2 features that would make Project Diva twice as awesome

As we all know, SEGA's Japanese rhythm game Hatsune Miku: Project Diva F unexpectedly came state-side for the first time in August 2013. Undeterred that this would unequivocally solidify my weeb status, I went ahead and purchased the game.

I-it's not what it looks like. This is my sister's room. Yeah... My sister's room...

Since then, the series has continued to receive support with sequels released both in Japan and the US, and while I've certainly enjoyed my time with them more than I probably should have, there's always been just a couple features missing that I never understood why SEGA has continually neglected to follow through with. For instance, when I discovered the ability to not just change outfits but swap different divas for any song, I got really excited at the possibility of...

1. Unique vocal tracks for each diva on every song

It seems like the perfect idea for this franchise; a rhythm game feature that only the Project Diva series could deliver on due to the unique nature of the Vocaloids. As Vocaloids are just computer-generated synthetic vocals, SEGA doesn't need to front an expensive bill in order to pay for every single vocalist coming in and recording their own version of the song. Instead, it should just be a few clicks away in the Vocaloid software to swap one Vocaloid's voice for another, then re-save the vocal track and implement it into the game. This simple feature would add countless hours of replay value, as players would be encouraged to experiment with different divas on every song to see if they can find a Vocaloid that might sound better than the original, or to just try out amusing gimmicky combinations with duet songs that involve two divas. This would also solve the problem of seemingly every other Vocaloid besides Hatsune Miku getting the shaft with only two or three songs to their name.

Now it doesn't matter because you can always go back and play every Miku song with a different diva using their own unique voice. Besides, who doesn't want to see Kaito perform the Nyan Cat song in all his masculine glory?

So as you can imagine, I was less than pleased when I swapped divas in the song and it turned out that it actually just played the same voice dubbed over the wrong diva.

I thought half the point of the Vocaloid software is that it's supposed to make accompanying vocal tracks much cheaper and easier to produce. This seems like a huge missed opportunity to not take advantage of in this regard. I hope that some day SEGA will wisen up and implement this feature. It's understandable to omit in such a behemoth as Project Diva: Future Tone, but I imagine it certainly could have been doable in other iterations.

Now with more vocal options comes...

2. More Vocaloids

OK, this one's kind of an obvious suggestion, but you have to ask why do they still only have the six original Vocaloids after 4 releases now across Playstation 3 and PS4? Seems like the most straightforward and natural evolution for any series to introduce more characters into the mix with subsequent sequels. At a minimum we need some Gumi and IA up in here. Bonus points for Yuzuki Yukari. Come on SEGA, what are you waiting for?

Anyway, that's my two quick suggestions for how SEGA could take the Project Diva franchise to the next level. Now, here's a creepy GIF I found on Google image search that I didn't have anywhere else to put.

Did I miss a good idea? Let me know what you think should be in the next Project Diva game.

The Switch faces an uphill battle

I'm sure everyone and their dog has already written a blog about the Switch following Nintendo's recent presentation, but as a longtime Nintendo fan I feel obligated to offer my own thoughts on the system, so shut up and listen.

Now something that people have been oddly overlooking in their criticisms is that the dock is distinctly lacking in a toaster feature. I'm not really sure why I'm the first to point this out because this is a pretty notable omission. I mean come on, you could've called it the Super Nintoaster instead; a way catchier name. In the age of smartphones that can track your daily bowel movements via the PoopLog app, why the hell can't my Switch double as a toaster? Fucking scandalous. I demand answers, and I hope Nintendo provides a good explanation for this in the coming months if they hope to sell me on the Switch. Otherwise it's not going to come home the breadwinner of this generation.

Now that we got the most important issue out of the way, let's start with the good about the Switch:

Super Mario Odyssey is looking pretty fun. It's giving off some serious Sonic Adventure vibes with the whole sprawling metropolis setting and awkwardly inserting a cartoon character among normal-looking human beings, but ya know, also in the good way of looking like a grand adventure of epic scope; full of faraway places and secrets to discover around every corner. Something that I've felt the Mario series has been missing for quite some time now is a genuine sense of adventure and exploration that I haven't experienced since the Mario 64 days. I was always eager to find out what lies behind every door and hidden passageway in Peach's castle, and while I was unexpectedly wowed by how deftly Super Mario 3D World melded old and new school Mario into a very compelling experience, I was still left wondering if Nintendo was ever going to bring back that hunger for discovery that I used to feel so long ago. It appears that Odyssey intends to do exactly that, and it's going to be all the more glorious for it.

Zelda: Breath of the Wild will launch with the Switch. The Wii U made the grave mistake of launching with absolutely no killer apps out of the gate, and Nintendo seems to have taken this lesson to heart; this time unleashing a real titan right from the start. With Breath of the Wild being the first 3D Zelda to feature a fully realized open world and possibly even full voice overs, this is looking to be the grandest Zelda adventure yet; one that is giving off some fitting Princess Mononoke vibes.

