Magic: The Gathering vs Yu Gi Oh

I'll start this essay off with my opinion. Yu Gi Oh was fun for the first month of it's release, then after I grew up and discovered Magic: The Gathering, I found a whole new depth in strategy, and fun. Yu Gi Oh was made for kids, and there's a crappy TV show that spoils the card game to prove that. Magic: The Gathering is for everybody from 7th grade to adulthood, and is always consistent and fresh.

Now, let's look at who published both games, Wizards of the Coast. WoC makes many card / strategy games (such as Dungeons and Dragons, and Pokemon TCG), and also happened to make Magic, and Yu Gi Oh. Now, Magic was released in 1993 by WoC and features the player hoarding mana to cast spells and release artifacts on to the battle field. Sounds simple enough, all the creatures have an attack and a defense number, and those numbers can conceivably be manipulated by other cards. Yu Gi Oh is the result of a company slimming down a lot of the strategy and making the numbers bigger.

A powerful card in Magic is an 8/8 (8 attack points, and 8 defense points) and requires quite a bit on mana (I would guess, 7 to 9). A powerful card in YGO is a 2,000/2,000 (notice the same attack/defense pattern), and requires just that it is the player's turn to lay down the card. Also, in MTG, one's life points is equal to 20 (that can be manipulated as well), and in YGO, life points are 2000. Bigger numbers doesn't a game a better.

To the point: everything done in Yu Gi Oh can be done in Magic. Magic came out first in 1993. Yu Gi Oh has a lot of things going on, and to be fair to YGO lovers, I will us the earliest release date that I can find (which isn't for the card game, it's for the original airing of the Japanese show), and that is December, 1996. I don't want to start a nerd fight, but the same company used essentially the same formula to make essentially the same game.

Now to some more opinionated stuff. the show of Yu-Gi-Oh is not well written, and is extremely cookie cutter to many Japanese copy write things, as is the manga. The story is about some kids who play a card game. In Magic the Gathering, the player is the story, when one make their own deck, one becomes the story. MTG has no corny show, no poorly written manga, and no other things going for it BUT the game.

Now how is Yu-Gi-Oh a copy of MTG? Allow me to dig further into the obvious. Magic came first, so even the show and manga of Yu-Gi-Oh could have gotten the idea from the alpha and beta Magic sets. But that doesn't hold up very well because it would then be by chance, correct? Well, now digging further, they are both made by the same company. But that also doesn't hold up, because companies can make many different things.

Past the superficial, I will be fair and construct my case on why I truly think YGO copies MTG. Here is an example of a Magic card.

Here are some facts:

1. Notice in the lower right-hand corner, two numbers. Attack and defense. One can choose to attack during an attack phase, or defend when being attacked.

2. Notice in the middle between the picture and the effect, there s a rare mark, and a creature type.

3. Notice in italics is a quote, and about that is a "flying" and some effects of the card.

4. Lastly, notice the at the top there is a number with 3 stars next to it, that's a mana cost.

Now here is an example of a Yu Gi Oh card...

Here are some facts:

1. See that in the lower right hand corner? That's an attack and defense score! Strange, that's on the Magic card too, in the same place... But surely it's used differently, right? Not quite, the player can attack during attack phase, or defend when being attacked. The attack and defense score is equivalent to a 15/10 in Magic.

2. Rare mark is where the stars above the picture are, and creature type is above the quote (recognize any similarities yet?)

3. Wow, there's a magical whimsical quote in the exact same spot as in the Magic card!

4. Now, where's the mana cost? Surely this creature can't just be layed out because it's so powerful! Oh, nope, no mana cost.

I think that's some pretty conclusive evidence... Yu-Gi-Oh is a simplified, ripped of version of Magic: The Gathering. But the same company made them, so congrats Wizards of the Coast, you made more money by making the same game.

Rareware

So many small gaming companies see the top, but just can't get there, no matter how aggressive they find themselves becoming. Rareware appeared to be a company that was at the top, but just didn't care about staying up there.

With every game almost immediately becoming a hit in the Nintendo 64 era, it looks like Rareware was just a great company with no struggles. But little is known from before that time, such as, the NES and everything between. Although some wonderful games came from Rare before the N64, they still had not made themselves a name. And now what's possibly worse, why aren't we seeing games from them now? Especially with all the new technology they have at their disposal.

