Since When Was "Anti-Family" A Thing?

I'm not gonna lie...this one's bad. Like, seriously, this review convinced me that "Working Man Gamer" has no idea what he's talking about. Yup, it's him again. You know you have serious problems when the guy reviewing Sonic '06 has the most valid points (and that's just the camera!). There's no point delaying it...this is FFG's review of Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

WMG starts out by telling us that this game teaches the player "get them before they get you."
Well, at least they're getting that 'video games must teach life lessons' crap out of the way early.

We are then told the point of the game (ringing out the opponent) and that various Nintendo characters are playable. WMG also mentions that Nintendo partnered with Sega and Konami for extra characters.
Um, no they didn't. Partnering would imply that Sega and Konami helped develop the game. In actuality, Nintendo just got permission to use their characters. There's a pretty big difference.

WMG then tells us that the graphics have "gone down the path of the dark side," and that every returning character now has a darker look.
Yeah, because Kirby and Pikachu just look downright menacing in Brawl!

After mentioning Sonic and Snake, WMG then says that Snake is from a violent series and that he doesn't fit in with the rest of the cast, then completely changing the subject and mentioning the single-player mode out of nowhere.
The whole point of a crossover is that you get completely different characters together! There's supposed to be dissonance in their looks. Line up pictures of Mario, Link and Samus and tell me that they'd all look normal standing in a room together!

It seems that the people at FFG can only say good things about a game's music, as they once again praise the game's soundtrack, like in the Sonic '06 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance reviews. However, another mainstay of their reviews is complaining about sound effects. They say that you can expect to hear characters grunt and scream as they die, and that characters like Kirby have "fun sounds" that seem odd amongst the violence.
It's a fighting game! Of course characters will grunt and scream when they're getting their asses kicked! His complaint about the "fun sounds" also goes right out the window when you remember that this is, once again, a crossover. That is the point!

We now get an explanation of Brawl's extra features, including the online mode and stage creator. WMG also says that Nintendo "included their normal amount of unlockable content."
What on earth does that even mean?! Does that mean that all Nintendo games have 30+ unlockable characters?! If I play The Legend Of Zelda: Skyward Sword long enough, will I unlock Wolf from Star Fox?! Explain what you mean!

Almost done, almost done...okay, WMG says that the controls are simple, and that a "button masher going psycho" will be able to win most fights.
Yeah, fight Tabuu on any difficulty like that, just randomly mashing buttons. Go on, I freaking dare you.

He then says that the lesson the game teaches is "go crazy and you win."
Uh...no, everyone has their own fighting style, not everyone goes crazy. I prefer to keep on the offensive, but I know a guy who prefers to dodge constantly and wait for openings. It's all a matter of preference. Of course, this guy probably went through the game beating on the controller like he was trying to snap it in half.

WMG whines that the controls on the Wii aren't as good as the "Gamecube version."
Does he mean the controls aren't as good as Melee's? Because you can use the Gamecube controller, y'know. Or does he mean that the Wii Remote controls aren't as good as the Gamecube controllers? Or, hell, is he implying that there's a version of Brawl for the Gamecube? Seriously, be more clear when you say things!

Okay, last paragraph, you can do this, Random! WMG says that there are "anti-family people calling Super Smash Bros Brawl a family friendly video game."
Anti-family? Seriously? That doesn't even make sense! Are there people crusading against marriage and human reproduction? Do you think that there's some conspiracy to try to get all families doing things that aren't "family friendly?" I don't even...I have no words. This makes so little sense, I have no words. I'm done. All he says after this is that the game should only be played by adults (that's total bullcrap) and that he wants Nintendo to let the series die.

Oh, for the love of ARCEUS, this is bad! All this guy did was complain about the violence any chance he got! He was incredibly vague about anything not relating to that single, main point. He seems to have it in his head that if a game so much as shows someone throwing a punch, that it's like forcing your children to watch freaking SAW! Chill out, dude! When I was a kid, my uncle showed me Duke Nukem 64 and one of my favorite games was Outlaws for the PC. I played the original Smash Bros any chance I got, and there's nothing wrong with me, nor the other hundreds of people who played any game like Smash Bros! It's not "anti-family" and it isn't gratuitously violent. Just calm down a bit.

And so ends the first request post I've ever done. Another shout-out to KUKEDUKE for the suggestion, and if anyone else has a request, tell me, and I'll be sure to get back to you on it.

