Subjectivity on an binary scale? - A response to "It's Time to Admit Final Fantasy XIII Wasn't Actually That Bad"

A few weeks ago, I started planning a post on the nature of subjectivity, particularly how a priori experiences and expectations will colour a near identical occurrence between two people, what we know as "opinions". The example that spurred the idea was the recent release of Sonic Lost World for Nintendo Wii U and 3DS, though the article would focus almost exclusively on the Wii U version (we both hate the 3DS version), and the opinions of myself and my boyfriend Mark. We have differing opinions on games all the time, but rarely has there been such a strong disagreement over near identical playthroughs among us.

To condense the planned post into a short burst, Mark and I expect different things from our Sonic games due to our experiences with the franchise; I personally mostly like Sonic Lost World, I think the new gameplay style is interesting and has potential, I generally like the soundtrack, and the presentation is bright and colourful. When it comes to Sonic games, I come from a predominantly gameplay-first school of thought. I consider level design and control to be the key points, with visuals, music and story playing lesser roles; the new play control is unrefined in terms of the parkour system, but mostly works fine once you get to know how to use it (an agreed flaw is the game's poor use of tutorials), and I appreciate the added precision of the Mario-style run button and the dedicated double jump button. That said I don't consider it a perfect game, the 2D sections feel kinda clunky, as do some of the bosses (particularly with Zavok) and it all ends rather anticlimactically. The game is also notably more difficult than most previous Sonic games, ensured by the original release's omission of the classic "100-collectibles = 1 life" trope that Sonic games almost always stick to, thankfully this was returned in a patch; I personally enjoy playing games of higher difficulty, needless to say it needs to be fair (or feel like it's fair) such as Dark Souls, Super Meat Boy or classic Castlevania, so I mostly didn't mind the additional challenge, but an outdated and poorly implemented life system bogs down the experience; I really wish Sonic had gone the Rayman route here, and had no life system at all, freeing up the designers to make genuinely hard level sections that don't punish players by sending them back to the very beginning. That said, my opinion on Sonic Lost World was an over-all positive, though less than Colours or Generations, I see it in a similar light to Unleashed; having some pretty bad flaws that will put others off, but there's good in there too.

Mark's experience was far less positive than my own, to the point of calling betrayal. He's always had much more stock in the Sonic franchise than myself, playing all the spin-offs, watching the cartoons and reading the comics; he's quite heavily invested in the narrative of the series, the characters and the world they live in. My immediate gut reaction is the Sonic games have pretty much never had a consistent world or story, but he was able to piece one together from these varying media types into a frame that fits for him, and that is what's important. So when the series got a new writing team in Sonic Colours, and the characters changed, Mark wasn't too happy, but Colours and Generations put minimal attention to the story and the gameplay was good enough to gain a pass. Sonic Lost World, on the other hand, bought its writing to the forefront. The story itself is basic and almost cliché for Sonic about 10 years ago, Eggman gets betrayed by an evil force that he was trying to control, and now Sonic needs to put them in their place, this time with Eggman teaming up like in the end section of Sonic Adventure 2.

The problem arose from the writing and characterization; Sonic had told lame jokes in Colours, but in this game it was pushed to being mean spirited. Tails had gained a snark in Colours, but in this game he became whiny and loud-mouthed. Eggman had gained some bite in Colours, particularly over the P.A. system, but in this game he was way over-the-top, threatening to eat the black hearts of his enemies. The whole writing just smacked of trying to hard, and its prominence in the game did nothing to improve the title. What also upset Mark was the art style; he says "Compared to the Mario series, Sonic games usually keep at least one foot on the ground", in that they usually portray somewhat realistic looking environments. While Mario goes through floating mountain areas or space buoys, Sonic usually runs through city-scapes, with the plot usually tying the tropes of lava, beach and snow levels to the plot. Lost World opts for a more impressionistic art style, which on an "objective" level "shouldn't" hurt the experience, it's Mark's perceptions, experiences and biases that matter to him. We cannot see the world without our lenses, no matter how hard we try, and to Mark, Sonic Lost World is a really bad Sonic game and he doesn't want to play it again, which is completely fair.

Better luck next time, Sonic!

Thus is the nature of opinions; we can certainly disagree and debate, but there will always be the underlying narrative. Kant said "Percept without Concept is blind"; without being able to give understanding and context, our perceptions lack any meaning, and Huxley posited "Our experience us less what happens to us, and more of what we make of what happens to us.". In an objective sense, Mark and I experienced the same game in a very similar way, but given context of our past experiences and expectations, we had contrasting reactions to the same media. This contrast continued to our instant reactions for Sonic Boom, but that's a story for another day.

If this game were released in Japan, would it be called "Toot Toot Sonic Warrior"?

This brings me to the topic of today's story, an article posted onto USgamer got my attention a few days ago. It was about Final Fantasy XIII, saying the time has come to admit that it really wasn't that bad, nor was its sequel, Final Fantasy XIII-2. Here is a link to the article: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/its-time-to-admit-final-fantasy-xiii-wasnt-actually-that-bad.

For reference, I have finished all the numbered entry Final Fantasy games that aren't MMO's (so no 11 or 14), and I have finished X-2 and XIII-2. My experience with Final Fantasy XIII was seemingly more positive than most, I found the battle system to be enjoyable, or at least when you could fully access it, 20 hours into the game. I liked some of the music, and of course graphically the game is gorgeous. While I don't share the venom among some of the fandom, I can certainly understand it; the game is linear to a fault, the story is convoluted, aimless and poorly written and the characters were a mixed bag. FF13 is symbolic for a bad Final Fantasy in a lot of people's eyes, so after my thoughts on what a game means to the individual playing it, I felt quite alarmed by the wording of the article, saying it's time to "admit" the game isn't so bad, as if the people who state it to be so bad are lying and aware they are doing so.