When one thinks of Rare, what games come to mind? First, Banjo Kazooie, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark Zero, and Blast Corps. If you play video games you may recognize that 3 out of 4 of these games are on the N64 system, and only one is for the XBOX 360. Why is that? With such great games, such potential, why is this company living in yesteryear?

When we think about it, Rareware tried some new things (Viva Pinata, Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Kameo: Elements of Power), but were these attempts were failed, they did not live up to the Rareware standard that everybody had set from the moment they first played Banjo Kazooie.

One possible (and sad) answer for this dilemma, is look at who owns Rare... That's right, Microsoft. And look at who USED to own Rare... Nintendo. Now, this could mean nothing, but if you ask me, Rare did a fine job with Nintendo and Nintendo's recourses. Microsoft is sadly enough just not putting bread on the table. Take for instance the Banjo Kazooie formula, Adventure / Platformer in the good old days with Nintendo. Now, Banjo races around on vehicles. Don't get me wrong, Nuts and Bolts is a fine game, but just fine.

Rareware needs to deliver, and they need to deliver fast. Conker's Bad Fur Day won't always be around to save them, and neither will the remake for the XBOX. I don't want Rare to become dust in the wind (like SEGA, unfortunately), but it could very well happen if they don't go back to what they did best.

Pictured Above: Dare I call it... The good ol' days?

Final Thoughts:

Rare, make me some new, excellent games.

Call of Duty vs HALO

HALO is the latest "has-been" in video games, plain and simple. The formula is getting old, and interest has been sucked dry. Call of Duty is guilty of recycling a formula, but changes and additions have made every game in the series exciting and new. Now, normally I wouldn't care about these two games going at it, but in the world of the internet, these two games are constantly placed beside each other in some messed up comparison.

I will take a hit for the team, and put an end to the final say about which is better. Gameplay, story, control scheme, online play, among other things will be the way in which I judge. Getting down to the roots of the gaming experience certainly helps one to differentiate these two seemingly alike games.

Firstly; Gameplay and control scheme. the control standards were certainly set by HALO, Bungie did a fine job of identifying what a nice controller map would look like, but the ultimate reward for this concept goes to Infinity Ward's Call of Duty. HALO requires a tap of the right stick to aim a scoped weapon (and a scoped weapon is the only weapon that can be aimed), where-as Call of Duty's aim feature come "standard" with all aspects of the game, and feels more "right". Call of Duty's cover feature also bests HALO's because in HALO cover is never really needed, it doesn't feel realistic.

The story is a huge aspect of every game (and TV show, and movie, and book). HALO grabs the story from the discount section of a science fiction book store. Aliens and humans alike need control of some outerspace laser than can destroy big things, non original. Call of Duty's story has reflected World War 1, World War 2, and a fictional take of the war in Iraq. With original characters living out real events, it feels more original than what it actually is (which in most cases is a copy of history). Whether you like aliens or human warfare more, everyone's opinion can go either way on this element, but personally, I think human warfare is an experience that feels more realistic.

Online play is an element that is always a hit or miss. HALO has a huge community of dedicated players, making it easy to find a match, and a wide variety of maps to explore and kill in. But let us also consider, HALO is a host for "power players", people who are simply so good, it makes the game not fun to play online. Leveling up is nice, but there's no reward for it, rather than just a cute number and symbol next your name. Call of Duty's online layout is much more user-friendly. Offers everybody a chance to level up (and you do ONLY level up, unlike HALO where you can go down a level for not being perfect), and the leveling up process is rewarding and feels fantastic. HALO online play is for people who want a raw challenge, in the worst way possible, and Call of Duty is for people who want a challenge, and for people who enjoy feeling significant (but not overpowering) online.

As for the art, and the sounds of both of the games, I truly think the graphics are equally brilliant on both sides of the spectrum. No real complaints there at all, both HALO and CoD are proficient in those two areas.

Pictured Above: HALO does look good, but that's no reason to buy it.

So, in conclusion, Call of Duty is just... Better. HALO is fine, but ultimately not on the same plane of video game.

My Ratings:

Call of Duty (series) - 9.5 out of 10

HALO (series) - 6 out of 10