Flack's Top 15 Games

[Flack]

Flack gave up the Internet for a week. I hope you're all happy. I blame the terrible thi- ah fuckit


FLAAAAAAAAAAAAACK

What she doesn't know won't hurt her. Someday I will explain to her how VNC works.

[Flack]

#10. GeoDefense



GeoDefense is a "tower defense" game for the iPhone (and iPod Touch). A friend of mine introduced me to the game while we were sitting at a bar one evening. After seeing it I promptly confiscated his phone and played the game for the rest of the night, completely ignoring my friend. Sorry about that, Johnny.

The goal of GeoDefense is to prevent geometrically-shaped invaders ("creeps") from reaching your base. You do this by placing various weapons ("towers") along the creeps' pre-determined path. Each creep destroyed puts cash in your pocket, cash that can be used to both buy more weapons and upgrade the ones you've got. Each level contains a predetermined number of creeps that attack in waves. Make it to the end without 10 creeps reaching your base and you beat the level. It sounds simple, and sometimes it is, but most times it isn't.

Players can purchase three different types of weapons (blaster towers, laser towers, and missile towers) and two different modifiers (shock towers that slow down creeps, and vortex towers that collect the energy when creeps explode and redistribute it to your weapons). As mentioned, each of these five towers can be upgraded a total of six times, increasing their power each time.

You'll need those upgrades. There are four different creeps that vary in strength and speed. At first they come slow and easy, but by the end of each round they'll be flying at you fast and hard. To stay alive you must constantly buy and upgrade towers. If you find yourself with a ton of surplus cash sitting in your account, you haven't been keeping up and you're about to be in a heap of creep trouble. There are three different groups of levels, and a couple of different skill levels that determine how many waves of creeps you'll face. At first you'll simply be glad to beat a level; later, you'll be going back and trying to do each one "perfectly" (no creeps at all making it to the end). The game also supports OpenFeint, which logs high scores centrally online.

GeoDefense was both designed for and works beautifully with the iPhone's touch screen. (To date it has not been ported to any other system.) Towers are dropped and dragged onto the playfield with the flick of a finger. Tap any tower and you can see both its level and how much it will cost to upgrade. If you have enough money, an upgrade button will be visible. My only complaint with the game's interface is that the upgrade button is next to the "pop" button, which sells that tower back to the bank for about half its new value. In more than one heated battle I've accidentally sold back a tower I was trying to upgrade at a critical moment. The creeps love it when that happens.

There's that moment at the end of Fight Club where Tyler Durden sits back in a high rise and watches buildings around him explode. Play GeoDefense right and the end of a level is sometimes like that too. If you have enough weapons set up in the right places, they'll do their job and the screen will begin to look more like a fireworks display than a video game. For a special treat, hook a pair of headphones up to your phone as you play; the sound is better than it should be. Perhaps it's because of all these video and sound effects, but GeoDefense drains my phone's battery more than anything I've ever seen.

The fact that GeoDefense hasn't been ported to any other system (even Flash) worries me. Sure, it's fine now, but people without iPhones/iPods can't play it at all, and I worry that if I ever change phones or the game becomes incompatible with an Apple update, that'll be it. In my game room upstairs I can go play games that are 30+ years old, but how will we play iPhone games 30 years from now? I suspect the answer is, "we won't." The thought both saddens me, and makes me want to play the game even more now.

Half a dozen times now, I've made the following offer to friends: buy GeoDefense, and if you don't love it, I will personally refund the cost of the game to you. To date, no one has asked for a refund (and I think it's only a buck or two). The same author has also released GeoDefense Spark and GeoDefense Swarm, and to be honest neither of them held my attention for long. The original, however, is one of the most addictive and genius games I have ever played. The game is a must for anyone who commutes, takes breaks, or carries their phone with them to the toilet. Rumor has it that the game is currently being updated for an iPad release as well.

[pinback]

How would you define the magic of GeoDefense, particularly in comparison with other Tower Defense games, particularly "Defense Grid: The Awakening", particularly?

[Flack]

How would you define the magic of GeoDefense, particularly in comparison with other Tower Defense games, particularly "Defense Grid: The Awakening", particularly?