I don't hold FF13 on a pedestal of being the worst thing ever to happen to the main Final Fantasy series (that would be FF8 in my opinion), but I don't sing its praises either. For me, the absolute biggest letdown for me has been the recent trend of Final Fantasy stories dropping their depth and meanings. Final Fantasy 5 was a story of passing on the torch to the next generation, Final Fantasy 6 had a moral about plurality and the want to continue in the face of adversity, Final Fantasy 7 was analogous to the loss of a loved one and being able to move on, Final Fantasy 10 bought into question the notion of duty versus personal choice (though didn't really follow through with a meaning behind it due to the "religion in bullshit" angle the story took). FF12, to my interpretation, was a story without any real moral or message; it could be entertaining and interesting, but had little beyond its mechanics for pushing the medium. That said, FF12's mechanics were superb and I really wish the series could have continued on that trend for a while. FF13 continues on the road of vapidity; while the characters struggle to continue like in FF6, there's no direction; they wander around aimlessly for 8 chapters, get informed if they kill the Patriarch it will destroy the city, get plonked into the wilderness for a while, then come back and kill said Patriarch anyway because we need some god-like Final Boss.

To label something as a "bad game" or "good game" alone is comparable to being a baby; it shows no understanding or context, just "it made me feel good" or "it made me not feel good". People who know my gaming will know I have a special place of hatred for Metroid Other M, while on the "objective" level it's an okay game with a mediocre story, as a Metroid fan and direct follow-up to Super Metroid, I find it utterly reprehensible. And that's fine, I can explain my reasoning (and have done on multiple occasions), as needs both the defenders and the detractors of Final Fantasy 13. While there is some merit to "I like this", what's much more useful and interesting is why; what did it bring to your life? why should others partake in it too? That's the concept to the percept that Kant spoke about.

With that said, the arguments made in the article were rather baffling to me. I'm certainly not saying Mr Davison shouldn't enjoy Final Fantasy XIII; I enjoyed it somewhat, but we can (and should) be as critical about the things we like as well as those we dislike.

The first argument he makes isn't about FF13 specifically, but the franchise as a whole, praising the series for its constant reinvention, providing a fresh experience with every new numbered entry. While I somewhat agree that such devotion to creativity is admirable, it's muddying the water of this discussion. Final Fantasy XIII is a game in an inconsistent series, for better or for worse; that is part of innovation, things need to change and sometimes it's not for the better. I'd argue the gameplay changes, which is where they are most significant, were at the best in Final Fantasies 5 (for preparation) and 12 (for execution) respectfully, as they provided the player with the most freedom of choice, while games like FF4, 6 and 9 somewhat rail-roaded the character progression for the sake of the story. FF13 followed the latter strategy for the majority of its story length; Lightning is best as a Commando (Attacker), Snow is best as a Sentinel (Tank), Hope is best as a Medic. But getting back on topic, praising the series for its refusal to become formulaic requires there be failed experiments, like (IMHO) Final Fantasies 2 and 8, and to a lesser extent 13 itself.

There is an interesting equivalency in video games to movies; we can enjoy things that are horrible on a technical "craft" level, and joke about it, make fun, yet when something is serviceable but betrays our expectations is what results in full on hatred, We can laugh with The Room or Superman 64, nobody rages at those, they're flawed as all-get-out, but we can make merriment with them; they aren't evil, they appear bumbling and incompetent but not malicious. So what about the likes of Man of Steel or Metroid Other M, which are both 'serviceable products', but betray the art of their source material, causing fan outcry. Mark sees Sonic Lost World in that way, I see Metroid Other M that way, and many it seems see Final Fantasy XIII as that. Our thoughts and expectations for something we love causes us to react in particular ways. It's telling that Bravely Default has been heralded as the best Final Fantasy game in a decade, despite not holding the moniker; it's because the game is true to the ideals of the games that made people fall in love with the series to begin with.

"What's not to like there? The fact the last few games all have Lightning in them?"

Who have you been talking to that makes that argument? Claire "Lightning" Farron is the played character in XIII and the recently released Lightning Returns games, as well as the loved Duodecim Dissidia 012: Final Fantasy. If people hate a game because Lightning is in it, I doubt Duodecim would be considered a game worth owning a PSP/Vita for (which it definitely is IMO). Final Fantasy protagonists have a rather poor reputations for being whiny, angsty and unpleasant, and it's not really a mystery why this popped up; Cloud started acting that way for Advent Children, Squall birthed the style, Tidus was Tidus and Vaan was a waste of oxygen. Lightning was designed as a Rule 63 Cloud, but she's much closer to Squall; trained in the military, disconnected from her own emotions (though for Squall it was an inability to show them) and you spend most of their arcs trying trying to find a female loved one (Spoilers blacked out, highlight to reveal), While Lightning Returns attempts to explain this lack of emotion in the titular character, it does not prevent tedium around following her for over a hundred hours across the trilogy. And then Mr Davison defends her for not being moe? Do I even need to comment on this? Though I agree she's well defined and consistent as a character, that doesn't necessarily make her endearing. She's clearly not to everybody's taste, which is fine of course, but to then demand people "admit" the game isn't "bad" after making the claim about differing tastes shows cognitive dissonance.

"Is it the quality of the XIII series' stories, then? Perhaps, but they're really no more ridiculous than earlier Final Fantasies. We're talking about a series that has previously included people forgetting they grew up with one another, time getting compressed… sorry, "kompressed," a guy trying to blow up the world and actually succeeding, daddy issues being resolved in the most overblown manner possible, and a final boss you heard nothing about for the rest of the game who shows up in the last ten minutes, quotes Star Wars at you and then tries to kill you. Taken alongside all that… yeah, XIII, XIII-2 and Lightning Returns fit right in, to be honest." 

