The Evolution of Video Games

[Jean-Luc]

Video games. Everyone knows about them, many people love them, and a fair portion hate them. Despite these opposing viewpoints, it is readily apparent from the media and the general social structure of current American society that video games are a large aspect of life for many people. Why is it then, that video games seem to have improved in many areas, but fallen in so many others? I know not all of you will agree with me, but here are my views on the video game industry.

I began playing video games at the early age of 4 years old. This was back in the days before Pentiums, Shader model 3.0, and generally all the technical achievements we have today. Back then, in 1994, my father had recently purchased the classic DOS game, Doom II, and I quickly became addicted to the run and gun gameplay, and not suprisingly, became emotionally attatched to the incredible BFG. Back then, games were relatively simple in terms of gameplay, level design, graphics, and most aspects, but they held one of the most crucial design plans of any form of entertainment. They were pure, unadulterated fun. I became fascinated with video games, and continued playing more and more. I received a playstation, which proved to be many hundreds of hours of entertainment due to well produced games like Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, and many others.

Let’s fast-forward to the current generation, and the one that just passed. Video games now are full of high production value, fantastic storylines, generally killer graphics and sound design, and a lot of innovative gameplay. Sounds great on paper right? Well, I will not dispute that there are quite a few extremely high quality games today that are ripe with enjoyment. Why then, do I believe that we have taken some steps backward? The answer is simple…

A lot of games today have lost the charm that made them memorable. Games today fall under many categories, varying anywhere from family-friendly puzzle games, to intensely violent and crowd dividing shooters such as Grand Theft Auto. In this range, you can find many enjoyable games such as Gears of War, Halo, Supreme Commander, and Mass Effect. But then, among these you can find a vast quantity of games that are politely described as “horrid” by even the kindest of critics. While I’m certain that there were these awful games back in the time of Doom, it seems that there is a much larger pool of them availiable to the consumer.

Now, I can’t degrade just those games without going after some of the current “hits” of this generation. Example, let’s take a look at the Halo series, by far one of the most popular trilogy out there. On the surface, Halo is a game with an intriguing storyline, generally intense gameplay, and good graphics. However, once I took a long, hard look into the series, I found a considerable amount of flaws that bring the game into the “generic” catergory. We can start with the storyline.

Looking at it as a basic, here it is: Mankind has achieved first contact with an alien race, and was met with ferocity and the threat of extermination. The battle for survival takes place on foreign installations and eventually on Earth. A singular hero unites the Earth force and wins the war.

When you compare that to many other games on the market, it is very close to what you can find in a bunch of sci-fi shooter fare. That said, Halo does execute the storyline very well, but it’s still generic. Same can be said for the graphics and sound, which despite popular consent, are simply average for their systems. (An Mc that looks like plastic? C’mon Halo 3.)

Now, onto the crucial aspect of any game…gameplay. Halo does often achieve the all-important part of gameplay. It is fun, sometimes its very fun, but it is not consistent in this. The documentaries stated that Halo achieved “30 seconds of fun again and again.” I do not believe the series actually did this. Don’t get me wrong, the epic battles against Scarabs are cemented in my mind, but then there were tragic downturns against generally weak enemies that didn’t know whether to shoot or to hide, which instantly meant their demise. And then we come to the aspect of innovation, which Halo is surely not. Halo is the same basic gameplay so evident in almost all other shooters: Run around, kill lots of guys, have lots of weapons, have melee, get vehicles, the whole deal. Not innovative.
So is the game enjoyable? Yes. Is it memorable? Partially. Is it all it could be? Definitely not. The Halo series is one of the better ones out there, but it is not the holy grail of gaming goodness that so many out there find it to be. Moving on.

Now, in order to do this properly, I’m going to talk about a game that is not even close to Halo in terms of gameplay or style, but achieved what Halo could not. Spyro the Dragon. A kiddie type game? Yes, but it managed to keep the player constantly immersed in the Dragon World. From its wildly imaginative levels (Supercharge was/is amazing) to its stylized and impressive graphics, Spyro was incredible on so many levels. And when it came to gameplay, it managed something that is incredibly difficult: It made extremely repetitive fighting and “coin-collection” fun. Really fun at that. This is mostly in part to the game finding the perfect combination of quality gameplay mechanics placed into incredibly different and well designed levels. Because of this, Spyro the Dragon will always hold a higher place in my heart than…shall we say…Halo.