Defense Grid: The Awakening (DGTA) is a great game. It's different from GeoDefense in serveral ways. Obviously, it's much more graphically advanced (3D vs. 2D). The biggest difference in the gameplay is that DGTA is much more complex. There are more towers, more baddie variations, and multiple possible paths. Much more of a learning curve, too.

That makes GeoDefense all the more challenging to me. There aren't ten different kinds of weapons, there are three -- so when things go wrong, you kind of have to scratch your head and figure out what went wrong. Did you use the wrong combination of things, or did you put them in the wrong place? Many levels seem unbeatable until you completely wipe your old plan out and start anew. Like all tower defense games you can beat a level in a multitude of ways, but in GeoDefense, it happens so often that when you finally figure a level out, it feels good to get things just right.

The real "magic" of GeoDefense is that I can play it while pooping -- or riding in the car, or while on break at work, or whatever. Most of the levels last around five minutes, and the game can be paused at any time and resumed later in case someone keeps coming into the bathroom and banging on the stall. (It happens.)

DGTA feels like they added a lot of stuff to a simple game. GeoDefense feels sleek, stripped down, and streamlined.

[Flack]

#09. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon



First-person shooters are, in my opinion, probably the most mindless, uninspired video game genre of all time. I talk about most first-person shooters the way my parents used to talk about my music: "It all sounds the same, it's too loud, and the Beatles did it better." Or, in the case of first-person shooters, they all look the same, they're too busy, and ID did it better.

And yet, among a sea of thousands of similar-looking games, Ghost Recon stands out.

The "Ghosts" in Ghost Recon are a Special Forces Group based out of Fort Bragg, NC. Their missions, presence and even existence are considered to be top secret. Their job is to sneak in and out of conflicts while resolving them. This typically means leaving no trace behind ... except, you know, for bullets and dead bodies. Ghost Recon 1 and 2 take place "a few years from now," meaning most of the weapons are cutting edge, but real. The last time my dad and I went to a gun show, he was impressed that I knew what both an MP5 and an AK74U were. (He was less impressed when I told him I learned it in a video game.) Despite the premise of being "sneaky Ghosts", Ghost Recon doesn't rely a whole lot on stealth tactics, and guns will most certainly be blazin'.

My favorite Ghost Recon games are Ghost Recon 1 and 2, which themselves consists of multiple games and add-on packs. Ghost Recon 1 consisted of the original game, followed by two expansion packs (GR: Desert Siege and GR: Island Thunder). GR1 started on the PC and was ported to the Xbox, PS2, and GameCube. GR: Island Thunder was only ported to the Xbox. GR: Jungle Storm, only released for the PS2, contains all the levels from Island Thunder plus 8 new levels. The best bargain for PC owners is the Ghost Recon Gold Release, which contains the original release, Desert Siege, and Island Thunder, all on one DVD. Ghost Recon 2 is simpler; there's the original GR2 (Xbox, PS2 and GameCube) and a sequel, GR2: Summit Strike (Xbox only). The PC release of GR2 was delayed and ultimately cancelled so that the team could focus on Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (more on that series later).

Many of the levels from GR1/2 take place in foreign countries. For example, GR1 (the original) takes place in Russia during a period of "civil unrest". Ravaged by war, you'll spend a lot of time walking in and around partially destroyed buildings, climbing piles of rubble and hiding behind destroyed vehicles. Island Thunder contains more outdoor and jungle levels, while Desert Siege puts you in the sand. The levels are so well designed that they feel very realistic. Many of them are named because of a central feature ("The Farmhouse", "The Bridge", "The Docks"), and just by hearing or speaking the names you can envision those places as if they were real. Like many shooters, GR contains small, medium and large maps, all of which require different strategies and weapon choices when playing against others.

Against others? You bet! The PC versions of Ghost Recon support both LAN play and online play. Most of the console versions support local multi-player and online play as well.