Wow this paragraph is frustrating. Firstly, yes, those all happened, secondly, yes, those are all silly, and thirdly, this has nothing to do with the quality of Final Fantasy XIII or the quality of those games they come from. The last minute boss with the Star Wars quotes, I assume you are referring to Nekrom of FF9, which I agree was a bad step, that does not undermine the story of the rest of the game which was really good. Tidus' daddy issues could be drawn out, but it was a significant portion of his character arc. Nobody suggested Final Fantasy should be all serious, that would be incredibly tedious (cough, Man of Steel), some silliness gives the games character and charm. That does not excuse Final Fantasy XIII or VIII in my eyes because the plot is almost all bad throughout them (Disc 1 of VIII was alright).

"Even XIII's much-maligned linearity isn't anything unusual for the series -- XIII just made it a whole lot more obvious than the earlier games, which disguised early-game linearity with world maps and vehicles and all manner of other trickery to give the illusion of freedom while still limiting where you could go very rigidly."

I agree, you are completely right. Final Fantasy games are linear by nature, and 13 is the logical extreme of this. I'd argue Final Fantasy X is similarly brazen about its linearity, though it being broken up by towns and a more traditional battle system probably softened the blow. That said, I don't think one should undermine the illusion of freedom; these illusions are valuable, they are tricks of the trade, and they help the world feel larger, more varied. Final Fantasy XIII is often called a giant corridor for good reason, aside from Chapter 11's gigantic areas, they are right, the game is one long corridor; there aren't even any towns with differing cultures to visit, just the one mandatory visit with Sahz and Vanille. Can you imagine playing a Pokémon game where you only go through routes? That's what FF13 is like. A focused JRPG might not be a bad idea, I'd say that was quite well executed with Mistwalker's The Last Story, but that game sped up the battling/grinding aspect, rather than the stripping the world of its culture.

So I think it's time to admit that maybe Final Fantasy XIII wasn't all that bad, really. If you didn't dig it personally, that's fair enough, but that doesn't mean you should write off either the Final Fantasy series as a whole, or even the XIII sub-series, for that matter -- even those who disliked XIII's direction may get something out of the very, very different Lightning Returns, for example. 

And here's where we agree quite happily. The Final Fantasy series is an uneven series certainly, but it has had some great games, told stories worth remembering with characters we love and love to hate. Falling under the guise of "admitting its not bad" is the problem I have; Final Fantasy XIII for me is a big-old mixed bag, and XIII-2 was an even mixed-er bag, but I found great pleasure in the Lightning Returns demo, so hopefully I'll enjoy it more than its predecessors. Here's to Final Fantasy, and to varying opinions :)

The element of choice in Japanese RPGs

Being a European gamer growing up in the 1990s, my exposure to JRPGs was somewhat limited. Indeed, until I got to borrow my friend's copy of Pokémon Yellow when I was 8 years old (Thank you Michael), the genre was a complete non-entity in my life. That's not to say none were released in Europe, the likes of Breath of Fire and Phantasy Star saw a UK release, but until 1997's smash Final Fantasy VII, it could only be charitably be called a small niche. Since then, the floodgates opened and Europe gained privy to plenty which our Japanese and American friend's had been enjoying for a decade; Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, Tales, Star Ocean, Mario RPGs and the Mana series, alongside eventual re-releases of Chrono Trigger and Earthbound.

That said, one common complaint about the 7th generation of video games (roughly translatable to 360, PS3, Wii, DS and PSP) was a perceived decline in quantity of Japanese RPGs, accompanied by a sharp rise in their western counterparts. You'd rarely find a PS2 library without a copy of Final Fantasy X, while a 360 library without Mass Effect felt similarly empty. There certainly were JRPGs on the systems, games like Lost Odyssey and Final Fantasy XIII were released, but to little fanfare or mixed reactions. Final Fantasy remains a huge presence in gaming, but serves as an exception to prove the rule in many cases.

At this point, I should mention that the handheld systems, both DS and PSP, served as a safe haven for traditional JRPGs, with a variety of remakes from the old guard and a smattering of new titles, but people were longing for home console RPG experiences with beautiful art backed up by grand processing power like Final Fantasy VII and X did for their respective systems. It doesn't take a financial genius to point out that utilizing more powerful hardware to any extent becomes more and more expensive as time progresses.

As David Cage revels in the number of polygons possible on screen at once, the time devoted to each model and texture is constantly growing. In a lot of ways, Final Fantasy both popularized and killed off its own genre; it told beautiful stories with innovative battle systems and superb soundtracks, yet the focus on graphical horsepower has created a gigantic money-sink, so only a few games can be made. Go big or don't bother seemed to be the message, and even the mighty Squaresoft has felt the wrath of this risky practice. Final Fantasy: Spirits Within was such a bust, it led to them being bought by former enemy Enix.

This is coupled by a perceived decline in quality in Final Fantasy entries. While I know there are those who earnest like the last decade's Final Fantasy games, these do not reflect the general opinion. Final Fantasy X-2's ridiculous plot dressed in a superfluous skin, Final Fantasy XII touted a massive world, but a horribly padded story with underwhelming characters, and Final Fantasy XIII was one long corridor with little room for deviation from the prescribed path. I will go on record now and say I somewhat enjoyed each of these entries; they all had something new to offer the series, but I also feel they each had significant drawbacks which held them all back from greatness. Yet I don't think there is nothing that can/has not been learnt from these experiments.

What I find most interesting about the lack of embrace in Final Fantasies XII and XIII (Hereafter called FF12 and FF13), is how the failings of one are provided in abundance by the other. FF13 is probably the most actively disliked Final Fantasy by modern fans, because it offers an almost complete lack of freedom. Until Chapter 11/13 (i.e. the best part of the game), you are on a linear path from A-B with many cutscenes peppered through your journey, where the characters exchange dialogue about who killed who's mother or who is getting engaged to who's sister. Many also complained at the lack of a clear objective; our characters do not know their Focus (objective), and spend the opening 20 hours meandering in personal drama.