The general aesthetic and design of the console is on-point. No unnecessary bells and whistles, and it has an adequate amount of buttons placed appropriately in comfortable positions. It doesn't feel like the "gimmick" (if it can even be called that) gets in the way this time, but instead genuinely serves a practical function in giving the system additional functionality as a hybrid console.

The price point is fairly reasonable for what you get. There's been some arguments that it should be cheaper because it isn't as powerful, but what people aren't considering is that mobile devices have always been more expensive in order to achieve the same levels of performance as dedicated home devices. At the $300 price point, it's cheaper than an iPad and roughly half the price of a new smartphone, and yet will probably outperform both in raw processing power.

No region locking. Not much to say about this here other than that it's about time and region locking sucks. Good riddance.

The return to cartridge-based media could turn out to be a huge plus for the system. We're long past the days when N64 games were severely limited as a result of the storage space on cartridges. Now flash sticks and SD cards can reach up to 128 GB or more if they so please, and because this is solid state storage, this means a couple significant advantages over disc-based media: speed and rewritable data. You won't have to deal with load times, and unlike discs, you can also write save data, patches, or even possibly DLC directly to the cartridge instead of the Switch. Many critics have expressed concern about the Switch's lackluster 32 GB internal storage, but I think this won't be as big of a problem as it sounds if they effectively utilize cartridges in this way.

And now the bad:

The shift to a subscription-based service for online multiplayer is an unfortunate trend in the console industry; one that now Nintendo is poised to follow as well. It's exploitative and unnecessary, and as someone who only casually likes to hop on multiplayer from time to time, it's frustrating that it creates this feeling that I'm not getting my money's worth out of these services when I don't always feel like using them. Furthermore, as a kid growing up when Halo 2 hit the gaming scene and Microsoft introduced their Xbox Live service, my parents were never avid supporters of my gaming hobby and I always had to scrounge up the money myself to pay for everything. Given that I was obviously too young to have a job, this proved notoriously difficult and most often I ended up just relying on free Xbox Live trials that I would occasionally inherit from somewhere, if I even got to play it at all. No doubt my experience was probably far from the exception and I'm sure that many other kids will now have to compromise and miss out on fun times online as a result of this money-grabbing pay wall. And to be clear: this is a cash grab, as Steam has been providing a fully featured online ecosystem complete with friends lists, voice, and text chat for a decade now completely free, and it has been more than adequate for my needs. Furthermore, given that Nintendo's online service has already been pretty lackluster in the past (I still can't even voice chat in Mario Kart 8), and there aren't exactly any confirmed launch titles yet that scream "I need to play this online," how they intend to build up a userbase for this new service is a pretty fucking big question mark block.

If you couldn't tell already, this kinda crap really pushes my buttons, so I now apologize in advance because I might get a little offensive here, but I have to get this off my chest:

Subscription fees can die in a fire. It wasn't acceptable when Microsoft started it, and it sure as shit isn't acceptable now that Sony and Nintendo are doing it. Spare me your apologetics about industry standards and how the money will go toward improving the service, among other bullshit justifications. I've heard them all before and you're just wrong. Deal with it.

Ahem, rant over.

Now onto the hardware. While I did say the price point for the system is good for what you get, the hardware still looks like it leaves much to be desired. I'm not sure if it was just something to do with the way the games were filmed during the livestream presentation, but a lot of the gameplay shown visually looked like it wasn't any better than the Wii U, and in some instances maybe even slightly worse. The system really needed to reach the performance of at least a base Xbox One in order ensure third party support, but now that possibility seems to be thrown in jeopardy once again, as developers will have to work extra hard to optimize their games for the Switch, and many may just deem it not worth the resources to even bother developing. This is probably the most significant hurdle for the Switch, as the Wii U's weak hardware and lack of third party support proved to be a death sentence for the system. While I will more than likely be picking up the Switch regardless as Nintendo's first party franchises have always been more than enough to satisfy me, this is no longer the case for most other gamers, and if Nintendo wishes to remain relevant, they have to bring on third party developers and keep them on the system this time. The weaker hardware also throws into question the idea that this is truly a hybrid console. If it doesn't even reach the bare minimum performance that other home consoles can achieve, it feels more like just a mobile device that also happens to have a convenient way to dock with your TV rather than a device that truly doubles as both a full-blown home console experience and an on-the-go mobile system.

And then there's the software. Launching with Zelda is a great start, but then there appears to be a big dry spell pretty much until November when Super Mario Odyssey hits the shelves. Is Zelda alone enough to carry the console for most of its first year out in the wild? Keep in mind that Breath of the Wild is also launching for Wii U, so Nintendo fans don't have to purchase the system to play the latest Zelda. With this in mind, what audience is left to purchase the Switch on launch day? No major third party games confirmed for launch, and one first party title that is technically optional for most Nintendo die-hards who likely already own a Wii U.