But enough techno-talk. Ghost Recon is exciting because it takes place in modern times. Most of the games are set about 10 years in the future (GR1 and GR2, although set in the future, are now technically in the past; they took place in 2008 and 2009.) There are no aliens, zombies or mutants to zap, nor any spaceships or laser blasts to contend with. The settings for GR are real, and the conflicts contained within are believable. Then again, your role in Ghost Recon is rarely to "win the war" -- it's to take over key military locations, to disrupt communication satellites, or occasionally, to just "take someone out". And yet the series is definitely military-based. It's not an arcade-shooter like Counterstrike. At times, it may be minutes between enemies. And you're not part of a SWAT team, like in Rainbow 6. While you may sneak up on your enemies in silence as a Ghost, you may disperse of them quite loudly. Attaching C4 to an enemy's back leaves no witnesses ...

The single-player mode of Ghost Recon is enthralling. The cut screens between levels tell you what's going on with the mission and what your immediate plans consist of. Most levels contain multiple goals, some of which are time-based. (Pretty tough to blow up a tank if it has already passed by the time you get to the ravine, slowpoke.) In the single-player mode you'll be assisted by a few AI Ghosts, to whom you can bark orders at -- things like attack, fall back, or to quote the Holy Grail, "run away". One thing that complicates matters is that how, when, and how much you can control your troops changes between different version in the series. The Ghost Recon series has been criticized for not having the best AI for your fellow Ghosts, but if you're the type of person that believes doing something right means doing it yourself, playing Ghost Recon with a bunch of dumb bots won't seem like anything new. Nine times out of ten they do what they're supposed to be doing, but it can be frustrating when, while trying to sneak up on a village full of terrorists, one of them runs ahead of you and starts firing.

The game's multi-player modes are no less fun. There's one level, called "The Bridge", that consists of an old bridge that spans an gulch below. On one side of the ravine there's an abandoned gas station. On the other side, there's forest. This one level contains so many elements of Ghost Recon that it's a great starting point. Right off the bat, snipers will take their positions on either side of the ditch, looking for enemy heads to pop up. Some players run to the gas station, poking gun barrels out of the old station windows. Some will head to the dry ditch, hiding in bushes looking up, while others will start down the valley's sides, looking down for targets. Finally, a few brave (dumb?) souls will run right to the bridge, which is probably the last place you want to be. It's in these wonderfully crafted levels that you can see that there's something for everyone. Crossing the bridge is only half the battle, as (no doubt) there will be more enemies waiting for you just over the hill.

As I eluded to before, there are small, medium and large-sized maps, which can make for quick or long online battles. The game contains all the common online game modes (capture the flag, last man standing, most kills, etc.) but it also contains a time limit. You can hide but not forever, which helps nudge campers out of their hiding places. The smaller maps are fun for "running and gunning", but the real spirit of the game comes out in the medium-sized maps, in which players must run quickly to a strategic location and then begin the chess game of moving forward slowly until somebody blinks.

The biggest problem with the GR franchise is the inconsistency and differences between different versions of the game. Take the sequel to GR2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (GRAW), for example. GRAW was released for the PC, the Xbox 360, the original Xbox, and the PS2. The PC version of GRAW is played in first-person, and on each mission you are accompanied by a 3 man squad, to whom you can issue separate commands to. The Xbox and PS2 versions are also first-person shooters, but in those versions you only get 1 guy to accompany you on your missions. On the 360, you can switch between first and third-person views (the only one to offer third-person option), and you're back to a three-man squad -- although in this version, you must issue commands to them as a squad, not to each soldier individually. If you think that's confusing, start comparing different games across different platforms. The differences between platforms are astounding (don't get me started on the PSP versions ...)

Unfortunately for me, the developers of Ghost Recon have started to move the series into a more futuristic realm, first with Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2 now with the upcoming Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, which includes camouflage cloaking (think "Predator") and a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. At that point, you might as well be shooting aliens, zombies and mutants. To compare, here are a few Youtube videos of Ghost Recon 1 vs. Ghost Recon 2, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, and some footage from the upcoming Ghost Recon: Future Soldier. As you will see the graphics have gotten better, but the parts of the game I loved have gotten worse.