The opposite can be said in FF12; the game is arguably best right away, a huge open world is accessible to explore almost right away, and you get to experiment with a shiny new battle system. After a few hours of small tasks, you encounter the plot with Princess Ashe, who had disappeared after the assassination of her father by the former Captain, Basch, except it wasn't Basch at all, he was framed, and it is up to you to clear Basch's name and return Ashe to the throne. A simple premise that sound genuinely interesting, except it is dragged out over a 70 hour game, with multiple false objectives padding it out. "What's that? the plot device you spend the last 10 hours getting doesn't work? Well, I know of another one in a far off land, go get it!" sort of writing, it gets old really fast. This not helped by only half the cast having personalities; Ashe, Basch and especially Balthier are great characters, but Fran, Vaan and Penelo are empty vessels, leading to uninteresting dialogue that just makes you ask why these people are here. The customization of fighting styles was also flawed; you get almost no idea what items certain licenses will gain you unless you are right next to it, meaning you could not plan things out long term without resorting to a guide.

An overly padded story with fake objectives, or a meandering plot the only gains direction in the third act? Yet FF13's characters are all notable personalities and quirks, while FF12 offers huge amounts of freedom in its world and character battle system. Two incomplete experiences that could have been great, but both end up lacking; at the time, people criticized FF12 for being "too open ended", which is an interesting claim, and brings me to the idea of choice in JRPGs (yes, we're finally getting to it).

Back in the good old NES days, RPGs (and The Legend of Zelda) were games famed for being open-ended, you had the "choice" of going to this town now, or battling some monsters, or being a certain class. What's interesting is in a modern design sense, a lot of these wouldn't be considered choices, strictly because there is a "right" answer. You NEED to go to this town eventually to proceed the narrative, you NEED to defeat these monsters because otherwise the boss will be needlessly difficult. The only real choice is in the character class selection, but even then, there is technically an optimal solution; if you choose a team of all white mages, you're gonna have a bad time. While it can be fun for self-imposed challenges, a typical playthrough is best served with a well balanced team with at least one member able to cast each type of magic.

The Super Nintendo is oft heralded as the Golden Age of JRPGs, and for good reason, it housed greats like Final Fantasy IV and VI, Super Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger, yet these games are certainly linear experiences for the most part. Final Fantasy IV and Super Mario RPG especially followed very strict sets of events. The "choice" of differing equipment isn't a choice at all, there are right choices because the one with the higher number is objectively better. Even during the magnetically charged cave, you must not use metal equipment, it is the wrong answer.

Final Fantasy VI and Chrono trigger were early attempts to offer certain freedoms to the players; you could choose to develop certain characters in Final Fantasy VI with Magecite learning different spells, and in both games you can chose who to use in battle and when to enter the final battle, leading to Chrono Trigger's 12 different endings. These are actual choices, none are necessarily more valid than another, leading to a personalized experience. In a typical Pokémon playthrough, there is no right answer between Bulbasaur, Charmander or Squirtle. Originally Bulbasaur would give you an easier ride during the early sections and Charmander would give you a harder one, but the player would not know that, it is simply "which do you prefer?"

The criticism of the linearity of FF13 inevitably boils down to two points, the story being subpar (which it was) and a lack of choice. Choice is an interesting idea, in a genre as traditionally linear as the JRPG; it was where the "But thou must!" trope after all. People want at least a limited amount of freedom to participate in the story as they wish. We live in a post-GTA3 world, a game which allowed for potentially dozens of hours of gameplay without ever requiring one pays attention to the main storyline, but rather providing a world to play around in. This was relatively common in PS1 and PS2 era RPGs, with trade sequences, side quests and often a card game to distract, when you weren't interested in saving the world. Final Fantasy XIII-2 introduced a casino area (mirroring FF7's Gold Saucer) for that specific reason.

It's not like these personal freedom's need to come at the expense of the narrative either; If Mass Effect has proven anything, its that one can take time to soak in the game's world, it will make the journey more memorable. One can find fun in the combat, or by talking to that one bystander to learn just how everything went down in that part of the world. It's how the lore in the Metroid Prime games remain engaging, or the books littered throughout the Elder Scrolls game, yet FF13 hides its details within data-logs, almost afraid to take time developing its world in front of the player, for fear of boring them, instead throwing drama in at every opportunity.

Yet not all choice in RPGs is the choice of hanging around or proceeding in plot, personal freedom of expression is a viable, and potentially profound, way of engaging the player. The oft forgotten Final Fantasy V, while offering a bare-bones plot, provided players with the freedom to customize their party to a hitherto unseen level. At the beginning of the game, you are a freelancer, and as you progress throughout the story, you gain the ability to partake in new job classes. It permitted experimentation with different types of parties, and ultimately the party you finish the game with will be unique to you. Other Final Fantasies have attempted to provide this level of freedom since, but these games have always been marred with other issues (i.e. 8, 10-2 and 12), it emphasized an idea in people's head that we need a limited narrative or limited choice, which simply is not the case. The most popular games in the franchise, 7 and 10, both offer a degree of character freedom in character personalization, but not to the extent of the priorly listed.

This leads me to make a point I probably should have mentioned at the beginning, Final Fantasy and JRPGs are not synonymous. For a long time now, the series has diverged into uncharted grounds with new mechanics, gameplay styles and mythologies. It would be like claiming Lady Gaga is a typical Pop star or Madoka Magica is a typical Magical girl anime. Final Fantasy is the oddball JRPG series that has a mixed track record but usually remembered for its high points.

As mentioned earlier in this article, the DS and PSP were a safe-haven for RPGs; lower budgets allowed for a freedom that the HD market never permits, for both remaining true to the traditions of the genre, as well as pushing forward with new ideas. Dragon Quest IX was able to introduce multiplayer to the conservative series, Radiant Historia was a more in-depth look into the time traveling mechanics of Chrono Trigger. The World Ends With You is a great example us choice in a linear narrative; while in universe, each task has a time limit for Neku and his companion to achieve, the player has as much time as they want to experiment and play around with all the different options; all the different fashions and badges provides room for experimentation and personalizing your battles to your taste, and this was a game published by Square Enix, they can still do this!