Also the Pro controller is $70. Seventy. Dollars. What the fuck Nintendo?

Anyway, with all these considerations in mind, I think the Switch faces a pretty stiff uphill battle. It still seems poised to be viewed as the "secondary" console that you only buy if you have enough leftover money after purchasing your main gaming device, but on the other hand its mobile capability may provide just enough of an incentive for consumers that it can inch out a niche in the market like the 3DS did. Time will tell I suppose. If only they just included the toaster, all of our fears could've been allayed.

But now let's talk about what I think Nintendo should have done instead.

The Nintendo Phone

OK, hear me out on this one. So we already know that devices are trending toward multi-functionality and being all-in-one machines. Even the Xbox One billed itself as an all-in-one entertainment center for your home. The Switch could've been the next natural step, fully merging the hardcore gaming experience with smartphones. Now you don't have to think about your limited pocket space between your phone and your 3DS; why not both? The system could work almost exactly like the Switch already does with a TV dock and detachable Joy-Con controllers, but with a few tweaks. It could run a modified version of Android OS, so you could use it as your phone when you're out on-the-go and doing your daily routine, and you already instantly have access to all the apps and phone games that come with running on Android OS straight from day one. But on top of this, you've also now got Nintendo's big exclusive franchises that are only available for the Nintendo phone, and with the attachable Joy-Con controllers and TV dock, it can instantly be converted into a fully featured gaming console.

The other added bonus to all this is that because this is billed as a smartphone that also doubles as a console, that means they can jack up the price and stick beefier hardware in it, while justifying the price because hey, we're just charging the same as you would normally pay for a smartphone. And also because it's a phone, you can just break the price up into a monthly payment plan to pay it off, again much like people already do with other $600 smartphones. Now it's affordable, we get to cram the Xbox One hardware into it, and I get to have my cake and eat it too. GENIUS. You could even go a step further with stuff like including a blu-ray drive built into the dock, so you could use it for movie playback on your TV too, and last but not least...

...toast your bread with it. OK, I'm seriously going to let this joke go now. But for reals Nintendo, think about it.

In the meantime, I won't be seeing you guys on launch day because I'm too cool to wait for this shit, and I'm already way ahead of you.

I'm now on Destructoid

Hey, just a quick update about a relatively minor change in plans for this blog. First things first, you can now also find my blog on Destructoid, located here. Due to my first post on Destructoid already receiving much more activity and feedback than I have ever received posting anywhere else, I intend to make Destructoid my new main focus going forward. This isn't to say that I am ending my blog here however. Rather, I'm shifting its role to being more of a miscellaneous blog that posts about anything that fancies my interests instead of just a gaming and anime blog. Of course, it's kind of been that type of blog already with my occasional shifts to political talk, but now I'm more or less making it official, because if you don't care about any of my opinions outside of video games and anime, you can now just head right on over to my Destructoid blog and follow me there, where I will only be posting about anime and video games. If you care to listen to anything else I have to say, you can find that here on Blogspot. I will still continue to post about games and anime at Blogspot as well; the difference is that basically this blog will include (nearly) everything I decide to talk about while Destructoid will be be exclusively focused on the topics relevant to that site.

So again, long story short, if you just want to listen to me talk about anime and video games while also generally having a more lively discussion in the comments, head on over to my Destructoid blog. If you want to hear me talk about anything that pops into my mind--gaming or non-gaming related--you can just keep checking back here.

That is all. Until next time.

Are multiplayer-only games inherently inferior?

[12/7/2016 UPDATE: Added a couple paragraphs to further clarify and expand my points.]

Creating a sock account so you can be matched with low-level plebs and squash them over and over again like the scrubs they are can be quite satisfying. I know I certainly feel a great sense of completeness in my soul after I've curb-stomped and tea-bagged my way to victory, but what about all those plebeians left reeling in butthurt and misery at the end of the day? They need to get their entertainment value out of the game too, and if not via the multiplayer, where else do they have to turn to? The 2016 Video Game Awards show was just recently held, and the multiplayer-only shooter Overwatch claimed the mantle of Game of the Year. This of course triggered little n00blets across the globe due to a multiplayer-only game being bestowed the highest title of the show, as if to suggest that this one fact alone is an automatic disqualifier for the title. To them I have but one response: Git. Gud.

Just kidding. Turns out I actually agree with them to an extent, but why is this the case? Isn't it a double standard that if someone develops a single player-only game it can be showered with praise and no one questions its lack of a multiplayer component, but if the reverse is true, suddenly everyone is demanding what happened to the campaign? Well no, I don't believe there is a double standard, because there's a key difference here: single player starts with an S while multiplayer starts with an M. See? They're not the same.

