Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. One of these days, I need to get some new eyes. Don't say we didn't warn you.

If there was any doubt that DQ7 was one of the most retro games in history, Enix's possible censorship should settle it. Enix apparently feels that it's not enough to have 16-bit era sound and graphics, we've also got to put up with 16-bit era translation policies so that we faint-hearted Americans won't go into a tizzy about somebody saying "God".

And I for one say, thank you, Enix! I've had just about enough of games criticizing religion, bringing up complex issues and adult themes, and in general making me think. I'm pleased that someone's finally decided to stand up and cut out all the nasty, unpleasant, intelligent bits of a game, and reduce the genre to what it was supposed to be: wandering around killing virtual monsters for no apparent reason other than "save the world and get gold!" Thank you for finally standing up to Square and their games with actual plots and dramatic structure - giving me a lobotomized version of a game I wasn't so crazy about to begin with is a sure way to turn me into a loyal customer! Stay the course, Enix, you're fully confirming every opinion I ever had about your commitment to worthwhile gaming.

Onward.

Actually, at the moment Nintendo looks to have done a great job positioning Zelda against the PS2. Admittedly, there are very few people who'd prefer playing a single game against getting an entire new system, especially one as powerful as the PS2, but between those unable to get the system because of shortages and those unable to get the system because they can't shell out $300, I think Nintendo won't have any problems moving MM carts come the 26th.

I think the "dark" description may have something to do with the fact that, you know, the entire world's gonna be crushed by a huge rock in 72 hours? A lot will have to do with the execution, no doubt, but the basic premise sets up images of dozens of different "end of the world" movies in my head - not exactly the cheery joy I got out of running around the first village in OoT. Also, Link having to turn into an "UGLY" Goron or Zora could have some impact on the mood of the game, bringing up issues of identity and alienation.

Other people have doubts about the game, and I admit I'm not 100% sold on it myself, yet. But the basic premise strikes me as one of the most complex and potentially interesting of any Zelda game, ever. I'll be keeping my eyes on the reviews as they come in.

To be fair, I don't think the basic gameplay is supposed to be the focus like it was last time. The basic novelty of OoT is gone, no question, and in its place is a game with a much more complex structure and plotline. I'm quite positive you wouldn't be able to get the meat of the game in a 10-minute playthrough - you wouldn't be able to try out going back in time and seeing the same events from different perspectives, or try doing different things at the same time of day. In a way, it reminds me of the difference between FF I and FF IIj: in the first one you built an engine, and in the second one you actually get to do something with it.

At this point nobody's said anything about any FF definitely being on Xbox, but by the same token nobody's said anything's going to be exclusive either. As to the rest... well, let's take a look at some of the letters we got on the subject.

Well, it's worth reminding people that there hasn't been any official announcement yet, even though it seems fairly likely that such an announcement will be eventually made. If you're staunchly in the "Microsoft is evil" camp (which I undoubtedly am, for operating systems) then you're understandably upset and there's not a lot that can be done to change your mind. However, I like The Steve's thinking on the matter - this may be a chance for Square to move more product and stay profitable. And the truth is, the Xbox may be better suited to help Square do that since by all accounts it'll be easier to develop for and perhaps a bit cheaper to boot. Meantime, just stay calm... we have months yet to go before the Apocalypse really kicks in to gear.

Dang, forgot to answer that question yesterday. I knew the answer, just forgot to confirm with the rest of the staff and type it in. Thanks for the reminder. As for Zelda, I expect that the game will be set up in such a way that if you're doing things right, everything will be on a tight schedule with little to no slack or waiting time involved. And I completely reject the idea that characters can't be developed. Based on OoT, it wouldn't surprise me to see very limited development, but there are a lot of tricks that could be used. Perhaps Link can intervene to change timelines - the first time through the game he views a fight, then goes back in time to prevent it from happening. Even if they didn't do that, a lot can happen in 3 days, especially if you think the world's about to end. Don't dismiss the game out of hand, folks.