Another point: What happened to difficulty in video games? And don’t give me that stuff like Halo on Legendary, or Call of Duty on Veteran, that’s not what I’m talking about. Back in the old days, we didn’t have checkpoints, quicksave, nothing. We had large scale levels, a beginning and an end to that level, and that was it. Period. If you died, your ass got sent to the beginning and you had to do it again. Then there were games like Mario, where you had a set amount of lives, and if you lost, you were sent WAY back to try to win. Is that fair? I think so, but not by today’s standards apparently. In fact, some games have gone so far as to eliminate penalty of death completely. For example, Prey, a good game on its own respects, completely destroyed all concept of difficulty by simply having a “revive point” after you were killed and when you regenerated, you were thrown straight back exactly where you were, with no change. That completely put me off the game when I experienced that. The days where in-game deaths actually mean something are virtually gone. Today, you can find innumerable checkpoints, respawn points (fine in multiplayer, not in singleplayer), and the biggest disgrace to difficulty in video games, quicksaving. Yes, the ability to save your progress anywhere and any time you want, whether that’s after every big battle, or after killing a headcrab in Half-Life. While I can see the benefits of quicksave, as it can save frustration in the larger areas of games, it is a feature that has swiftly overtaken gamers as a requirement, and it again pushes difficulty back, meaning that if you die, you certainly can just go right back 30 seconds and try again. I think if we’re going to have something like this, we should eliminate quicksave entirely, and just have checkpoints at the parts of games that make sense (i.e. after a large battle, beginning/completing a puzzle, etc.)

Then of course, there are bosses, or should I say, the lack of. When it came to bosses, the old games had them all. Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Final Fantasy, the list goes on. Every single one of those had incredible, epic boss fights that kept your adrenaline going, the excitement on a high scale, and a huge strategical aspect of gameplay where you had to think about what you were doing to win. Now, when you look at bosses today (if you can find a game that has one), it really is a disgrace. I’ll take Crysis as an example for this. The bosses in Crysis are not bosses, period. They are simply large scale battles against the same foes you have been fighting, with either larger numbers, or slightly stronger weapons to give the implication you are fighting a stronger enemy. But no, that’s not how it works. Instead, a gigantic mothership is tossed at you, with cannons the size of airplanes, and it is such a pathetic excuse for an enemy that the minor guys crawling around you prove to be much more of a threat. And of course, to compound this, the strategical element of eliminating a boss such as this has been removed, by simply having you shoot a few specific areas, and then the game decides to grant you a superweapon that takes the boss down in 2 or 3 shots. Back in the days of Half-Life, you had no superweapons. You had to rely on your environment and your own personal skill to get the best of these monstrosities. Some games stay true and have difficult bosses (Shadow of Collosus anyone?), but the vast majority are a gross disappointment (Gears of War).

My last talking point will be about player to player interaction in video games. Back in the days of Counter-Strike (the original), the audience was generally limited to the age the game was intended for, which meant discussion and taticts were civil, occasionally aggravating, and often intelligent. Yes, we have that today, but not on the same level. Recently, most specifically with the advent of Xbox Live, a massive onslaught of 9-15 year olds have swamped the video games originally intended to be played only by ages 17 and older. I am honestly disgusted to see these players online. Let’s halt here, because I’m sure your first thought is: “Listen to the hypocrite. Complaining about young players when he played Doom 2 at the age of 4. Fuck this guy.” Stop right there, because that is not the implication here. Yes, I began playing when I was young, but I always treated the game, and those who I played it with, with respect. I rarely gloated, I always shared, and I was in it for a good time. These days, it has become a spread of the truly elite players who respect the game and the players, to the vast base of pre-pubescant children who think replacing every single word of a sentence with curse words and self gratification is the how to find true enjoyment in a game. Most of us have had the experience in some of our favorite video games where someone else will score a very generic kill on you, and then you have to listen to something like this: “OH MY FUCKING GOD DUDE YOU SUCK SO BAD DID YOU SEE THAT I FUCKING OWNED YOUR FUCKING ASS FUCKTARD!!! GIVE UP BECAUSE I WILL BEAT YOUR ASS DOWN.” And then there are the more subtle approaches: “Hey dudes, let me get the *insert best weapon in the map* because I’m so awesome with it that we’ll totally beat them, k dudes?” and then you end up getting teamkilled because you didn’t listen, grabbed the weapon, and they didn’t like that very much. In all honesty, this behavior is beyond disgrace, it is a sacrilige to those who play games for the right reason…to enjoy them and to enjoy it with others.