Superheroes Use Violence?! You Don't Say!

This week we're in for a treat, people. This review was, according to the page, written by the "Working Man Gamer" himself. Who's the Working Man Gamer? Hell if I know! I'm serious, I can't find any information on the site. They don't say who he is, so one can only assume that, given he has his own section on the site, that he's a pretty important guy when it comes to FFG. As such, we can expect his review of Marvel Ultimate Alliance to be informed and thorough, right? ...Right...?

We start out with the usual crap, saying that this review is of a highly anticipated game, and that the WMG is reviewing the 360 version of the game.
Fun fact: Although he's admitting that he is only talking about the 360 version, this review is also listed in the PS3 and Wii sections of the site. Oh, and aside from the review being listed in those sections, he gives us no indication in the review itself what other consoles the game is available for.

He then says that the game is a "hack and slash where the hack has been replaced by punch, and the slash by kick."
So, a beat-'em-up? That's kinda what it's called. Also, the game is a hack-and-slash. Lots of characters use weapons! Deadpool, Blade, Elektra, Wolverine, the list goes on. The terms are largely interchangeable here. He does mention Wolverine and his claws, but just for a cheap joke about there being "a lot of slashing going on."

He then notes that game has a plethora of Marvel heroes and villains, an that Doctor Doom is the main villain, and follows this up by saying that this shouldn't be a surprise.
Why not? The main villain could be Galactus, or the Skrulls, or, hell, even Magneto if they wanted to (though that'd be a stretch).

WMG praises the game's top down style, but then complains about how the graphics in the levels are dark. I can't tell if he's talking about tone or actual lighting issues, since he doesn't clarify, so let's move on. He then gripes about the female characters' clothing, like everyone else on this site! He then says that the game has a lot of violence and that it gets boring quick.
The game is a hack. And. Slash. Of course there's going to be violence! That's like complaining that there's too much racing in Mario Kart!

He then describes the sounds as sounding "majestic" and that they make you feel like you accomplished something. I have to say, for once, I agree with this guy. The souds and music in Marvel Ultimate Alliance make you feel like a total badass. Then he immediately loses my respect again by noting bad language and that "certain characters teach bad lessons while a few teach good ones."

The game's rated 'T,' and if I recall, characters swear in comics, too. And the game's not meant to teach lessons! If you want appropriate language and morals, just play as Captain America, not freaking Deadpool!

He then notes that the different characters bring variety and that the game has a lot of level up options for people who like the system. However, he again says that the game has offensive content and that fighting waves of identical mooks gets boring.
You said this before. Stating the same point multiple times doesn't make it more correct.

The penultimate "paragraph," if you can call it that, is the shortest yet. We're told that the game "controls like it should..."
What in the name of Malpercio does that mean?!
It means he's being vague. Moving on, he says that a problem with the controls is that knowing where to go is a challenge, and that most players will just stumble on where to go after a while.
Or they could, you know, follow the waypoints on the map. Just sayin'. And what does that have to do with the controls?

And we are finally at the end of this. WMG says that while saving the world is good, being violent is not, and that the game has enough inappropriate content that children shouldn't play it. He finishes the review by saying that there should be "less violence and more puzzles" if there were to be a sequel (which there is).
The game's bloodless! Seriously, even the weapon-wielding characters just appear to bludgeon enemies, not slice them! Not to mention that most of your opponents are robots, fantasy creatures of supervillains! And a hack-and-slash needs violence, that's the point of the game! That's like saying Portal should let you bust out an AK to shoot GLaDOS! He deducted a full 33% from the graphics score for the female characters (none of which he named) and the violence, without telling us how the graphics themselves looked! Look, I know my opinion probably doesn't matter much, but this game is not that bad in terms of violence. It's a fun, nerdy hack-and-slash that lets you play as your favorite Marvel characters. Harsh language is sparse, but present and the combat is easy to learn and simple enough to let anyone pick up and play. The graphics are decent by 360 standards (and pretty mediocre on the Wii) and the music is epic, though repetitive at times. The story is engaging and has several side quests you can do, along with missions that recreate events in the actual comics. There, I just gave you a better review in 4 sentences than this shmuck gave us in 6 paragraphs. Oh, and split-screen multiplayer. I recommend the 360 version. Okay, enough of this multi-console stuff. Maybe these guys would like a Nintendo exclusive game a bit better. How about...Brawl? (Shout out to KUKEDUKE for giving me the suggestion).