But the best examples of this would be Atlus' recent Persona games; you are given a year in game to do what you wish, within certain parameters. You have 8 days to save Yukiko from the TV, but you can spend the first 6 days building bonds with your classmates, or doing a part-time job, or participating in a club, or grinding levels. Persona gives you a deadline, and leaves you to pursue the target at your own pace. I'd argue the very best example of the series from a choice perspective is Persona 3 Portable for PSP, which added the ability to play as a female protagonist (which SHOULD be standard, you dropped the ball with P4G Atlas!), which opened for new stories and romantic options within the stories. All this choice, while still providing a strong, memorable and stylish narrative.

We're living in a world where personal choice is a huge contributing appeal towards games; if the receptions of games like The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds verses Final Fantasy 13, the importance of player agency is one that seems key to an evolving RPG and gaming landscape. What's fortunate is that Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII looks to offer just that; a wide open world like FF12's, personal customization like FF5 and 10-2 and a given deadline like Persona, loads of freedom to perform tasks how the player wants, when they want. Hopefully the game holds up to expectations, I'd love a new great Final Fantasy.

The logical reasons I don't celebrate Christmas

At the time of writing this, there is a mere 2 full days remaining until Christmas day, an inescapable part of living in the UK (and many other nations) outside of complete isolationism. A time constantly heralded as the greatest time of the year, at least according to the innumerable barrage of platitudes that accompany it; Wishing it could be Christmas every day, joy and goodwill to all men and all similar hum-buggery.

I would be lying if I said I didn't get it, I used to celebrate it with as much vigor as anyone else, it was also tangential to my favourite time of year (November, when I was born). But there has simply been too much negativity around this time for me to continue enjoyment during it. What I have listed below, and my choice of words for the title, are strictly logical and empirical reasons for not celebrating the holiday, but they are definitely not the only reasons, but the personal, emotional reasons aren't being made public any time soon. These reasons should be applicable in a more objective level.

I want to stress this before continuing; if you enjoy Christmas, if you love it earnestly and its your favourite time of the year, then that is wonderful and I am happy for you. Moreover, I am somewhat jealous, I wish I could find such enjoyment in this time, but it's something I can't help at this point. It is my least favourite time of the year, and given the opportunity, I'd skip December altogether.

1. Santa Claus

Bet you didn't see that one coming, what could I possibly have a problem with jolly old saint Nick? The loveable man who spends one day per year riding a magic sleigh to deliver presents to children around the world. Oh boy, where does one begin?

Partially based off of Saint Nicholas, a man from what we now would call Demre, Turkey, who would place coins into the shoes of children who left their shoes out at night for him. It's a simple charming fable about giving, and that would be the end of it. But that's not the reflection our modern interpretation takes.

Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole, in some secluded fortress, often times with his wife, and always with a huge cast of worker elves, who make all the presents. I can't be the only person who doesn't see this as an allegory for slavery, perhaps we need a little reminder.

This is a picture from Holiday Hi-Jynx, an old episode of Pokémon that caused quite a stir when it first came out. I still remember it quite well, as my Grandma recorded the show for me. A Jynx (Right) had gotten lost while polishing Santa's boot, and it was up to Ash and co to help return her to Santa's workshop. Upon arriving at the north pole, they encounter a large room filled with Jynx making toys.

For those of you who don't see the implications here, I will point out the obvious, Jynx's skin was black. A rich white man was the master of a group of black people, and keeps them in sweatshops for his work. They get no holidays, they get no rights, they can't even voice complaints because they speak in a language unintelligible to their slave master (stay classy Nintendo). Responding to the controversy, Jynx now has a purple skin colour.

But does this really fix anything, or does it merely colour the issue? (hur hur)

Ignoring the awkward resemblance classic Jynx has to a golliwog doll, it was a rather accurate retelling of modern understandings of Santa's relationship to the elves. Santa Claus' modern name is taken from the Dutch Sinterklaas, who had a companion named Zwarte Piet, or rather, Black Pete.

Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet are still commonplace in many European country's winter holidays, so Nintendo might have attempted to adapt this story, coming off with horribly (through probably unintentionally) racist results. But what Nintendo DID do here was just be more upfront about it, Santa gains all the glory for the work of the oppressed workforce, is a rich white man of glutenous wealth and is celebrated as a champion of good?

Ever likely he's a Coca cola mascot.

Holidays are coming, Holidays are coming, and now it's in your head

2. Commercialism

Yep, you saw this one coming.

Consumer culture has been something that has bugged me more and more as the years have gone on. This bizarre notion that all things can be tied to a single monetary value system seems laughable, but on the same point I can see why it exists. Simple explanation is it's easy, having a common currency makes transactions easier, hence why I was in favour of the idea of the Euro, and to a similar extent the bitcoin.

However, the ending months of the year go full throttle with this mentality of "You must buy everything, it's Christmas".

Gotta buy a tree, it's Christmas.
Gotta buy a turkey, it's Christmas.
Gotta buy Christmas lights
Gotta buy Cards
Gotta buy Christmas Crackers
Gotta buy Presents for every single relative
Gotta buy Tinsel and Baubles
Gotta buy that little manger to show there's some religion still in there and we're not all about the gifts

What baffles me about this is a complete lack of resistance from people, often any rebuttal about Christmas consumerism is "I suppose you don't want any presents then?". Well not if you feel like its an obligation and a hassle, no!

The "season of giving" is simply a season of gratuitous spending, advertising everywhere and the worst of humanity go shopping. I wish I didn't have to do this sort of thing, but look at this.

http://blackfridaydeathcount.com/

This is a website dedicated to people who die and are injured on Black Friday. What is Black Friday you ask? well, my fellow non-Americans, it's the day after USA's Thanksgiving holiday. It is signified by ridiculous deals, and people flooding to the stores, snatching up everything their disgusting mitts can hold.