Now, like I said in the beginning, I said that not everyone will agree with me. If you’ve gotten to this point, then I have to assume you are either generally interested, or abysmally bored, so lets see if we can strike a balance. I’ll conclude by saying that yes, there are games today that are brilliant feats of engineering, writing, and artistry, and there is a veritable display of pieces of junk floating around as well. The biggest step back the gaming community has taken is the token of making games almost universally acessible. While a good marketing strategy, this has destroyed the luster that the games of old have, by removing the difficult portions, upping the visual flair, and by flooding the multiplayer portions of the game with overindulged, spoiled brats who think there is nothing more entertaining than being the biggest jackass on the field who supposedly has the biggest skill, but is really nothing more than a child who places more importance on getting the most kills than developing the more essential development skills in life, such as teamwork, problem solving, and learning to accept failure.

If you made it this far, I thank you for reading this, and from my own exhaustion, I'm going to bed.

-Jean-Luc Fortier

[DrXThirst]

Holy fuck.

Brick wall of text. Also, Spyro ftw.

[DeadHamster]

I agree with everything posted there. Games have been made easier so they appeal to the mainstream. I've always hated games that allow you to save anywhere, It takes any challenge that might have been in the game right out.

Halo isn't as good a game as it could have been. At all. TBH, they are barely average IMO. I've always felt that Halo 1 Sucked, hard.

Halo 2 had a multiplayer that when you played with friends or the right people was just pure fun, however the story was just decent, there were only 1-2 levels I'd want to play more then once, and that basically killed the game for anyone w/o live or friends nearby.

Halo 3's multiplayer was a bit less then 2's overall, the addition of new weapons and things like that brought a bit of fun to the game initially, but then it became more like Halo 2, find the best weapon combo, kill people, except without the fun in it. The campaign was probably the best they had, but I found no level that I would want to play twice. I did it for the quick amount of fun, and to finish the story. I did more in Forge then anything else that game.



Spyro was a fun game, as were many others such as Crash Bandicoot.

I still look fondly to "older" RPG's.=, like Chrono Trigger/Cross, The Legend of Dragoon, etc.

I loved LoD, It was an immensely fun game, had an amazing and intriguing story, and the actual gametime was incredibly long. You don't find games like that very often anymore, and it's a shame.

The closest game I could get was Kingdom Hearts, which surprised me. Watching a friend play it, I thought it was the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but it turned out to be a really fun game with a great story.



Good Post Jean-Luc. Incredibly long to read, but good.

[turk645]

Yay for someone else enjoying LoD.


I can go both ways though when it comes to the saving issue. Personally my favorite way of saving are the classic save only after beating a level or specific save points in the game itself but being able to save anywhere can be usefull when you are abusing it for pointless fun. I think halo 1 warthog launches are a perfect example of how checkpoints and save anywhere can be good.

[Domnio]

I'm not reading all of that lol, I'll watch a movie on it or something xD

[CompKronos]

I haz agreez.

[guysullavin]

i agree with %100 of your statement jean-luc,
mainly because they do let little kids online, i don't thin k they should allow people who are like 12 years old, i myself, am 14, and i say thins because nowadays people are sticking for "childrens rights" which makes them seem more important than what they are, making them seem better than everyone older than them (i am not an example of this) therefore, acting like they own them (more of a literal sense than a slang term) therefore feel like they can treat them like shit. I find this very stupid, mainly because i am being categorized with them. i am not someone who gloats, or says stupid stuff like "YOU GOT OWNED BIATCH". no! but people get lazy (I cant blame them) and just categorize all kids under 16 as "annoying" or "immature" therefore putting me at a disadvantage emotionally because I'm just not like that.

Also, i think that game developers should be more innovative. 'nuff said

[WaeV]

While reading this, I was strongly reminded of Marathon. The graphics suck by today's standards, but the plot!

[Aumaan Anubis]

"HAHA YOU GOT OWNED BIATCH!"
"Timmy, it's 8:00, time to go to bed!"
"Wha- BUUTT MOOOOOOOOM!!"
"Timmy, go to bed. Don't make me turn the nintendo off."
"IT'S AN XBOX 360! GOD. Just let me finish the game!"
"No timmy, time to go to bed. I'm coming up to turn it off."
"NOOOOO! MOOOOOOM, YOU'RE TEARING THIS FAMILY APART! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"



@Dead Hamster

Kingdom Hearts is the best.