Schedule, Rules and Other Stuff

Okay, now I know I've only put up 2 posts, but I've decided to make a small one about some general things related to this blog. Namely, my schedule, the rules I've imposed on myself and a question for anyone reading these (you know, both of you).

First off, my schedule. Now, I'm going to try and post at least once a week, usually on Sunday nights. If I miss a post, then I'll most likely put it up in the next few days. If there is ever a reason why I can't post a certain week, then I will address it as soon as I can.
I will take requests, provided I haven't already decided what I'm going to do. For example, last week's post said that the next analysis would be of FFG's review of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance. However, I then received a request for their review of Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Rather than ignore a request, I will instead just put it next on the list, provided the review in question offers up good material (and they usually do). In short, don't hesitate to make requests - they make my job somewhat easier.

Next are my rules. I have a few, so bear with me.
#1. The review must be from FFG (usually). This blog is about FFG, so I'm going to mainly focus on their incoherent ramblings. Down the road, I may branch out, but for now, I'm sticking to these guys. And please, don't ask me to do an analysis of Irate Gamer or anything - we already have people for that.
#2. No heavy swearing. Now, I will indulge in "crap," "hell," "damn," "ass" and numerous variations thereof, but I will try to refrain from the f-word and similar swears as much as I can. This is for two reasons. One is that I don't think swearing excessively is funny in text format, and the other is that I want to prove I can be entertaining without gratuitous swearing (no offense to anyone who does gratuitously swear in their productions.)
#3. No jokes against religion. FFG reviews games based on Christian morals, but this does not mean I'm going to attack the religion. I'm Catholic myself, but this does not mean I can make religious jokes about Christians. My complaints will be about the points in the reviews and the presentation of said points - not the religious views of the subject. This goes for comments, too. If I see a religion-based insult or attack in a comment, that comment will be deleted.

And finally, a simple question - which format do you prefer? The one from my Sonic '06 post, where I directly quote the review? Or the format from the Arkham Asylum post, where I simply summarize it? I'd like feedback on this, so feel free to comment on which one you think is more enjoyable to read. That's all for now. Check back on Sunday for my analysis of FFG's review of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.

Apparently Insane Asylums Aren't Family Friendly

Batman is easily one of the most widely recognizable comic book characters in the world, arguably second only to Superman. So when Batman Arkham Asylum was announced, I got really psyched for it - a dark, grim tone, an in-depth story, use of all of Batman's gadgets and the voice actors from the animated series? i couldn't get my hands on this game fast enough. Evidently, this wasn't acceptable for some people. Which brings me back to Family Friendly Gaming (FFG). They have more than a few complaints about the game, most of which are incredibly stupid. Let's get this over with.

I'm going to experiment here and change up the style from last time. Instead of direct quotes from the review, I'll summarize what is said, with an occasional quote if I want to point out something really noteworthy. I will keep my blue analysis text, but this time the summaries will be in black, with responses still in blue.

The review starts out with our reviewer, named Sam, saying that this review is one of the most anticipated and that Arkham Asylum is amazing, but that FFG doesn't "stop our reviews for these sorts of things." Instead, they review the game based on Christian values and what God says, and that Arkham Asylum has many issues.
...Seriously? You're not going to review the game on its own merits, but instead how it matches up to Christian values? You literally just said you're not going to let the quality of the game sway your opinion of the game's quality. Oh, boy, this is gonna suck...

Sam goes on the explain that Arkham Asylum's visuals are incredibly dark, and that the game is disturbing and that it can cause nightmares. He then asks "who is mentally unhinged to encourage that?"
If this guy ever played Resident Evil, Dead Space or Eternal Darkness, he would have a mental breakdown. Arkham Asylum isn't scary, it's dark and gothic! The only scary parts are the Scarecrow segments, because that's what Scarecrow does!

His next complaint is about the way the female characters are dressed and about the copious amounts of violence. Sam notes that it is "in essence, the darkest versions of the comics, having the player become a vigilante."
Did it ever occur to you that Batman is a vigilante?! It's kinda his shtick. Arkham Asylum is meant to embody the tone of the comics. It has the tone of the comics, the voices and writers of the animated series, the overall visual style of the movies (the good ones) and its own original continuity to avoid plot-related issues. It's supposed to be combining the best elements of all of Batman's adaptations. Also, there are only two female characters dressed revealingly in this game - and they're both completely insane.