I can't be the only person who considers this utterly disgusting, and this is a yearly event! People look forward to this day! Why? Because of getting amazing deals, and you can bet your bottom dollar that a large percentage of things bought this day are for Christmas, less than a month after this day. Not that any company would object to this kind of thing, they love this sort of scandalous, frivolous and dangerous activity, just more money entering their pockets and more advertising from people like me trying to stop this sort of behaviour, oh how ironic.

3. Attitude

A long time ago, there was once a man named Jeremy Bentham (pictured above), who is accredited for the formation of a system of morality known as Utilitarianism, an attempt to make a scientific basis for morality, being thus. Humanity is ruled by two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain, and to be moral, we must try to maximize pleasure for the most people, and minimize pain for the most people.

So far, this all sounds somewhat agreeable, until you hear about his plans for the homeless. He suggested that when people see homeless people, it lowered their utility (or Happiness level), and so we should hide away homeless people. There should be special workshops for them to work and sleep in, and if anybody spots a homeless person, it would be their civic duty to bring the person to a nearby workshop for employment and be compensated for their efforts (which the homeless person must pay off).

While I hope this is at least a little interesting, I'm sure you're wondering what this has to do with Christmas?

Well, moreover it reflects society as a whole, but during this season especially. People always want to see smiling faces, you are expected to be chirpy and chipper at all times, and heaven forbid you have problems or rock the boat in any way. There is a commonly trotted out phrase (and is actually incorrect) that more suicides happen around Christmas than any other time of year.

"Tis the Season to be jolly" states the rhyme, and that's just what it is to many people, yet what about those who aren't, or cannot, be happy at these times? Have you ever been in a situation where you needed to pretend to be happy, when inside you are miserable and just want to escape? That is a real problem with Christmas, it's inescapable and in fear of ruining it for others, many attempt a brave face for the sake of others, and some of us just crack under it...

Also, the whole season has some brilliantly devised rhetoric shields, called Grinch and Scrooge. Have any complaint or criticisms around this time? it can all be waved away with an insult comparing you to a fictional asshole who will come around in the end, real nice!

4. That religious angle

Oh boy, this one could get messy. First off, Christians, I am sorry the mainstream has stolen your holiday, and I wish you could take it back, but that's not happening, it's institutionalised beyond any chance of regress.

That said, whenever I hear the "put the Christ back into Christmas" platitude, I can't help but laugh. Sorry guys, it hardly left. Carols are still played on the radio all the time, all the primary schools do their nativity plays, the stars are on the trees and every church will hold mass. I understand it's not the primary focus anymore, but the influence is definitely still there.

That said, it's part of the problem. Remember the discussions of allowing Same Sex Marriage? What were the arguments against legalising it? they were always from a religious perspective, claiming that it was a divinely inspired ceremony anointed by Capital-G-God, rather than a legal contract between couples. Personally, I would have been fine divorcing (hur hur) the concept of marriage from government altogether, making it strictly a religious procedure, and having civil partnerships be the universal government contract, but that wasn't going to happen.

Dear Lizzie, Have a stonking new year, yours, Philly xxx

The same can be said about the winter holiday. For years now, I've attempted to celebrate Humanlight, a secular winter holiday on 23rd December, but surrounded by Christmas celebrating family, it never gets any attention, the whole holiday drowns out any non-religious counterpart. Can one really imagine the Queen giving a Humanlight speech, while Christmas being confined to churches and religious households, like any other winter holiday?

So what baggage does Christianity bring with it? Well, 66 books of text of primitive desert dwelling culture, and has been used for many different kinds of disgusting behaviours. A fair look at the bible will find happy platitudes, but they are the great minority, it's a disgusting set of stories. One particular necessity proposed throughout is that of "faith", belief without evidence or reason.

Yes, just like Santa Claus!

5. Those songs

Small extra point, those songs are awful. Please radios and stores, stop playing them.

Well, that's a quick list of reasons I can't celebrate Christmas, not all of them, but a quick introduction. Again, if you celebrate and enjoy the season, then by all means, please do so, this isn't me trying to say you shouldn't or can't. All I want is a little understanding and to be left alone during, that's all :)

And possibly consider my points :p

A look to the past: How nostalgia can be done right!

Nostalgia is a powerful force, and judging by entertainment box offices its profitable too, but this can also easily be abused by those in charge of our beloved Independent Properties. The difference between "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "The Amazing Spiderman" can serve as a movie template; both time tested super heroes who have successfully transcended their original medium, yet their recent jump into moviedom contrast in quality to a similar extent as Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Ylvis' "What does the fox say?"

America! F*ck Yeah!

For the last half decade or so, video games have gone through something of a retro-revival. Classics of old are getting remakes, sequels and... its been a big old mixed bag. Don't get me wrong, I was as happy as anybody could be when they revealed Oddworld New'N'Tasty, but looking at it from a big picture standpoint, this is an interesting twist of the segmenting video game business.

Hello! Hello! Buy me! Okay!

Big gaming business has splintered this last decade: The first person shooter-sports-racing market remains as dominant as before, yet the retro movement (in conjunction with digital downloads and a symbiotic relationship with indie gaming) has become a lucrative opportunity to use those old licenses in hibernation.

Capcom lead the charge with the likes of Bionic Commando Re:Armed, Mega Man 9 and Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix, but it was not long before others from gaming's golden age saw new life. A new Blaster Master and Adventure Island were made for Wiiware, Punch Out got a Wii game, and Sonic finally got his fourth numbered installment.

I remember the excitement...

While always exciting for the nostalgic, it's rather cynical business when one is objective. Rather than asking for bigger and better experiences, we mourn for the days of gaming when it was our own special hobby, yet its grown in ways we find undesirable. Evil Electronic Arts continue to abuse our beloved franchises from Sim City to Dead Space, yet we just can help but get excited for Star Wars Battlefront. This brings me to today's example, two sequels to 16 bit classics, one retains the strengths of the original and one effectively destroyed the series.

