiculous platformer developed by SEGA Sonic Team shortly after they released Sonic Adventure 2 in 2003. You play as a young boy named Billy who is thrown into a world ruled by chickens after he displays "great courage" by punching a small bird in the face in order to save his friends. Almost as soon as Billy arrives in Morning Land, he equips himself with a sacred Chicken Suit. This suit allows Billy to arm himself with giant eggs. Without an egg, Billy is pretty worthless, but WITH an egg, Billy is able to jump really high, ground pound the floor around him, ride on tracks meant to move eggs, and take out the evil crows by rolling the egg into them. The eggs, although are fragile, easily broken, and easily replaceable, utilize a basic upgrading system. It's nothing immersive, but it is important to know that when enemies are destroyed, they drop fruit. Roll an egg over the fruit, and the egg will grow. Eggs do more damage with each size-increase and a fully matured egg can be hatched by Mr. Billy Hatcher himself. A quick cock-a-doodle-doo will pop the egg open and potentially reveal 1 item from a large collection of possible egg-inhabitants. Different colored eggs hatch different items. More commonly found eggs can contain extra lives or collectables, but rarer blue or red eggs can contain animal assistants whose powers become yours to command upon hatching them. These animals help you solve puzzles or attack enemies once you befriend them in the ever-classic quest to reach one side of the level to the other.

The story is...well...it's a god damned kids game so who cares? There's an evil crow who wants to cast Morning Land into an eternal nighttime. Stop the evil crow, and do whatever everyone else tells you to do in order to beat the game. But if there is one thing everyone knows about kid's games, it's that they're fucking stupidly difficult. Unfortunately, poor game mechanics are responsible for a lot of the difficulty that this game has to offer, but they are not so plentiful that the game becomes unplayable (*coughSonicTheHedgehog2006cough*). So with any platformer, you really only have to consider a few different elements. Platforming video games date all the way back to 1981 Donkey Kong in the arcades, so when looking at modern platformers, you have to consider the factors that separate the games made today from the games made 30 years ago. You must consider graphics, originality, music (I guess), playability, and most importantly how much fun the game is to play. Well in my opinion Sonic Team spared very little cheese or tomatoes in this egg-wise adventure. Ill discuss each element separately.

Originality. So I don't know if you guys heard when I said it before, but your weapon...is an egg. A giant egg. It is important for those holding magnifying glasses to this game to note that the abilities you gain while holding an egg are not very original, as we have seen the ground pound/ butt bounce/ whatever you want to call it for years, but if rolling an egg into enemies in order to vanquish them isn't creative enough for you, then stop letting Stephen King set your creativity bar too high. You could say that this game is original because you roll an egg around in order to play, or you could say it's unoriginality is disguised by an egg, but either way, someone over at Sonic Team was ballsy enough to suggest that a game whose main attraction was rolling an egg would sell, and it did...at least...to me. Moving on.

Graphics. Let's see, 2003 graphics. Well we got Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, and The Legend of
Zelda: The Wind Waker. Okay so the bar was set pretty high for graphics even in 2003. The visual importance of video games really became most noticeable upon the arrival of Playstation 2 games during the climax of it's career. Graphical legacies were also continued by Microsoft's Halo and Gears of War series, but if I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned how the graphics in Metroid Prime could rival those of modern games, I wouldn't have to go to college. That being said, graphical feats were not easily attainable in 2003, and unfortunately, it seams that Sonic Team missed the frying pan in this area. However, having average graphics will never mean that the game looks bad. Average graphics are a great canvas for a great art style. Wind Waker is the perfect example. While Billy Hatcher doesn't feature graphics of any impressive quality, it is a delightfully bright and colorful game, complimenting it's playful, light-hearted gameplay, and REALLY catchy music. You're god damn rolling an EGG. Does anyone really need goodgraphics for this?? What was really necessary for this game, were bright colors, and Sonic Team nailed that.