What worries me even more is, Ubisoft has a history of implementing Draconian copy protection on their games. The original GR1 required PC gamers to leave the CD in their computer while playing the game (not a huge detriment, but still annoying). In the mid-2000s Ubisoft adopted StarForce, one fo the most invasive copy protection schemes of all time. most recently, Ubisoft implemented their Online Services Platform, which requires gamers to remain connected over the Internet to Ubisoft-owned servers at all times while playing their games. OSP was used on Assassin's Creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5, which worked fine until hackers launched a distributed denial of service attack against Ubisoft's servers, making it impossible for the people who purchased the games to play them. While I greatly prefer playing first-person shooters with a keyboard and a mouse vs. a console controller, there's no way I would ever purchase a game with this kind of copy protection. If I buy another Ghost Recon game, it'll have to be a console (PS3/360) version.

Regardless of what they're doing to the franchise now, Ghost Recon 1 and 2 remain favorites of mine because of their storyline, their details, their multiple modes of play, and their balance between strategy and action. Mount up, Ghosts.

[pinback]

This is a fantastic list, Flack, and I do hope you're able to continue and finish it -- I suppose with normal, decent people like yourself this isn't as much of a concern, sorry, I'm used to people like me whose "started projects" list is a mile long, and whose "completed projects" list is "1. http://moltobenny.com/bb "

I do -- I have to -- point out at this point, though, that we now have you on record as saying that an iPhone tower defense game is better than both Galaga and mother flippin' 720.

I just want to know... are you comfortable with that? If someone came up to you and said, choose one, 720 or iPhone Tower Defense Game, you are raising your i4 to the sky in a death grip(*) and proclaiming, "TOWER DEFENSE GAME!" Do I have that straight?

Just for the record.





(*) GET IT? HOUR BACK, GET IT?

[Flack]

I do -- I have to -- point out at this point, though, that we now have you on record as saying that an iPhone tower defense game is better than both Galaga and mother flippin' 720.

That's a really good point, and something I didn't really notice until I had the whole list sorted and jotted down. And to be honest, a year or two from now, games on the list could settle or move around a bit. You know how it is, every "best games of all time" list has a brand new game near the top of the list, a game that won't even make the top 100 the following year. So is it possible that GeoDefense appeared too high on the list? It is possible.

But here's something I took into consideration (and maybe I shouldn't have). 720, in its original form, is nearly impossible to play. Even people who collect classic arcade games don't have 720 machines. Funspot in New Hampshire has one, but when I visited there it as broken. The 1984 Arcade in Missouri doesn't have one. I've probably visited 30 different arcades over the past 5 years and I haven't run into a single working machine. In fact, in 1994 I actively began looking for a 720 machine to buy and I bought the first one I found, in 2008.

So does the fact that Jonesy can play GeoDefense tonight by plopping down .99 make it a better game than 720, of which the closest working machine may be mine in Oklahoma? Maybe not, but that's why I ranked it higher. Playing 720 in MAME is like playing Tempest with a joystick.

The reason I ranked Galaga where I did, and I should have mentioned this in the review I suppose, is that there are only two kinds of Galaga players -- people like me, who suck and rarely (if ever) see the third bonus stage, and people who can play it for an hour (back -- get it?). And it's really not that fun to (A) be in either group, or (B) watch someone from the other group play. Playing Galaga for an hour is like someone who can't ejaculate on time. It sounds great, but not to the other people in the room. Same with only being able to play for a few minutes, I suppose.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

As soon as I find my phone, I'm getting iDefensor up there.

[Flack]

As soon as I find my phone, I'm getting iDefensor up there.

My offer stands. If you hate it, I will personally refund the cost of the game to you.

[Flack]

#09. [TIE] Star Wars: Battlefront



WHAT? A TIE? IS THAT LEGAL?

"I will make it legal." - Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious.

(Get it? A TIE? As in TIE Fighter? Ha, I kill me!)

When it comes to video games, Star Wars fans have fared pretty well throughout the years. We got the original vector Star Wars arcade games, we got multiple platform games for the NES and SNES, we got that "kind of weird but we'll take it" Empire Strikes Back game from Parker Brothers for the Atari 2600, we got the superb space-based X-Wing and TIE Fighter games, the first-person Dark Forces, Rogue Squadron, Shadows of the Empire, that great Star Wars Trilogy arcade game, a bunch of RTS and MMORPG games I never even tried ... come to think of it, we Star Wars fans have had it pretty damn good. Suck it, Trekkies.