Sequel to "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past"

Sequel to "Super Metroid"

Anybody who knows me long enough as a gamer will know I have an undying love for Nintendo's Metroid games. A series where Space Bounty Hunter Samus Aran wages a one-woman-war against the Space Pirates, who are planning to use the titular Metroids for animal warfare for galactic conquest. The series began with a bang on the NES with the amazing innovation of moving left; feel free to laugh, but those humbler times were more exciting, new experiences coming thick and fast. The series' 2D culmination (in this writer's opinion) was with the third game in the series, 1994's Super Nintendo masterpiece, Super Metroid.

There aren't enough words to describe how much I love this game!

The improvements were profound and the level design was subtle; the music was haunting and the graphics were detailed. A simple story told as masterfully as it was silent, and it remains to this day one of the most finely crafted pieces of electronic entertainment ever conceived. Super Metroid took a full eight years to gain a follow-up, indeed it got two; Samus' 2D adventures continued on the Gameboy Advance with Metroid Fusion, while Retro Studios adapted the series into 3D on the Gamecube with the stellar Metroid Prime. Today focuses on neither follow-up, but a game released in 2010, a game marketed as a follow-up to Super Metroid; the first Metroid game to take place in 3D that wasn't first person, and the game to tell the mystery behind Samus' mysterious ex-commander Adam Malkovich. This game is of course, Metroid Other M for Nintendo Wii, developed by Team Ninja.

The combat was flashy, I'll give it that much.

The other game to be mentioned is the third game in The Legend of Zelda series, also released for the Super Nintendo. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past set the standard which the series would follow for another 2 decades; the plot was more fleshed out, the world was varied and fun to explore, the dungeons contained a multitude of puzzles rather than simply being enemy-filled mazes and the music was gorgeous. There are very good reasons people consider this game's homebound successor, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, to be one of the greatest games ever, but many of those reasons were done first in A Link to the Past, and arguably done better.

The biggest leap forward a sequel made in gaming history? You're looking at a strong candidate.

The most recent LoZ game to be released at the time of writing this post is for the Nintendo 3DS, "A Link Between Worlds", marketed as a sequel to the seminal Super Nintendo game, returning to the top down perspective and using a very similar overworld map. Leading up to this game's release, I can't say I was unduly concerned, I had been burned before. I had sat through the mild disappointment of Sonic 4, I abandoned Paper Mario Sticker Star after a few hours in disgust, yet none of these compare to my sheer contempt for Metroid Other M, and I was worried ALBW would be the same way.

Awwww, look at that face, isn't she just the cutest thing?

The initial rush of reviews were able to partially break through my cynicism; IGN's reviewer Keza MacDonald gave the game 9.4/10 and said it was her favourite Zelda game since Wind Waker. GT's reviewer Michael Damiani said it's the most revolutionary Zelda game since Ocarina of Time, and gave the game 9.8/10. While the reviews for Other M had been positive at the time, I was intrigued; people outside of the video game industry might not understand, but one does not speak lightly about comparing the quality of Zelda games, or question the influence OoT bought with it. I decided to take the gamble and did a last minute pre-order, ensuring I got the game a day early.

Having finished the game yesterday, I can say I don't regret the purchase as I did with Other M, not at all. I want the opposite, I want this game to sell more, it deserves to sell more. I will go on record here; A Link Between Worlds is a phenomenal game, the best Zelda in over a decade and quite possibly the best 2D entry in the series. Yes, it really is that good. But what makes the difference? Why does ALBW thrive in a way that Other M died horribly?

That is some lovely concept art <3

While on paper, the cynical among us could say the answer is obvious. That ALBW is virtually a carbon copy of its predecessor, while Other M took a new direction for the series with a greater emphasis on narrative and cinematic combat. While I can agree that on the surface ALBW looks similar to 2D Zelda's of the past, to reject this merely as pandering would be tantamount to judging a book by its cover, but its the underlying reasons we play these games, the emotions they seek to invoke, and how they achieve them. That is the reason we care about these franchises, the emotions we felt from partaking in them, and we follow them because we want more.

Trust me folks, I'm barely going to scratch the surface of why Other M sucks.

Traditionally the Zelda and Metroid franchises were very similar. Both are Nintendo veterans from the late 80's with a focus on discovery, in 2 particular ways. The first was the exploration of the worlds they lived in; Hyrule and Zebes were huge maps for their time, and without a map to guide you, it was up to the player to find their ways around. The second was the mystery of what new ability was coming there way; Link gained a mighty arsenal of boomerangs, bombs, arrows and a magic wand, while Samus gained new Beams, Suits and a deadly forcefield attack. These carrots served as the fuel for looking in every nook and cranny for that last health expansion.

Once the Super Nintendo hit, the focus of the two series split; Metroid retained the lonely feelings of the original, focusing on exploration for the discovery, while Zelda's world became more welcoming, and the population, lore and abilities became a more intrinsic method of rewarding a players, as well as peppering the world with locations for extra heart pieces. Zelda games also had the differential of having 2 kinds of terrain, the dungeons being the main meat of the game where one gains new weapons and plot specific items, and the overworld which served as a bridge between the locations. This was unlike the Metroid games which almost always have one larger world interconnected at different intersections, a modern example would be Dark Souls.

That broom is not a rake! Your grandma's gone insane!

There's no two ways about saying it, Metroid Other M does not deliver on the core aesthetic of discovery, not at all. The three types of discovery mentioned so far (exploration, abilities and character/lore), all of which fall horribly flat in this misguided sequel. The freedom to explore in Metroid games prior is completely gone until you have already finished the story.

I can feel the emotions, David Cage would be proud.