OK, I jest again of course. Going beyond just a matter of personal taste though, I do think there are some substantive differences between the two types of games that legitimizes criticisms against multiplayer-only titles. Namely that multiplayer-only games consistently lack in varied and significant content, often choosing to rely upon the dynamic and unpredictable nature of multiplayer interactions to alleviate the repetition, but this design choice only gets you so far. No matter how you slice it, a typical multiplayer-only shooter might release with only 12 playable maps and a handful of game modes. Each map itself is typically a fairly small arena; the entirety of which can be explored in under 5 minutes. Not to mention that you're unlikely to encounter any fancy scripted events that add some flare to the level, or fully-voice acted cutscenes that flesh out the characters and setting. You're generally limited to a singular objective that never fluctuates and all teams of players must compete for until the match is over. As a result, multiplayer-only games lend themselves to being played in shorter bursts, as the feeling of repetition starts to set in all too quickly and the average player will feel the urge to move on to something else. In contrast, a single player game can throw a multitude of objectives at you that give you a wide variety of goals to keep yourself occupied with for prolonged periods of time. In the classic N64 title Banjo-Kazooie for example, a single level of the game might have you collecting a number of items including 100 notes and 10 jigsaw pieces strewn across a vast map that is maybe 5 times the size of your average multiplayer level, all the while often requiring you to complete various other objectives along the way in order to collect these items, such as fighting bosses that test your reflexes and require memorization of their attack moves to defeat, or solving crafty puzzles that require careful examination to unravel. Each of these elements add variety to the gameplay that help keep it feeling fresh, and from a purely talent-based standpoint, they just require a lot more creativity and effort to produce. And this is just one level. Many single player games can have upwards of 20+ missions and 30+ hours of unique content to explore. EA themselves admitted that another multiplayer-only shooter released this year, Star Wars Battlefront, had a shorter development cycle than their standard AAA titles in order to meet the deadline of releasing the game while the hype was strong for The Force Awakens, and it shows. It too was another multiplayer title released with only 12 maps and a limited number of game modes. Within just a couple of hours, you can have experienced every map there is to play on it.

During the early days of the game industry, multiplayer was often treated as a tacked-on piece of content; almost considered to be "bonus material" if you will. In fact, famously during the development of Rare's seminal first-person shooter Goldeneye 007, multiplayer was only added in at the last minute. Unplanned, mind you. As in, it wasn't even done with the permission or knowledge of Nintendo and Rare's upper management. They only learned of it when a build was shown of the multiplayer already working. And yet despite the frequent treatment of multiplayer as a tacked-on component by the industry with only limited features and content, this approach to multiplayer development hasn't evolved much over the years even as we've begun to see the emergence of multiplayer-only AAA games, which is quite baffling. In theory, there's no reason Overwatch couldn't have released with double the number of maps and a multitude of different customizable game modes on launch. It's not as if Blizzard doesn't have the resources, and as a matter of fact, in all three of their other major franchises they offer a variety of ways to play. StarCraft II for example offers a robust single player campaign, co-op missions, versus matchmaking, and arcade mode where players can design their own custom maps and entirely new game modes. There's simply no excuse for the lack of content here. AAA publishers still want to follow the old model of tacked-on multiplayer for titles where the focus is supposed to be exclusively multiplayer, but at the same time they still want to charge you the full AAA price. I don't consider this practice to be acceptable.

Of course, one could argue that due to the spontaneous nature of multiplayer gameplay, it can create some lasting replay value that goes far beyond the amount of hours spent in many single player games. This is often true, and I'm sure I myself have probably spent more time in League of Legends than I have in some of my favorite single player games. However, I don't believe measuring the quality of games by the singular metric of replay value or time spent does them justice. After all, my top 10 list would probably look very different if I based it purely on this instead of my preferred metrics, and that's because something that should be considered when evaluating a game is also its peak entertainment value. Apologies in advance, but we're about to get into some ridiculous maths based on quantities that can't really be quantified. If I could visualize the entertainment value I get out of a game as a graph over time, it might look something like single player games generally starting out with very high peak values that steadily decrease as times goes on, while multiplayer games might start out at medium values, but decrease at a much slower rate thanks to the spontaneity of my opponents. As a result, I might find myself spending more time in a multiplayer game overall because it holds my attention longer, but at the same time it never really reaches the same heights of "awesomeness" I guess you could say I experience while playing other games; most often because of the lack of content and the inherent constraints that come with having to develop game objectives that all players can participate in meaningfully. In fact, amidst all of the supposed unpredictability of multiplayer interactions, there is a certain very predictable nature to these games. You know you're not going to be wowed by a sudden shocking plot revelation. There's no journey to go on with the characters where you get to see them grow and blossom in different ways. You're unlikely to encounter some epic event where you're dueling someone atop a moving train before it derails and explodes. Multiplayer levels need to stay mostly static so other players can navigate the map and participate too. You already know the vast majority of what to expect before you even put the disc in for the first time. Perhaps others feel differently, but this has generally been my experience with the medium.