Sam then describes the opening cutscene because...I have no idea, and says that Joker provides comic relief, but that it is "not appropriate." We are then told that the characters swear and that they act at their most extreme, and that the lack of moderation got tiresome.
I'm going to say this one more time - the villains are insane. Literally insane, as in, they have severe mental disorders and illnesses, and thus are not going to be acting logically. Batman acts logically and intelligently, and the other, non-inmate characters also act perfectly fine. It's only the villains who act like nutjobs, which makes perfect sense.

The next paragraph just tells us that the game has a large amount of sidequests, hidden items, upgrades and extra features, and says that the game is worth the price you pay for it. However, there are concerns that the game "draws people away from God."
...What. No, really, what?! How does a video game draw you away from God? How much do you want to bet that we won't get an explanation for this beyond bitching about the violence?

Finally, we're getting close to the end. Sam notes that the controls are neat...then proceeds to talk about how one can go about avoiding violence.
Dude! What does that have to do with controls?!
Shut up, analysis text! Wait your turn. We are then told about the slowed-down combo finishers (though we're only told that "some hits" are slowed down, showing that the reviewer doesn't actually know that the slowed-down attacks are combo finishers). The review's anti-violence message is then shoved down our throats again when Sam says that "I felt horrible for all the damage my 'Batman' did the these legions of criminals."
Wait...so you felt horrible...about knocking out hordes of criminals who are trying to kill you. Not only that, but these are criminals who no doubt did something horrific to begin with, seeing as how they're in Arkham, and they've taken over an entire, fortress-like asylum. Dude, you're so detached from reality, you belong in Arkham Asylum!

Oh, thank God, final paragraph. Sam wraps up by telling us that while Batman is supposed to be a hero, he uses bad means to bring about justice, and that the game bothered his spirit. It bothers him more that people say that the game is good, and questions how "mentally absorbing all this evil and violence [draws] you closer to God."
Video games aren't meant to "draw you closer to God!" They're meant to tell engaging stories and provide a method of escape from the real world. Who doesn't want to be a colossal badass like Batman? The game is meant to be dark and stylistic, which it definitely achieves. This review would have you believe that Batman is needlessly brutal in his methods, when really the most brutal thing you can do in this game is use the explosive gel, which is specifically said to be non-lethal. Ugh, I can't take this anymore. Next week, we'll look at FFG's review of a Marvel game - Marvel Ultimate Alliance.

Family Friendly Gaming and Sonic '06...Great Combo...

With video games being one of the most popular entertainment media nowadays, it makes sense that various sites have popped up to review games, and tell you whether or not a certain game is worth your hard-earned money. Sites like IGN, Blistered Thumbs and Gamespot all exist to tell gamers which games are good and which should be avoided. However, there's always someone who doesn't quite "get" video games, and yet tries to seem like they do. This is one such instance - "Family Friendly Gaming." This website hosts game reviews which, I must admit, are laughably stupid. With these reviews showing research failure and incredibly strange judgements, I have taken it upon myself to pick them apart and show why these people have next to no idea what they're talking about.

Before I begin, allow me to note that, while the reviewers (as there appear to be several) often refer to God in their reviews and often base their assessments on religion, I have nothing against anyone of any faith. I myself am Christian and I harbor no ill will towards anyone of any other religion. With that being said, first up on the chopping block is WMG's review of Sonic The Hedgehog for the 360. For conveniences' sake, text from the original review will be in black, while my commentary is in blue. Why? 'Cause blue is freakin' awesome, that's why!

"Family Friendly Gaming #9 is chock full of all kinds of firsts. Welcome to the very first review of an Xbox 360 game in this fantastic publication. It would have been nice to start with a better game, but we go with what we are blessed with. This game reminds of the Dreamcast version of Sonic the Hedgehog being in full 3D, and having a town to talk to different people."
Uh, you mean Sonic Adventure? Because that was the first Sonic game to have those elements. 10 seconds on Google could have told you that the game was called Sonic Adventure!