One of the best of the bunch though was Star Wars: Battlefront. It's a first/third-person shooter, a genre that as I just mentioned in my Ghost Recon entry I'm disinclined to like. But Battlefront is more than just a Star Wars shooting gallery to me. For the first time in my life, I actually felt like I was in the Star Wars universe, standing on the front lines of the battle between good and evil (or evil versus good, depending on which side you pick).

In Star Wars: A New Hope we follow Luke's journey from moisture farmer to Deathstar-blower-upper, but in Battlefront, regardless of which side you're on, you're just another foot solider. Not everyone can be the guy who gets a medal from the Princess you know; there were hundreds of other members of the Rebellion/Empire, too. Battlefield drops you into large scale battles consisting of hundreds of people per side -- you won't be killing everybody, but you can help your side by blasting as many as you can. (Every rebel scum counts!) The goal of each level is to either wipe out your opponents, or take control of all the level's command points (which is often most easily done by wiping out all your opponents). You'll be doing this on some of the universe's most well known locations: Tattooine, Hoth, and Endor, for example. The locations are well done and detailed. For example on Tattooine, you'll not only have to deal with roving groups of Tusken Raiders and Banthas, but if you're not careful you may end up hanging out with Boba Fett in the Sarlaac Pit's stomach as well.

Depending on the platform, Battlefield supports online battles of between 16 and 50 players per side -- more clones than you can shake a stick at (or, you know, shoot). Some of the most fun can be had by hopping into one of the available ships and smashing your way through an enemy's base. Every wonder how many Ewoks you can stomp with an AT-ST? In Battlefront, you can finally find out.

Battlefront II is better than the first with an added mission-based mode, more locations, and more modes of play, but both are a "blast" to play. There are also three Battlefront games released only on portable platforms: Renegade Squadron (PSP), Mobile Squadrons (for mobile phones), and Elite Squadron (PSP/DS). I haven't tried any of them. Rumors of a Battlefront III have been circulating since 2006, but despite footage being leaked a year or so ago, nothing official was ever announced. That's too bad, because I would love to see this game on a modern console in 1080p. (The "p" stands for "pew! pew!")

Battlefront I and II are arcade shooters, nothing more, but that's not what earned them a spot on this list. Since the age of five I've been playing with Star Wars action figures, setting up battles and pretending like I was a part of that epic battle that took place in a galaxy far, far away. Finally, with Star Wars: Battlefront, I got my chance.

[pinback]

As soon as I find my phone, I'm getting iDefensor up there.

My offer stands. If you hate it, I will personally refund the cost of the game to you.

If the iPhone has achieved nothing else, and it hasn't, it's allowed people to way more easily say they'll buy whatever it is for you if you don't like it.

Still love the list, Flack! Just havin' some fun here.

Can-- Can we have some fun here?

Christ, Flack, I currently enjoy this thread and little else.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

As soon as I find my phone, I'm getting iDefensor up there.

My offer stands. If you hate it, I will personally refund the cost of the game to you.

Wait I thought it was the cost of the phone, not the game. Did you - did someone edit your post? What is this happy horseshit?

I found my phone, so I'm gonna buy it in a second here.

I guess the one thing I learned from this thread (aside from that) is that people seem to be nicer when you update your "Top Games" thread about once a day, instead of once every 3-4 weeks. I've learned more about the human condition, and that's really when video games shine.

[Flack]

If the iPhone has achieved nothing else, and it hasn't, it's allowed people to way more easily say they'll buy whatever it is for you if you don't like it.

The top five things the iPhone has achieved off the top of my head:

05. Unlike my old Palm Treo, it actually works like a PDA.

04. It made me throw away three different portable mp3 players.

03. It made me "get" Twitter.

02.It made me finally, after 30+ years, buy an Apple product.

01. It put the whole goddamn internet in my pants.

[Flack]

Wait I thought it was the cost of the phone, not the game. Did you - did someone edit your post? What is this happy horseshit?