So people can scoff at my immediate dismissal of multiplayer-only games, but at the end of the day, I do not do so without merit. None of this is to say that these types of games are bad of course, nor even that they can never be allowed to win Game of the Year, but when it comes to my personal choices, I do think they are at an inherent disadvantage and for good reason. There simply aren't a lot of multiplayer-only titles that offer comparable content and craftsmanship to their single player counterparts, and until they do, they don't get to sit at the big boys' table as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Overwatch received Game of the Year this year to me just reflects on how disappointing this year really has been. Then again, maybe I just need to git gud. Or perhaps I'm selling this achievement too short; it was the first year where a hentai game got GOTY after all. Progress, America.

Nintendo Switch revealed: Reaction and analysis

Nintendo has finally taken the curtain off the Nintendo NX and it's about god damn time. As many may know, Nintendo has for a long time been working on a new console under the codename NX, but have absolutely refused to reveal any details on it until now. Personally, I still question whether they're going to be able to market this system properly when it's only about 5 months away from launch. By skipping its reveal at E3, they no longer have any big conference to build the hype with, and the system will have already hit the market before next year's E3, so I hope they either plan to do a bunch of marketing on TV or some other mainstream outlet before this thing happens or it's going to be the Wii U all over again. But anyway, let's get into the console itself. So it's being called the Nintendo Switch, which again, why is it that Nintendo's codenames are always cooler than the actual name they decide on? The GameCube was originally called the Dolphin, the Wii was called the Revolution, and now the NX is the Switch? I mean, I guess it's a step up from Wii, which I think everyone was pretty sick of at this point, but really, maybe Nintendo should just go with their gut next time and pick the first name they use for it.

But dammit, I'm still going off on tangents here, and I'm just nitpicking at this point, so let's get back to the reveal. So the trailer starts off with a 20-something dude just chillin' on the couch gaming inconspicuously to the latest upcoming Zelda game. Now already the fact that Nintendo decided to start the trailer like this is a breath of fresh air. This is what many people have been saying for a long time; your audience has grown up Nintendo. Wake the hell up. They always kept branding their consoles as systems for kids and casuals. But they still make games that are just as fun as ever to play regardless of your age, and they offer plenty of hardcore experiences. You've got Metroid, you've got Bayonetta, you've got Zelda, and hell, even Super Mario 3D World will give hardcore gamers a run for their money in the final worlds and especially the bonus levels. There is some gruelingly difficult stuff there. Yet the average dedicated gamer doesn't really know this because Nintendo doesn't market to them. So I'm very glad to finally see as their first ad that this is clearly a system being made for the fans as well as the existing gaming market rather than trying to pull in people who were never fans of their products before and normally couldn't care less for gaming. Anyway, the ad continues, and we finally see what this system is all about. The 20-something dude stands up and then detaches his controller into two pieces before snapping it onto the console itself, and proceeds to leave the house and take his dog for a walk while continuing right where he left off with the game, now as a portable system. This is the key feature of the Switch which gives it its name, and I gotta say it looks excellent. We're finally getting a system that merges portable and big screen TV gaming all in one device, and it does so in a way that is effortless and slick. Next we have our 20-something dude-bro hopping on a plane and showing off how portable the system is, along with revealing that the system uses cartridge-based media, and so on and so forth. I'm not going to run through the whole commercial scene-by-scene, but long story short, it shows off a possible new Mario game, Skyrim, a basketball game, and what looks to be a version of Mario Kart 8 with expanded content.

It should be noted that the ad could be a little misleading here as none of the third party games featured in this video have been confirmed to be releasing on the Switch yet, so here we arrive at our first major concern. Like it or not, unfortunately consoles need third party developers on board for their long term survival anymore, and if Nintendo fails to hang onto third parties after the Switch's initial launch, it is likely another dead on arrival release. They should secure these titles as quickly as possible so people won't be left feeling misled. Now regarding cartridge media: I'm glad this is coming back as the landscape has changed since the days of the N64 where cartridges were more expensive and couldn't store as much space. Now you've got SD cards that can easily house 64 GB, and cartridges have much faster load times than discs, being that they are solid state storage.

Now let's do a full breakdown of the system:

Obviously since the hardware is housed in the tablet in order to make it portable, there's no reasonable way one could expect it to achieve performance on par with the upcoming Scorpio and PS4 Pro consoles. However, the value proposition here is based on the idea that you're essentially getting the most powerful handheld gaming experience to date, with the inclusion of proper buttons and joystick controls. With the PS Vita being all but dead to Sony at this point, and the 3DS beginning to greatly show its age in the face of modern smartphones, this presents itself as an attractive step up from all other handheld options because now there's finally a dedicated handheld gaming device again that is more powerful than your smartphone, and with proper buttons to boot.