Like I said before, the game feels a little underdeveloped. Perhaps it is Sonic Team tradition to leave dumb mechanics in their games, or maybe it is the fact that Billy Hatcher is run by the same engine that ran Sonic Adventure 2 - a game whose glitches are almost as famous as it's level design, but like I said before, the difficult sequences of BH:GE are the result of a few poorly designed game mechanics. Some enemies are just too annoying, maintaining control while moving with your fragile egg is about 20% harder than it should be, and small mistakes are often extremely unforgiving to the point where you question why you're playing this game even more than you are intended to. The game is still very much playable, as these annoying mechanics are not found in every level, but when they do show up, you will die in your heart a little bit for every time Billy dies as a result of their bullshit.

Overall, Billy Hatcher really is a fun game. The level designs vary greatly from stage to stage, and are always a pleasure to look at. Sometimes the game can be too hard for all of the worst reasons, but in the end, you never really did expect a game that featured weaponized eggs to be 100% solid, did you? This game is 15 dollars on Amazon. Considering the fact that 15 is enough to get Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe, SSX 3, Wave Race: Blue Storm, Mario Golf Toadstool Tour, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time or F-Zero GX, I would say that it may not be worth getting immediately, but if you ever run into it at your local Play N Trade like how I did, it may be destiny telling you to either play this title, or grab an omelet.

81/100
-10 Points - occasionally clumsy controls
-5   Points - occasionally dumb stupid mechanics
-4   Points - sometimes the game feels a little boring, as levels tend to be a bit too long, resulting in the witnessing of the same music and visuals for up to 15 minutes at a time
50  Points - originality
10  Points - visual appeal
6    Points - Audio appeal
10  Points - the game is not very long, but the amount of optional levels, in addition to the main story, makes the game feel like it is how long you want it to be
5    Points - the multiplayer is EXACTLY what you want it to be

Playground Series 1: Most Underrated Gamecube Game

I welcome you all to my first post in the Playground Series! The details regarding my next series of posts can be found in my last post, so if you're confused about what I am doing for a little bit, please scroll down to check it. But then scroll up because this next review is simply out of this world.

Funny story about this next game- literally, I think the entire world is split 50-50 about this title. For every one of my friends who claimed to love this game, another one claimed to hate it. Furthermore, everyone seems to have played it when they were "little" and they ALL got stuck early in the game and retired it to the shelf of forgotten games. Amateurs, I say, as they've all missed a classic gaming experience due to the ignorance of youth. I wanted to get you guys excited about my next series, so I start with this first title:

Starfox Adventures
OKAY WAIT DON'T CLICK AWAY YET.

Yes. I am perfectly aware of how people feel about this game, as I have already stated. Some people love it, and others hate it. To me, the reason why the audience is so divided when it comes to this game is quite obvious, but before I get to that, I must reveal a dark fact about this game, and before I get to THAT, I will talk to the non-video gamers for a second-
When it comes to Starfox Adventures, all you need to know is that you run around as a humanoid fox, named Fox, and you help dinosaurs thwart the attempts that antagonist General Scales makes at taking over the universe. In past Starfox games, Fox, and his team of fighter pilots, shot the shit out of things in their badass fighter space-jets and it was fucking cool. Has anyone ever told you to "DO A BARREL ROLL"? They were referencing Starfox, and don't tell me they weren't.

So Starfox 64, for the Nintendo 64, featured fighter-planes, and Starfox Adventures for the Gamecube featured nagging dinosaurs. Why are these games so different? Because Starfox Adventures was never meant to be a Starfox game. THAT'S RIGHT. Originally, the protagonist of a game called Dinosaur Planet was supposed to be a humanoid fox who coincidentally resembled Fox McCloud, but was a different fox altogether. Nintendo caught an earful of this concept and stepped in basically saying if any humanoid foxes are going to be in a video game, they're going to be Fox McCloud. So a quick rethinking of the game's concept put Fox McCloud as the protagonist of Dinosaur Planet, and thus, we have Starfox Adventures - A very atypical Starfox game.