The top 5 things I will buy you if you don't like the game:

05. You like big, giant, sloppy hamburgers? I will buy you a slice of cheese to slap on one.

04. Are tacos more your thing? Buy as many as you want -- I'll spring for the lettuce.

03. Nike is releasing an entire line of Star Wars themed tennis shoes. And I'll bet you're going to need some spare laces for those babies ...

02. A t-shirt (made with Sharpie) that reads, "I bought GeoDefense for 99 cents and all I got was this crappy t-shirt." It will probably also say "robohara.com" on the back so I can recoup the cost of the shirt in advertising.

01. I will refund the time spent installing any one iPhone app of your choosing, using modern prison wages, up to one hour. BACK? GET IT?

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Christ, all day I thought it was actually called "Defensor" instead of my snotty name for it conjured out of whole fuck. GeoDefense! Buying it RIGHT NOW.

Galaga didn't make my top 100 and 720 didn't because I forgot about it when I made my list initially. I think I had Tetris in the sixties, so there's plenty of room for GeoDefense to get in the hunt!

[Flack]

I had Tetris in my original draft of the list out of respect, because like some of the other games on my list it launched a genre. Plus, my sister is Tetris master. Seriously. I may suck at video games, but I would bet money on her against anyone. I once asked her how she could rotate the pieces so quickly in her mind. She told me she didn't; she rotated the board mentally first, before deciding where each piece should do. I then backed away ... slowly ...

But then, you know, I decided to change the list slightly. I added more games that I both liked and that were influential, and removed the ones that I only either liked, or were influential.

720 was my most expensive machine by like 300%. Like, I think I paid $600 for it, and the next most expensive machine I've ever bought was like $250. And over the past decade I've owned probably 50+ machines.

[Flack]

#08. Need for Speed: Most Wanted (Xbox 360)



Racing games have been around since the dawn of video games. I was playing racing games drawn with ASCII characters on a TRS-80 Model I back in the late 1970s, and have watched racing games grow along with the technology that powers them ever since. Back in the day, I played racing arcade games before arcade games had color -- and of course, modern racing games have high-definition graphics, surround sound, force feedback, head-to-head racing and internet-based leaderboards.

While it's fairly easy to separate the good from the bad within the genre, it's more difficult to sift the good from the great, and naming the "best" racing game would be impossible -- the genre is simply too subjective. While one game may have better graphics than another, better graphics don't always translate to better gameplay. (Pole Position II is better than lots of racing games released in the past decade.) So many things have to come together just right to make a great racing game; poor physics, boring tracks, graphical glitches and bad AI are just a few things that can ruin an otherwise great game. Additionally, different gamers enjoy different styles of driving games. The Gran Turismo series catered to serious drivers into serious details (you can change the stiffness of your car's suspension springs), while others (like myself) prefer arcade-style racers like Ridge Racer and the Rush series.

The Need for Speed series has existed for over fifteen years now. In Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit I and II, players were forced to both drive fast and avoid the law. After getting away from that theme for a few years, the developers returned with Need For Speed: Most Wanted (NFS:MW).

NFS:MW is of course at its heart an arcade racing game. You won't be adjusting your car's springs here, but you will be painting, tinting, and adding flames to a multitude of cars (that's what I do to them, anyway). By working your way through the game's story mode you can unlock cars (and if you're lucky, win an opponent's pink slip after winning a race), and once you own them you can modify and upgrade them. Even after beating the story mode, there are a ton of other challenges and milestones waiting for you.

Many of those involve the fuzz. When you receive a challenge like "Disable 20 Police Cars", you know you're in for a rough ride. In NFS:MW you have a "heat level" that goes from 1 to 5, telling you just how much trouble you are in, mister. You can earn a 1 by running a stop light or driving across a park in front of a cop. As your heat level climbs, you will begin to see more cops and see more coordination between them. At the higher levels you'll encounter road blocks, spike strips, armored SUVs, Corvettes, and the "eye in the sky" helicopter that tracks your every move. With the possibility of losing a car you've invested a lot of time and money into, a tight police chase will put you on the edge of your couch every time.