The rumors (which have largely turned out to be true so far) stated that this would be a hybrid home/portable console with detachable controls, cartridge-based media, performance about on par with a standard Xbox One console, and a 900p tablet display for around the $300-400 price point. While bits and pieces of this have been confirmed, the official specs remain to be seen. Given that it has also been stated that this console will be based in the latest architecture from NVIDIA, this could mean that we're talking about the same architecture that powers NVIDIA's beastly GTX 1000 series cards, which if anything was capable of pushing Xbox One-level graphics in a handheld as tiny as that, it would certainly be possible with the GTX 1000's Pascal architecture. The NVIDIA Shield released just last year was capable of outputting performance on par with the Wii U/360/PS3 already, so considering this, we already know at a minimum that it is unlikely this won't be at least a marginal upgrade from the Wii U. The question is, will it only be a marginal upgrade, or substantial enough to reach the Xbox One? If it does the latter, then I think this does present itself as very attractive for the handheld experience, because no handheld platform currently boasts graphics at that level.

So sure, at the $300-400 price point, you're paying about the same as you are for a PS4 Pro despite not offering as good of performance, but on the other hand your typical latest smartphone sells for $500+ and doesn't offer anything for AAA experiences or proper buttons and joysticks, let alone graphics on par with current-gen consoles, so if you care about having a portable element to your console, then the value is easily justified. I think a lot of assertions about this console being underpowered aren't factoring in these considerations. If the rumor is true that it reaches the performance of an Xbox One, then this certainly is top of the line hardware for the mobile market.

There's still a lot of questions in the air as to how this will all pan out, but so far it seems as if Nintendo is making the right decisions and the Switch is being well-received. I'm cautiously excited for the platform and look forward to owning one in March if it has a solid launch lineup. Well-played, Nintendo.

Jill Stein haters: This is the best you can do?

I must apologize two-fold here; I haven't posted anything on this blog for a long time, and I'm coming out of my pseudo-retirement to do an entirely out-of-left-field political ramble, which isn't my normal shindig here, but I couldn't think of any better place to put this, and I need to vent for a brief moment, so please excuse me this time.

As we all know, there's been a lot of vitriol flung around this presidential election season, and events unfolding recently at the DNC have only deepened the rift between Hillary and Bernie supporters in many instances. With the revelation from WikiLeaks that the democratic party colluded with the Clinton campaign from the outset, and the failure to acknowledge many of the concerns of Hillary's dissenters throughout the convention while patronizing them to add salt to the wounds, some of the progressive wing of the democratic party have been seeking alternative third party options in the form of Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Unsurprisingly, this has brought some negative attention to Jill from her own set of critics in the form of this Slate article entitled Jill Stein's ideas are terrible. She is not the savior the left is looking for. Now it's one thing if you want to make the usual pragmatic argument that as a third party candidate, Jill has no chance of winning, so your vote for her really just counts as a vote for Trump, who in this case would be the perceived greater evil. However, it's another thing entirely to make such a ridiculously flamboyant statement that implies the totality of Jill's platform is idiotic based on some largely irrelevant issues as we're about to see here. In fact on nearly all the big issues that matter, Jill is pretty spot-on for progressives, from getting money out of politics and campaign finance reform, to universal healthcare and ending the student debt crisis. And for many of the issues where Jill is "wrong", she's only wrong in the sense that her goal is unrealistic, yet nonetheless still noble.

Case-in-point, so what do Jill's critics have to offer as a rebuttal? She wants to cut defense spending in half, close 700 foreign military bases, and reach 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. And...? Yep, that's it basically. Wait... These are the alleged bad policies? As many may know, the US currently spends more than several of its next-nearest competitors combined on military expenses. It's funny that in any other modern first world country, cutting such egregiously bloated military spending would seem like a no-brainer, but here in the US the military spending has gotten so massively out of control that it has become seen as unreasonable to be reasonable about it. Now on the other hand, a more compelling argument could certainly be made that it's wholly unrealistic to expect 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, even with strong cooperation from congress. However again, for progressives this would all still be taken with the acknowledgement that seeking renewable energy solutions is a positive goal regardless, and even if she fails to reach it, what's the worst-case scenario? We reach 30% renewable energy instead? Damn, I'm really reeling from this revelation. Clearly this would be disastrous. I mean, we could have tried less and only raised our renewable energy output to 20%; the clear superior alternative! Sarcasm aside, it should be noted that Bernie Sanders previously gave a succinct analogy on policy negotiation. If you start with a full loaf of bread, you will likely end up with half, but start with half a loaf of bread, and you will be left with crumbs. Some of Jill's policy goals may be unrealistic, but by going into the conversation strong from the onset, she is more likely to end up closer to the ideal goal regardless. Pointing out that her renewable energy goals are unrealistic is hardly reason alone to jump ship, let alone even necessarily count as a negative to begin with.