This is where the audience splits. The fans of Starfox 64 could not find it in their hearts to replace
Arwings with Dinosaurs, a Blaster with a magical Staff, and a team of trusty fighter pilots with dinosaurs. To be honest, fair enough, as this is a HUGE transition. But those who could get over the overhaul (and buy a copy of Starfox Assault to ease out of their withdrawal) were exposed to an entirely new and beautiful adventure of Starfox. Absolutely this game is no traditional Starfox game, but is it a bad game? No. It is just different than what most players wanted and expected.
This game is rarely seen on any list of best video games, whether that list is on Gamespot or in someone's heart. I suspect that the reason for this exclusion is because this game is rarely seen for what it actually is- a Legend of Zelda game.

This game does not in anyway really feel like a Starfox game. That is basically the thesis statement of this review. But it is important to understand that the differences between Starfox Adventures and Starfox 64 ultimately become the similarities between Starfox Adventures and every single Legend of Zelda game of all time. Legend of Zelda? Like that game that is pretty much considered to be one of the greatest video game franchises of all time? Yes. Yes, like THAT game. So how is it possible for a game like Starfox Adventures to be bad, when it is exactly like Legend of Zelda, which stands as an amazing game? The answer: It's NOT possible. For those dumbfounded by my claims, here are some similarities between the two:
-During the first play-through of both Starfox Adventures (and we'll say Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time), you are rarely 100% sure of where to go next. Figuring out where your next objective is to be completed is never impossible, but is usually challenging.
-Both games feature non-linear gameplay with a linear story. (Ocarina of Time is a bad example of this, but shut up.)
-Both games feature dungeon-like sections, where the player is forced to navigate through long strings puzzles and enemies in order to reach the end and collect some kind of item or complete some kind of goal.
-Items and upgrades are obtained and necessary in order to progress forward through the game.
-Both games feature an NPC who assists you through the game.
-The combat systems of both games, from attacking to defending, are nearly identical.
-The combat systems of both games (fighting in general) is necessary to use to the same extent.
-Both games sport similar difficulties.
-Both games sport similar lengths and replay value.

Honestly, I can't believe that no one ever told me about this before. Both my brother and I have agreed that this game plays like all Legend of Zelda games, and that that became obvious after about 15% into the game. Upon having this epiphany, we each found playing the game to be much easier and enjoyable. Being that my brother and I are both avid Zelda fans, realizing that we were playing a closet Legend of Zelda game gave us a better idea of what clues to look for, and which items and weapons to use while navigating each level. It is my inference that says typical Starfox fans will find themselves unprepared for the challenge of this game, but experienced Zelda fans will be perfectly equipped to tackle and enjoy Starfox Adventures.

I feel simply that this game is underrated because most of the gamers who played this game turned out to be disappointed Starfox 64 fans. Fans of the Metroid and Legend of Zelda series would undoubtedly receive this game better. All in all, if you love Starfox, don't play this game. If you love Zelda, you don't want to miss this one.

I realize this post was more of a discussion rather than a review, but if you must know, I'd give this game a 9/10.
-9.0 points are achieved by this game's general difficulty, tight controls, non-repetitive gameplay, length, and of course, how fun it is.
-1.0 points are lost because at times, the soundtrack can be weak, some of the puzzles can be a little too annoying, and there is a severe underdevelopment of the characters.

To Hold You Over

I can't believe I forgot to mention this.
http://www.gametrailers.com/shows/pop-fiction/videos-clips
http://www.gametrailers.com/shows/pop-fiction

Gametrailers.com features a show called Pop Fiction. I've tried to tell my friends about it but I remembered today that I could also use the good ol' reality to advertise. Pop Fiction, the way I describe it, is essentially Myth Busters, but for video games. The show's team of gamers investigates rumors or secrets within video games to find the truth about their existence. Gametrailers also has a much younger sub-series called Pop Facts. Pop Facts is basically the same thing, but the episodes are much shorter. I HIGHLY recommend these shows. A new episode of Pop Fiction is released monthly, and Pop Facts are released weekly. Enjoy!