There is no excitement for new abilities because we already have all of Samus' equipment available to her from Super Metroid; she is simply forbidden to use them until given permission by her ex-commander Adam Malkovich. Samus gains one new ability throughout Metroid Other M, and it was already in Metroid Prime 2 Echoes. There's no mystery about gaining a new ability because you aren't getting new abilities; moreover it turns to frustration because there are multiple instances where you need features the game withholds from you. It happens for the Varia Suit, the Wave Beam, Gravity Suit, Grapple Beam and Power Bombs just to mention a few. What's more is how unnecessary it is; even ignoring the fact that Samus no longer works under Adam, she should at least be able to activate her none-offensive features so she doesn't nearly burn to death in the lava area. Worse is when later in the story she self-activates features, but neglects to activate the rest of them to contrive a fake bit of dramatic tension later.

In case you were unable to infer from the previous statement, multiple major problems with this game stem from the games' plot. Invasive of the players' experience and detrimental to every "character" within. Story was pushed to the forefront with a director who didn't speak the language it was being recorded in. That's not a joke, Yoshio Sakamoto does not speak English but insisted on demanding lines be performed a certain way, and that way is monotone and lifeless. The story itself is no better, filled with one-note characters, many dropped subplots and character assassinations of Samus, Adam and Ridley (Space pirate general and Samus' nemesis).

Congratulations! Ridley evolved into an absolute joke!

But setting aside all that baggage, when looking at Other M as its own game, rather than a Metroid game, it is still mediocre. A linear action game with flashy-but-shallow combat and uninspired musical score, but to paint itself as a sequel to a nostalgic property held in such high regard as Super Metroid, and to miss the point so hard when looking at the reasons we love the series to begin with, it has left a scar on the entire franchise. There has not been another Metroid game since.

I want this on my wall!

So with this in mind, I was more than a little apprehensive at the thought of another beloved Super Nintendo classic gaining a sequel, and they were planning on using the "same" world map from its predecessor? It seemed like an obvious attempt at fan pandering, which I hoped would at least be better than the full de-pantsing Team Ninja delivered. Then I played it, and I was floored by just how wrong I was.

Since the story was such a large problem with Other M, it makes sense to start there. A young boy called Link is awoken by his friend Gulley, being told he needs to go to the Blacksmith; Link needs to deliver a sword (nice reference to Twilight Princess) to Zelda's captain of the guard, but when Link arrives, a villain called Yuga has sealed him in a painting, and proceeds to do so with several other characters. Its up to Link to stop Yuga and restore all those captured to their three dimensional forms (I see what you did there Nintendo!).

The painting ability was a stroke of genius!

The story and threat are established in 15-20 minutes including a mini dungeon, and then you're let loose into the world. You're given an indicator on the map, but you can go pretty much anywhere right away. While that may not seem like a big deal to many, ever since (the brilliant) Majora's Mask came out, the introductions of Zelda games have become longer and more drawn out. If I were to replay Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword, I'd be waiting a good 2-3 hours just to get to some decent gameplay. I appreciate the build up and can provide some nice world building, but it really hurts the replayability.

No, I don't want to show you how to thrust! I want to get to the first dungeon!

So the story is unobtrusive, but what about the actual discovery? Well, Nintendo had a moment of genius here; while the game retains a lot of the map of A link to the Past, this familiarity allows for them to play around with Zelda conventions in new ways. For the first time ever in a Zelda game, the dungeons don't provide a specific dungeon item. The traditional Zelda formula is as follows:

1. Overworld
2. Reach Dungeon
3. Explore dungeon until finding dungeon item
4. Use dungeon item ad nauseum to solve "puzzles"
5. Defeat dungeon boss with dungeon item
6. Repeat

While this formula has worked well, it's been so standard for over 2 decades, it has become tired and predictable. A Link Between World has bypassed this almost entirely by giving players access to almost every weapon in the game early on. They don't NEED to rent all of them, and renting does present its own risks, but you have the choice to do so. This also freed up the dungeon designers, who could assume the player would have a wider range of tools available early game, and not feel sick of an overused gimmick in an earlier dungeon.

Ravio renting items to you better return in later games!

Another clever change is the dispensing of the concept of consumable items, replacing it with a Dark Souls-style stamina bar (Dark Souls is getting a lot of mentions today). Until now, Link needed to conserve arrows, bombs, deku nuts and many other items for when they were needed, otherwise a frantic search would ensue just to finish this darned puzzle. While I'd argue this item management benefited the sense of tension in Majora's Mask, this streamlining allows the player to focus exclusively on the task at hand, and its not abusable in combat either, you only get 4 arrow shots before it needs to recharge, enforcing careful play. A comparable could be the regenerating health of modern First Person Shooters, while I'd argue it's not a perfect fit for every game in the genre, it allows for a consistent flow of action, rather than risking pacing and difficulty issues.

Stop! Hammer Time!

The exploration of the world map has been cleverly adapted from its predecessor; whenever there has been a tweak, veterans like myself will notice and play around with it. Perhaps finding a new Tomb Raider-style mini-dungeon for a rupee reward, or one of the 100 Maiamais (baby squids) hidden around the world. Nintendo made a similar system in Ocarina of Time with the Gold Skulltulas, but the Maiamais have two particular advantages. Firstly, you always know how many Maiamais remain in an area, and they make noises too, so you're never looking around for too long, and secondly, the rewards are consistent and player driven. In Ocarina, you could get a wallet upgrade or a rumble feature, the upgrades were kind of lame. In Worlds, you can upgrade any of the items you own every 10 Maiamais, and you get to choose based on the type of player you are, want to shoot more arrows at once? you can! want your bombs to have bigger explosions? you can do that too! While Metroid Other M stripped Samus and the player of all agency and choice, A Link Between Worlds revels in it, you can choose the dungeon order (mostly), which items to bring, which to upgrade and where to go.

Zelda games appear to be back on track, shame the same cannot be said for Metroid.

I'd better wrap this up because this is getting really long. In short, A Link Between Worlds is the best Zelda game is a long time because it understands why the series was great to begin with, while Other M misunderstood and neglected them. Will we see another Metroid game in the near future? My answer ranges from probably not to hopefully not, but at least we still have Super Metroid, and nothing can take that away.

May great design never fade.