To be fair though, the Slate article by Jordan Weissmann does go on to make slightly more compelling points. Jordan continues with pointing out Jill's policy on GMOs and pesticides, elaborating on the fact that in spite of there being no scientific basis for claiming negative health impacts resulting from GMOs, Jill wants to require foods containing genetically modified material to be labeled with it. Never mind that Sanders shares the same policy anyway, but even if this is the case, while Jill's agricultural policies would add needless bureaucracy to the agriculture sector, and cause some loss in revenues by legitimizing fears of the science illiterate, in the end this is all negligible nitpicking and small-fry gripes compared to greater issues at stake. I mean are we seriously having a conversation about the supposed egregiousness of Jill Stein's GMO policy while both of the mainstream candidates will more than likely continue deregulation of banks and multi-national corporations, job-exporting free trade deals, tax cuts, loopholes, and subsidies for the wealthy, all contributing towards increasing the risk of another global economic collapse? What a joke. Hillary Clinton's VP pick Tim Kaine supported TPP, off-shore drilling, anti-union right-to-work measures, and was even advocating for deregulation of banks right up until his selection for vice president. And considering Clinton's flip-flopping on the TPP, shaky convictions on the Keystone pipeline, support of the fracking industry, taking large sums of money from the big banks, and refusing to release her speeches on them, it isn't an altogether unfair assumption that she shares the same views despite her claims to the contrary. Let's also not forget Hillary's history of supporting the disastrous Iraq war, her flip-flopping on universal healthcare, as well as her support for the PATRIOT Act which paved the way for warrantless spying on Americans. But shut up about all that, we've got some GMO labels to bitch about. Jill's anti-science policies may be disappointing, but they pale in comparison to some of the horrendous policies and lack of judgment of her opposition, and certainly aren't cause for pulling the parachute. We need not even address some of Trump's most inane policies.

Perhaps Jordan's most damning criticism of Jill Stein is his point regarding her misunderstanding of the bank bailouts and quantitative easing. But even then he nonchalantly admits his argument hinges on an inconclusive assumption via Occam's razor, and furthermore, it sidesteps the consideration that most presidential candidates likely don't know the finer ins and outs of the Fed either, and that's why they have cabinets with economic advisers and people with greater expertise to counsel them on these sorts of issues. What matters here is that Jill is still right on the substance of the issue, which is that we should similarly employ a large scale bailout package for college students currently being choked by crushing debt in the same way that the banks were given a bailout for blowing up the economy in 2008, except in this case the debt accrued by students was never deliberately caused by malicious intents unlike our other example here.

Finally, Jordan accuses Stein of ignoring history based on his own glazing over of key details on history. For example, he rebutted her line about Obama leading the charge for austerity by basically admitting that Obama did in fact try to work with John Boehner and the Republicans to push cutting social security and entitlements via the "grand bargain", but implies that it doesn't count since the legislation never technically passed, and he further notes that Obama only made some of the Bush tax cuts permanent, not all. This vague use of the term "some" neglects to mention that it was really most of the Bush tax cuts that were made permanent; 82% to be precise if you go by the CBPP's numbers, and he further ignores the context that in spite of Obama facing unprecedented opposition from Republicans on the fiscal cliff, there was really no reason he couldn't have minimally struck a deal that would merely extend the Bush tax cuts a few more years rather than make them permanent, especially considering that he held the veto power in this case and all he had to do was simply let the tax cuts expire if the Republicans didn't take his offer; a risk they more than likely would not gamble with if their donors' taxes are on the line and Obama is offering an easy way out.

To be clear, no candidate is ideal, and no candidate should be expected to fit one's views 100% to absurdly puritanical degrees. Jill Stein has some legitimate problems as the Slate article points out, but its dismissive conclusions that it draws from them ignore bigger-picture context and come off as exaggerating flaws without merit. Jill Stein is not the ideal candidate, but quite frankly neither was Sanders nor anyone else for that matter, and to pretend that they're miles apart from each other is a rather disingenuous and cheap attempt to push progressives back to Hillary's camp. Jill is still a no-brainer compared to her competition on the important issues that matter for progressives, and if you want to make a more compelling argument against her, you're better off playing the age-old lesser-of-two-evils card. Otherwise spare me this nonsense about Jill Stein being such a terrible candidate because our vegetables might go up a few cents at the grocery store. If you're going to inflate such pathetically inconsequential policies to such significant proportions, then surely you'll start foaming at the mouth over Hillary's Iraq war vote and hawkish foreign policy am I right?

Of course not. That's what I thought, fakers.

Edit / Footnote [10/7/2024]: Although I stand by much of what I said in this blog and nothing pertaining strictly to the facts is technically inaccurate, I would like to point out that Jill Stein is nonetheless likely a grifter getting paid by Russians or other nefarious interests, which kind of undermines the sincerity of any supposed progressive policies that she claims to care about, so I no longer consider myself a supporter of hers, but I will keep this blog up just for posterity's sake, and to show how my perspective has shifted over time.