I had already almost completed the game on the PS2 when I got my XBox 360. NFS:MW was a 360 launch title, and the first high-definition game I ever played. Especially when viewed on a hi-def television, the improvements were significant.

One could make a pretty strong case that the Burnout series -- particularly Burnout Revenge and Burnout Paradise -- have surpassed NFS:MW in both graphics and levels of fun, rewarding racers for dangerous behavior and setting up giant smash-'em-ups. But the thing NFS:MW has is that you're racing your cars, cars you've invested time and money into. Losing a race (and your car) in Most Wanted really makes you feel like lost something. Burnout runs faster, too, at 60fps vs. Most Wanted's 30fps (most likely attributable to NSF:MW being an older, 360 launch title). Don't get me wrong, NFS:MW is no slouch in the graphics department (especially with its advanced next-gen lighting system), but 2008 graphics ultimately win out over 2005 graphics.

And yet, even after beating it to a pulp (on two systems now), I still pick up and play Most Wanted from time to time. In a quarter-mile, NFS:MW wins, if only perhaps by fractions of a second. There's something about the challenges and the races in Most Wanted that long outlast the story mode. It's deeper than a flat out arcade-racing series like Burnout, but only slightly. Plus, slamming the pedal to the metal and smashing your way through a police barricade never seems to get old.

[Flack]

#07. Archon



Both of my parents were big into playing Chess. When I was just a toddler, my mom attended a ceramics class and actually made a chess set. Each pawn was about four inches tall and was quite heavy; the other pieces were six-to-eight inches tall, and heavier. The board was gigantic, with each square measuring around 2"x2", with leather-bound padding surrounding the board. As a child I can still remember holding each piece in my hands, staring at them and imagining the battles they must've endured.

One thing that never made sense to me as a kid was that a weak piece like a pawn was able to simply "take" a stronger piece like a knight or a bishop. Wouldn't a stronger piece put up some sort of resistance? And the more I thought about it, shouldn't the inverse be true as well? Sure, pawns are weak and all, but in a battle would they just lay down and die? Shouldn't they at least have the ability to fight for their lives, just like in that Star Wars hologram chess game?

Finally, in Archon, they were able to.

In many ways, Archon is a lot like Chess. Each side of the board (the light side and the dark side) has various pieces, each of which have unique distances and modes of travel. Like Chess, you can win the game by taking all of your opponent's pieces (not a bad strategy), but there are several differences between Archon and Chess as well. For starters, there are five Power Points on the board; occupy all five of them, and you will quickly win the game. The biggest difference between Archon and Chess is that in Archon, you don't "take" your opponent's pieces ... you fight them.

When any piece moves onto a location occupied by an opponent's piece, the game board changes into a one-on-one battlefield. Hey, at least pawns (knights and goblins) finally have a fighting chance! Unfortunately, being the weakest pieces on the board, knights and goblins are slow and must be very close to their opponents to actually hit them with their tiny clubs and swords. Also unfortunately for knights and goblins, they are the only melee-based characters in Archon. Everybody else shoots, which is bad news in a game where retreating from combat is not an option. To paraphrase a modern saying, it is not wise to bring a sword to an archery contest ...

Each piece's strength is modified based on the color of the square it is standing on. White pieces are stronger on white squares and weaker on dark ones (the inverse is true for dark pieces). This adds an interesting dynamic to the game. Another twist to Archon is that each side also has a spellcaster with a roster of seven spells that can each be cast once per game: exchange, heal, imprison, revive, shift time, summon elemental, and teleport. Teleporting your Dragon into your opponent's back line is a sure way to make friends.

Archon is 25+ years old and getting it to play on a modern PC can be a bitch, especially with joystick support. Fortunately the game was ported to pretty much every system that existed in the 80s, so if the NES/Atari/Apple II/C64/Amstrad/ZX Spectrum/Amiga/Macintosh is more your bag, you can play it on one of those systems instead. It's also been ported to the iPhone.