[Cryticfarm]

"HAHA YOU GOT OWNED BIATCH!"
"Timmy, it's 8:00, time to go to bed!"
"Wha- BUUTT MOOOOOOOOM!!"
"Timmy, go to bed. Don't make me turn the nintendo off."
"IT'S AN XBOX 360! GOD. Just let me finish the game!"
"No timmy, time to go to bed. I'm coming up to turn it off."
"NOOOOO! MOOOOOOM, YOU'RE TEARING THIS FAMILY APART!

That reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwql6_RJ348

[Aumaan Anubis]

I was actually thinking of that exact video when I was typing it up. Particularly the, "You're breaking this family apart." bit.

[Cryticfarm]

I was actually thinking of that exact video when I was typing it up. Particularly the, "You're breaking this family apart." bit.

ITS NOT THE GAME THATS BREKAING UP THE FAMILY. ITTZ HOW UR REACTING TO IT.
CVXCV6XCV786XC8V6XV58XC5V75A9F5E6BG8E5G7

[Jean-Luc]

@guysullavin

I apologize if I offended you by lumping you into that category, that was not my intent. I was speaking in generalities.

[DeadHamster]

@Dead Hamster

Kingdom Hearts is the best.

I love both of the games.
Currently trying to get to 99 in the 2nd, I have a very easy way down that only takes a few minutes to level up, around level 70. And Beating Sephiroth is friggen impossible.

See, there's a modern game that doesn't suck, is still hard, but not neccescary to be hard. You can go through most of the game w/o a problem, unless you want to make it harder.

[kibito87]

These days, it has become a spread of the truly elite players who respect the game and the players, to the vast base of pre-pubescant children who think replacing every single word of a sentence with curse words and self gratification is the how to find true enjoyment in a game. Most of us have had the experience in some of our favorite video games where someone else will score a very generic kill on you, and then you have to listen to something like this: “OH MY *** GOD DUDE YOU SUCK SO BAD DID YOU SEE THAT I *** OWNED YOUR *** ASS ***!!! GIVE UP BECAUSE I WILL BEAT YOUR ASS DOWN.” And then there are the more subtle approaches: “Hey dudes, let me get the *insert best weapon in the map* because I’m so awesome with it that we’ll totally beat them, k dudes?” and then you end up getting teamkilled because you didn’t listen, grabbed the weapon, and they didn’t like that very much. In all honesty, this behavior is beyond disgrace, it is a sacrilige to those who play games for the right reason…to enjoy them and to enjoy it with others.

and by flooding the multiplayer portions of the game with overindulged, spoiled brats who think there is nothing more entertaining than being the biggest jackass on the field who supposedly has the biggest skill, but is really nothing more than a child who places more importance on getting the most kills than developing the more essential development skills in life, such as teamwork, problem solving, and learning to accept failure

These right here are very powerful statements that don't fall short of 100%. It's an incredible disgrace and i'm ashamed to be playing alongside these people sometimes.

To add to it as well, achievements... It seems as though many people play games now-a-days so that they gain these achievements only to up their score which in reality does nothing more than become a bragging right. Enjoy the game for what it is and what it was originally created for. Not for a stupid point score... It's frustrating as a gamer to see these kind of things take place, mainly because it's what other's base their gaming lives on. Earning this close to meaningless score above their name. And for what really? Being an extremely old school gamer, it does become difficult to witness games grow and expand when these same games include features that are a detriment to the gaming community as a whole or even individuals.

[Tural]

To add to it as well, achievements... It seems as though many people play games now-a-days so that they gain these achievements only to up their score which in reality does nothing more than become a bragging right. Enjoy the game for what it is and what it was originally created for. Not for a stupid point score... It's frustrating as a gamer to see these kind of things take place, mainly because it's what other's base their gaming lives on. Earning this close to meaningless score above their name. And for what really? Being an extremely old school gamer, it does become difficult to witness games grow and expand when these same games include features that are a detriment to the gaming community as a whole or even individuals.