"Dr. Eggman is back at his going after Chaos Emeralds again, and it is up to Sonic to stop him. In an interesting twist, Sonic is now saving a princess (something Mario was always known for)."
Wait, which is it? Is Sonic stopping Eggman from going after the Emeralds, or is he rescuing the princess? Oh, and you've got to love the grammar in that first sentence.

"A brand new character Silver is introduced."
And...?

"Graphically Sonic the Hedgehog is beautiful."
Wait, what? Dude, you can't talk about a new character, then just start talking about graphics! Tell us about Silver, what's his story about? What can he do? What does he have to do with Sonic, Eggman and the princess? You're giving your readers narrative whiplash!

"The graphics are generally very bright and colorful. The details of the people, backgrounds, and areas are done quite nicely. The upgrades to Sonic’s model are also noticeable. Cut scenes are just like watching a CGI created movie."
Maybe because a cutscene IS a CGI movie! That's like saying "reading 'Inheritance' is just like reading a fantasy novel."

"The down side is psychic powers are used visually by Silver."
How are the psychic powers a graphical problem? I've played this game, and Silver's telekinesis doesn't look bad! Or are you talking about how psychic powers are supposedly occult? Because they probably chose telekinesis because it's a common superpower.

"There is some fantasy violence as robots are done away with via player controlled attacks."
It's about as violent as Mario! Robots get knocked away and blow up, that's it. I'm surprised he's not bringing up the demons you fight in Crisis City (and a bunch of other places). Those could be considered violent.

"There is also some questionable attire worn by some of the female characters. The biggest problem with this game is the camera which is jerky, bounces, gets in the way, and generally causes a migraine."
There is exactly one female character dressed questionably, and that's Rouge. Both Elise and Amy wear dresses, and Elise appears to be wearing something over her legs, too. There is absolutely nothing revealing about either of them.

"The sounds are crisp and clear in Sonic the Hedgehog. There are a few minor language issues here and there. The music is decent, but certainly not very memorable."
*Listening to "His World" on his iPod* I'm sorry, what? I wasn't paying attention.

The audio department seems to have been skimped upon. The towns people make grunting noises instead of talking, and the player reads the text.
Seriously, did the Ultimate Warrior write this? The grammar's good at points, but then he makes mistakes like "reads the text."

"There is a fair amount of items to collect, and find. There is content download through Xbox Live. In this reviewers opinion the camera issues make this game not worth your hard earned dollars. Which is hard to say because I have always liked Sonic the Hedgehog, but I have to be honest."
That's hard to believe, seeing as how your music and violence gripes are series main-stays. Look back to Sonic Adventure 2, watch GUN robots explode when you hit them, then get back to me on the violence.

"The controls are quick and responsive, but for some reason certain skills took a couple of tries to get working. In a fast paced game that is a serious problem. Level design can also be confusing about how to get from point A to point B. Other times the levels are totally linear. The game is simple enough to learn, but confuses as not everything works right."
Wow, for once legitimate complaints. Trust me, I have this game, and he's actually kinda right here.

"Silver uses psychic powers, and Shadow is a bad guy. There is a difference between allowing players to play them, and forcing players to play them in certain levels."
...What. Seriously, what? This proves he only played Sonic's story, for 2 few reasons. 1. His saying "a few levels" shows that he doesn't know that Shadow and Silver both have their own storylines where you primarily play as them! 2. SHADOW IS NOT A BAD GUY!!! Why would you think that? Because he has a black-and-red color scheme? He's a flippin' government agent in this game! He's trying to stop Eggman, who's effectively a terrorist! How is Shadow a "bad guy?" He doesn't even use guns in this game, just vehicles! Next, what's wrong with Silver's powers? His powers have nothing to do with occultism! He's an expy of Trunks, for crying out loud! You're labeling him as a bad guy because he's psychic!

Professor Xavier is not amused.

"Sonic is out to stop an evil man, and uses violence to achieve his goals. Sega has seriously shamed the Sonic franchise with this game, and going into a more adult styled game hurts the franchise even more. I would recommend passing on this game."
And I'd recommend passing on this review! It is abundantly clear that this reviewer only played Sonic's story, and even then, doesn't really know what he's talking about. This game definitely was a low point in the series, but he didn't even bring up the right reasons, instead griping about violence, non-existent sexual content and characters that he claims are evil for unfounded reasons. If these guys can't even review a bad game, I shudder to think what happens when they try to review a good one! *Looks at list of reviews* Arkham Asylum? Aw fu-