I'm not gonna argue with anybody picking up MML2, but I gotta stand up for Zelda II. At the time I played it, I thought it was amazing - much better combat than the original, even if the world was somewhat less complicated, it felt bigger. Yeah, it hasn't aged very well, mostly because both it and Castlevania 2 were very early examples of a genre (the Action RPG) that rapidly improved. Still, it was a great game when I was in 7th grade, worthy of the Zelda name.

I gotta admit that some of this letter sounds a bit like an old school Nintendo Power preview, but Efrate's got an excellent point. One of the main complaints I see about games these days is that they lack difficulty - once you know the right trick, any recent FF's a breeze. The preferred solution for a lot of people seems to be to make the game much harder by adding tougher monsters, tougher boss fights, and more leveling. But I think I prefer Zelda's approach: give the game consequences. You don't have time to wander around searching for that one really cool weapon hidden way in the back of the dungeon, because the sky is literally falling. If you're honest with yourself, you won't play ahead either, but deal with your mistakes and watch as minor missteps grow up around you until you're dancing on quicksand. If you find something cool by luck, great, but otherwise you just have to keep pushing ahead, doing the best you can... sounds like a glorious return to the days of white-knuckle gaming to me.

Actually, no, I'm not happy. Whatever my opinion on games, I'd never wish for one to be given a lousy translation job. I can understand that there might be things in a game that aren't suitable for a general audience, but that's what the ratings system is for. And if that's not sufficient, then maybe the game just shouldn't be brought over in the first place.

But in the case of DQ7, I hadn't heard word one that the game's plot was in any way, shape, or form potentially offensive... and as many people have already pointed out, very little is going to shock us after Xenogears and FFT. Also, any translation cuts to DQ7 deprive me of a fair judgement on the game, because if I get it and don't like it, people will always have the excuse of "well, it was much better in the original Japanese." Not that they don't have that excuse now, but it tends to gain credibility if it really has been cut.

Hee hee... thanks man, this is one of the most amusing letters I've gotten in a long time. Your imitation of a completely anal game fan was just dead on... oh, wait, don't tell me you were actually serious...

Look, it was a joke, OK? Best Brains, the guys (and gals) who used to write MST3K are extremely smart, as was reflected in their jokes, and I'd be very surprised to find out that they didn't know at least as much about games as any of us. That line very deftly combines the three landmark titles you mention (Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., and Super Mario Bros.) into one exaggerated image, while at the same time managing to poke fun at the absurdity found in all three of them. In other words, it's a great joke. But even on the off chance that MST3K did make a mistake, who cares? If I cared that much about knowing video game minutiae, I'd have to look down on 99.9% of humanity because they're not sufficiently geeky enough. And that's just stupid.

And maybe it's just me, but I didn't find anything even remotely resembling a "coolness factor" in the band scene - indeed, the entire sequence reeked of a cheesy "I've got a barn, let's put on a show!" vibe. Don't get me wrong, it was charming exactly because of how well it showed the characters ineptitude. Everything, from the choice of music to Irvine's pathetic "ladies' man" posturing to Squall's general woodenness was dead-on. Maybe it wasn't designed as a commentary on romantic game sequences, but it was so well put together from a character standpoint I couldn't help but laugh.

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm the odd man out on this one. Both consoles have a huge number of developers, and I know the PS2 will very much be worth getting for a lot of you... eventually. Personally, I'm just pleased to see an American console that has a serious chance of making it, and US and Japanes developers helping to power it... but I can completely understand people wanting to stick with Sony after the original PS. All I know is, I'm perfectly happy to stick with my existing PSX and Dreamcast for now.

Yes, I did say that, I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll remedy it as best I can, if you'll take a look below.

Closing Comments:

I know I traditionally don't have topics on Fridays, but I did say I'd do a VP topic this week, and besides, Monday's a de facto free topic day anyway. So everybody who's played VP and has an opinion on it, send it in, and save your random jabber for Monday. See you tomorrow.

-Chris Jones, not a big fan of masks in general