How about this? I play games more because of achievements. Achievements give me a reason to keep playing a game after I finish it, it gives me a goal. Since when is working towards a set goal something to be shunned? Sorry I can't play a repetitive game over and over anymore, because of the increasing quality and depth of other games that will hold my interest, but for you to assert that working for achievements is somehow bad is an incredibly one-sided viewpoint. Let's take a game that I can apply here, Assassin's Creed. Great game, loved it. Played it through once, had a lot of fun. No achievements?; Put the game on the shelf and never play it again. There's no point in continuing, there's no multiplayer, there's nothing more to benefit, the story will never be as interesting as the first time, nor will the gameplay. With a set goal, you have a reason to go back and attempt to improve more. It's not for some bragging right, it's for getting the most out of a game. And yes, I'm aware you're talking about certain people more than others, but your post blatantly states that people playing for achievements are not enjoying the game for what it is made for, as if they're some egotistical, statistics-obsessed people. You're only looking from the side of the score, which is not the only aspect of the achievement system. You need to give more consideration to your argument before making your brazen claims, because, quite frankly, you're wrong. Your assertion is wholly inaccurate and written solely to appeal to people who agree with you, while neglecting to even remotely consider an opposing viewpoint to yours. Achievements are only ruining games if you use them to, so you can just stop suggesting that they are doing it by nature, because that's a bunch of BS. I'm telling, not suggesting it as a possible idea, but telling you, that achievements are a tremendous asset to games which lack a robust replayability, which is a lot of games. If the game isn't designed around multiplayer, it's probably going to have limited replayability, and in these cases, developers can utilize the achievement systems to give players a reason to continue to play the game, whereas otherwise they would simply stop playing it. Sorry to bust your balls, but it's not as easy to play a repetitive game nowadays as it was back in the day, because there is such a massive library of titles which have so much more to offer, whereas you didn't have this plethora of options in the past. Goals within a game should be embraced, not disrespected. Some games have bad achievements, and some people use achievements poorly (Although I can't remember a single time when someone was enough of a idiot to brag about their achievements, ever, in a game.), but for you to claim that all achievements, and achievements, by design in general, are a detriment to games, is unacceptable and ignorant to any differing opinion about them.

tl;dr: No.

Also no, I'm not going to split that wall of text. It was a stream of consciousness and I'm lazy.

Also again, I haven't read Jean's post, so if he explains how there is a much bigger library, thus meaning games must continuously improve or give players reasons to play that title, then you should refer to that as well, because it's true. Sure, you can say it sucks or whatever, blah blah, but we're not living in the past. Sorry, but that's the truth. If the game isn't replayable, it better have something to do, it better have achievements, or it's going to rot on a shelf and see no play past its first time.

[ScottyGEE]

Gamerscore is the epenis, achievements is the awesomeness. Achievements, suck so much ass that they unlock stuff within the game (armour, new classes), or give you benefits outside the game (themes, gamerpics)

It also adds a level of discussion with your friends. Since all achievements are the same, you can bring them up and they can have an understanding of what you're talking about.Rather than trying to tell a vague story about something in a game which doesn't do anything, you can say "I just unlocked achievement x" "wow nice work, I've always wanted that one, can you help me out?" "Sure thing". Hard to get that point across, but its something I do with my friends.

I could also reiterate what Tooral said, but screw that.

I don't like this topic much. And yes I have read the waffling (though the last paragraph was able to asy most of your points fine without the needless text)

[Aumaan Anubis]

I love both of the games.
Currently trying to get to 99 in the 2nd, I have a very easy way down that only takes a few minutes to level up, around level 70. And Beating Sephiroth is friggen impossible.

See, there's a modern game that doesn't suck, is still hard, but not neccescary to be hard. You can go through most of the game w/o a problem, unless you want to make it harder.

Done. On both KH1, and KH2. (KH2's is easier).
Played it waaaay too much, but totally worth it.

But I'm too lazy to level up past 50/60

Still, again, great game.

[kibito87]