Of course the FF7 remake was too good to be true

As we all know, Square recently announced the remake to FF7 that we've all essentially been begging for since they trolled us with the Playstation 3 tech demo so many years ago. Director Tetsuya Nomura will be helming it and so far all we know about platforms is that it will be releasing on the Playstation 4. So far so good. But of course, Square wasted no time with destroying the hype, as immediately when asked about if the story will remain the same or feature new elements, Nomura responded, "We've announced an HD port version on the Playstation 4, and then we have the remake coming to PS4. You'll have this extremely, very, very pretty FFVII existing on the same plane. We feel that if that happens, it's like, why have the same exact game?" Yeah I dunno Nomura, it's almost like you're doing a remake and not an original game. And then when asked about if the gameplay would at least remain intact, Nomura again responds that there will be "dramatic changes" to the combat.

Oh for god sakes. YOU HAD ONE JOB SQUARE. ONE JOB. Just make a straight remake of FF7 with modern production values and that's it. Guaranteed dollar bills pouring in so fast that it would cave in through the rooftops. I mean it literally doesn't get any easier than that. But whatever, let's break this down for a moment. I love how he's treating this "HD" port as if it's already a sufficient alternative if you want to go back and relive the original game. No dude, the entire reason why fans were clamoring for a remake for so long was that we wanted to play the original game with better graphics, because the reality is, those chibi field models look like ass.

Seriously. What the hell am I looking at here?

It's not even that the game's graphics haven't aged well; the truth of the matter is those models always looked awful, even from day one. And that's the number one reason I hear that modern gamers tend to shy away from it. It just looks atrocious. That is to be more specific, the graphics are atrocious. The actual gameplay and story itself still holds up fantastically well. Many of the story's themes are still very relevant. There's no reason to change anything there. Has Square learned nothing from the success of Bravely Default? Square seems so scared that a traditional JRPG can't hold up in a modern market that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They try to make their JRPGs "streamlined" for the modern gamer so as to try and appeal to a broader audience, and then you get stuff like FFXIII that performs poorly with fans and critics, and then they turn around and conclude, "Clearly JRPGs can't survive in a modern market, we need to modernize it more." NO genius, it's precisely because you tried to deviate from the original formula too much and dumb the game down that it was poorly received. It's not because the traditional JRPG formula doesn't hold up. FFXIII didn't receive a lukewarm response because it was using an aging design formula that only appeals to a niche audience. It was panned because the story was flat, and there wasn't anything to do in the game except run in a straight line and fight; problems that don't exist in previous Final Fantasy games.

We already have examples of successful remakes from FF7's era. Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Star Fox 64 got some notable graphical overhauls on the 3DS while the gameplay remained almost identical with some slight tweaks. Pokemon X and Y have sold over 12 million copies, and their turn-based combat is more primitive than Final Fantasy's. So maybe it's about time Square takes a cue from Nintendo and have a little faith in their own products.

I'm not normally one to get worked up about changes to source material. I recognize that there are flaws in everything, and there's pretty much always room for improvement. But Final Fantasy VII already is a masterpiece, and it doesn't need much changing. The mini games were arguably the weakest part about the game, with many of them being too basic or gimmicky, and could certainly use some more polish. But Square has no business doing a complete overhaul of the combat, much less any other major aspect of the game.

I guess part of what irks me so much about this remake is that now the game will be introduced to a new generation of gamers, and much like Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask before it, this remake could have served as a good introduction to some more classic games, which could motivate modern gamers to maybe explore some more classics that they might have missed out on. But now that there's going to be "dramatic changes", modern gamers aren't really getting a taste of gaming history. My worst fear ironically is that this new game might actually turn out great, but not a masterpiece. Because then the majority of gamers will flock to it and sacrifice quality gameplay in favor of shiny graphics because it's merely "good enough", while the original superior game is left in the dust, despite being the superior game, and newer generations will wonder why FF7 is viewed as such a classic.

Well, because you played the watered down botched version, not the iconic masterpiece that it's based on. At least we've still got those mods for the PC version to offer us what apparently Square cannot.

Square is really playing with fire here. They're messing with people's childhoods and taking a huge risk that they really don't have to. Let's not make the same mistake that Devil May Cry did where an unnecessary reinvention alienated its core fanbase and failed to pull in many newcomers either. Tweaks around the edges make sense, but this is supposed to be a remake; not a reboot, and certainly not a new original game either, so let's treat it like one. Hopefully some day Square will realize that if they just embraced their own culture, stopped trying to emulate the Call of Duties of the world, and made a game that is unapologetically a Japanese passion project that celebrates JRPGs, then they can reignite that old spark that once made FF7 so popular in the first place.