It's sad that so many people compare Archon to Battle Chess, because Archon is nothing like Battle Chess. Archon is a chess-like game in which pieces must fight for each square. Battle Chess is, well, Chess, but with comical animations. Battle Chess was a graphical and animation masterpiece (and you had plenty of time to study both during the game's painfully long disk access times), but at the end of the day, it was just Chess. And Archon was not.

In 1994, the original developers (Free Fall Associates) released Archon Ultra, an updated version of the original. Gameplay was essentially the same, but the graphics and sound had been updated. One of the coolest features of Archon Ultra was that it supported head-to-head modem play, which my buddy and I used many times. Unfortunately, it was released a year before Windows 95, which it wouldn't run (well) under.

The Archon formula has been updated and tweaked throughout the years, but none of its successors ever matched the excitement of the original. What I would love to see is an updated version that uses a modern fighting engine -- 2D or 3D, you pick.

Whenever people start going on and on about how Electronic Arts is the devil, I think back to games like Archon, when small developers had a chance to produce an original title and change the world.

[Flack]

#06. Paradroid





While many modern games have staffs in the hundreds and budgets in the millions (I'm looking at you, Jonsey), in the 1980s it was not uncommon to see games, particularly computer games, written by one or two people. Because games could be designed, programmed, and sometimes even duplicated in someone's home, you ended up with a lot of weird and quirky and odd games being released. A lot of times those games turned out to be crap (games written by a single person don't tend to have a lot of quality control built in -- I'm looking at you, Jonsey), but occasionally, one of them would simply click. Paradroid is one of those games that simply clicked.

In Paradroid, you control a robot that looks a lot like a helmet. Your goal is to clear an entire spaceship of all evil enemy robots. Each robot is identified by a three digit number; the higher the number, the more powerful the robot is. Ultimately you will have to defeat the 999 robot. You, you floating helmet you, begin life as "001".

Enemy robots can be shot, but as a 001 you are no match for most other robots on the ship with your weak armor and firepower. Instead, you can opt to hijack you enemies by transferring to them. Transferring to another robot involves beating it in a mini-game where you must control more circuits than the robot you are battling. This takes place in a crazy electronic battle where you physically attempt to overpower your opponent by electronically attacking it in a fast-paced battle. If you lose and are controlling another robot, that robot will disappear and you will be demoted back to a 001. If you are still at 001, you will become unstable and explode in a few seconds. Such is life as a floating helmet.

The layout of each circuit is randomly generated, which means every battle is different. You as the player get to choose which side of the circuit you wish to play, so you never lose a battle because you were handed "the wrong side". Each circuit contains dead ends, voltage boosters, Y splitters and V splitters ... and you have about ten seconds to pick which side you wish to play. It's less complicated to play than it is to describe. Here'a a video to demonstrate how it works.

[youtube][/youtube]

It may sound simple, but the gameplay, especially with more advanced robots, gets very hectic very quickly. Nothing sucks more than losing to a higher robot and being instantly demoted back to a 001, leaving yourself quite vulnerable. Sometimes, the robot you are controlling with become unstable, at which point you will have mere seconds to find another robot to overtake, or risk exploding. Paradroid is a lot of things, but dull is not one of them.

Despite the game's simple and straight-forward goal, I don't remember ever beating it -- if I did, it's been many years ago. Like a few other great games, simply playing Paradroid is so much fun that winning takes a back seat to simply playing it. It's kind of like a futuristic version of Rogue, but with less potion quaffing and more lasers.

Paradroid was originally released on the Commodore 64, and that (in my opinion) is still the best version. It was also ported to the Amiga and Atari ST machines, but I haven't played either of those versions. Paradroid appeared on that all-in-one C64 Joystick thing released a few years back, so that's another place to get it. If you live in Europe, Paradroid was released for the Wii Virtual Console over there (but not in the states, because Mario hates you). There is also a fairly accurate free DOS version (http://paradroid.sourceforge.net) and a graphically updated version (http://paradroid.ovine.net).

[pinback]

1. What the fuck?

2. That looks really cool! Why did I never know this existed?

3. If we took the soundtrack to that Youtube and blared it on continuous loop over loudspeakers in Afghanistan and Iraq, these wars would be over very quickly. I'M LOOKING AT YOU, JONSEY.