How about this? I play games more because of achievements. Achievements give me a reason to keep playing a game after I finish it, it gives me a goal. Since when is working towards a set goal something to be shunned? Sorry I can't play a repetitive game over and over anymore, because of the increasing quality and depth of other games that will hold my interest, but for you to assert that working for achievements is somehow bad is an incredibly one-sided viewpoint. Let's take a game that I can apply here, Assassin's Creed. Great game, loved it. Played it through once, had a lot of fun. No achievements?; Put the game on the shelf and never play it again. There's no point in continuing, there's no multiplayer, there's nothing more to benefit, the story will never be as interesting as the first time, nor will the gameplay. With a set goal, you have a reason to go back and attempt to improve more. It's not for some bragging right, it's for getting the most out of a game. And yes, I'm aware you're talking about certain people more than others, but your post blatantly states that people playing for achievements are not enjoying the game for what it is made for, as if they're some egotistical, statistics-obsessed people. You're only looking from the side of the score, which is not the only aspect of the achievement system. You need to give more consideration to your argument before making your brazen claims, because, quite frankly, you're wrong. Your assertion is wholly inaccurate and written solely to appeal to people who agree with you, while neglecting to even remotely consider an opposing viewpoint to yours. Achievements are only ruining games if you use them to, so you can just stop suggesting that they are doing it by nature, because that's a bunch of BS. I'm telling, not suggesting it as a possible idea, but telling you, that achievements are a tremendous asset to games which lack a robust replayability, which is a lot of games. If the game isn't designed around multiplayer, it's probably going to have limited replayability, and in these cases, developers can utilize the achievement systems to give players a reason to continue to play the game, whereas otherwise they would simply stop playing it. Sorry to bust your balls, but it's not as easy to play a repetitive game nowadays as it was back in the day, because there is such a massive library of titles which have so much more to offer, whereas you didn't have this plethora of options in the past. Goals within a game should be embraced, not disrespected. Some games have bad achievements, and some people use achievements poorly (Although I can't remember a single time when someone was enough of a idiot to brag about their achievements, ever, in a game.), but for you to claim that all achievements, and achievements, by design in general, are a detriment to games, is unacceptable and ignorant to any differing opinion about them.

tl;dr: No.

Also no, I'm not going to split that wall of text. It was a stream of consciousness and I'm lazy.

Also again, I haven't read Jean's post, so if he explains how there is a much bigger library, thus meaning games must continuously improve or give players reasons to play that title, then you should refer to that as well, because it's true. Sure, you can say it sucks or whatever, blah blah, but we're not living in the past. Sorry, but that's the truth. If the game isn't replayable, it better have something to do, it better have achievements, or it's going to rot on a shelf and see no play past its first time.

But why are must these achievements push you to further play the game? As Scotty stated, it's xbox live's e-penis. There's no other to have this score. Yes, this is my opinion and I did state it. I, in no way, tbh, intended it for only those who would agree with me. It may seem that way, but I can say it wasn't meant for that. I can agree in that it does giv you a goal to achieve in the game rather than just plainly beating it and being done with it. But if that's the case, my argument would be, why if developers have time enough to make this achievements couldn't they just use this time, effort, and resources to just enhance the gameplay, visuals, unlockables, etc.

I can agree with some things you've said and can disagree with others. It's interesting to see your opinion on the matter. I'd rather this not turn into an argument but rather a civil, adult-like discussion...which is what it is still but i'm throwing it in there.

I'm not living in the past though. I enjoy these new games and what they have to offer. In my opinion though, these new "features" if you will, don't seem to actually add gameplay, only post-pone what has been the ultimate goal in the game. Completion.

Now, I suppose i'm two faced in the situation because I don't necessarily think they are 100% worthless. I've enjoyed getting achievements, no doubt. Maybe it's just hard for me personally to understand the enjoyment some may recieve from accumulating a worthless score put above your name. Can you disagree with the fact that it's the e-penis Scotty speaks of? I can't think of a reason...lol although i'm not trying very hard.

You must understand that this all obviously stems from my personal opinion and blossoms from my own way of thinking along with what i've gathered among my gaming years. This isn't some kind of attack on any other gamer or developer.

Whether you choose to agree with me is your own decision, obviously. I'm not here to sway you or anyone else. Just giving my input, and my apologies if I offended you or anyone else with it. Yet, it seems as though you hold these achievements to a higher standard than me and that's fine. I respect your decision but I can't see how what i'm saying is ignorant. I can see things from both views, just because I didn't express it doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe I haven't been clear enough with my statements. I sometimes have trouble thinking of things to say at the time of reading and what I've been typing. And i'm too lazy to pick apart everything you typed to debate.

P.S. I never said working towards a goal should be shunned. This is a specific situation that differs from other goals such as life goals. I consider gaming a hobby, I don't agree with the pro gamer blah blah money making stuff. (That's a different subject)

[DeadHamster]

Done. On both KH1, and KH2. (KH2's is easier).
Played it waaaay too much, but totally worth it.

But I'm too lazy to level up past 50/60

Still, again, great game.

I just beat it on KH2 the other day, at lvl 70. Intense, I killed him with reflect, when it happened me and my friends thought that I had died again.