Quite simply, I take two or more games that I think are more or less equal and compare them. But instead of the overall picture, I compare the points that are close enough to properly compare.

Some of the points are my personal opinion, while some are points that I've noted other gamers comment on.

Also, if I don't comment on comparable points, that means I think they are equal. And that means the majority of points for these games, which is why I consider these games mostly equal. Even if a game has more superior points, it's just a fraction of the overall game. So this should NOT be taken as a way to claim one game is overall better.

This time I'm comparing the Castlevania games on the Gameboy Advance. This is because not only are they in the style of Symphony of the Night, but I've played all of them, whereas I've only placed Dawn of Sorrow on the DS.

Anyway, this is where each of the three games bests the others:

Circle of the Moon:

1. The music. Just comparing the title screen music of the games should make this clear. Harmony has a bunch of chimes that seem like out of the sound chip of the first Gameboy. Aria is better, but not that memorable. Circle has a synthetic chior. It's not perfect, and you can hear some minor crackling, but otherwise it's great. The rest of the music is just as wonderful.

2. Best spell effects. While the card system overall left a lot to be desired, especially with how they were distributed (good luck finding most without a guide, and sometimes even that's not enough), the effects when you had enough cards were just awesome.

3. Best extra game mode. While the multiple modes after beating the game are just variations of the main game, Maxim in Harmony wasn't as balanced as Julius in Aria. But what gives this the edge is Magician Mode. You get all the cards, and can now try all the awesome spell combinations. Many are enough to overcome the reduced states (like elemental attack absorbing).

Harmony of Dissonance:

1. Best dash system. Cirlce had double tapping, which works, just not as well as in this game. Aria had the back dash, but no foreward dashing. This just has you press the shoulder button in the direction you want to speed towards.

2. Best challenge balance. Cirlce was often challenging for the wrong reasons. Aria had some good challenge, but still got really easy once you found the right items (Claim Solas especially). Harmony is challenging at just the right parts, and by the time you get the most powerful spells, the bosses have grown more powerful in kind.

3. Best second form for Death. Circle had a skeletal snail, which was a good challenge, but just not as cool as it could have been. It just didn't seem to fit for Death. That should have been its own boss. Aria had the second form turning into... Death, where the first form was his scythe. That's just not right. This game had him turn into a flying, snake-like skeleton, whith scythe arms. Now that's how you do this.

Aria of Sorrow:

1. Best overall graphics. The graphics on the other games are already pretty great. Just Circle loses some points for being too hard to see without a system light. Harmony worked just as well as Aria's, but just didn't have quit the complexity that put this at the top.

2. Best magic system balance. While the souls rarely have as awesome effects as the cards in Circle, they are easier to get, and offer plenty of room for experimentation.

3. Best story. Even better than Dawn of Sorry, but this is among the other two. While all had good stories, this wins because of the twist. Some of you might not know this yet, but it's a doozy. A freakin' great one.

Quite simply, I take two or more games that I think are more or less equal and compare them. But instead of the overall picture, I compare the points that are close enough to properly compare.

Some of the points are my personal opinion, while some are points that I've noted other gamers comment on.

Also, if I don't comment on comparable points, that means I think they are equal. And that means the majority of points for these games, which is why I consider these games mostly equal. Even if a game has more superior points, it's just a fraction of the overall game. So this should NOT be taken as a way to claim one game is overall better.

Anyway, since Ocarina is the older game, it goes first.

Ways in which The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time is superior to The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess:

1. Ocarina sounds better than wolf singing.

Making a wolf howl in three octaves just to make a melody just seems off to me. And you can't do much save for the fixed melody spots. The Ocarina playing is much more fun.

2. You can get the the first dungeon sooner.

This is something I didn't mind in TP, but I can see why others would prefer this.

3. You can actually control day and night.

Makes getting the creature collection quest much easier.

4. Spiders not as scary.

The skultas barely even look like spiders in OoT. In TP, they are a real terror to someone even mildly afraid of spiders. And the Temple of Time boss, holy shit. At least the first boss in OoT can go down with a well times slingshot pellet and some sword slashes.

5. Dungeons have less padding.

I like the dungeons in both games, but while both games have padding in these (especially if you want to get every chest, heart piece, and collection monster), it just wasn't as much in this game.

Ways in which The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess is superior to The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time:

1. Midna doesn't go "Hey!" "Listen!"

Okay, I wasn't really bothered by that, but then again, I never really played with the sound very high, so it just didn't grate in my ears so much. But for others, this is definitely a plus. Midna's prompts are rare and usually just a flashing button on the screen and a subdued beep.

2. You can skip most of the cut scenes.

Not all, but when you are replaying the game, it is nice to just move on to the gameplay.

3. Redeads are easier to deal with.

What's the best way to deal with one of these?

In OoT, it's either using the Song of the Sun and running away like a coward, or using the fire arrows... which you can only use as adult Link and can't even use in the town square, where you meet them the most.

In TP, you can either use bomb arrows to take them out at a distance, or use the ball and chain later on.

4. Better filler to get to the third dungeon.

To get to Jabu-Jabu's Belly in OoT, you need to sit through an unskippable cut scene of King Zora SLOWLY waddling out of a doorway.

In TP, you get to fight off enemies attacking the wagon with the Zora Prince. Okay, it's an escort mission, but this one is easy. Just slash at the moblins, boomerang the wagon when it gets hit, and shoot your arrows at any flying monsters.

5. Water Temple keeps water control in one room.

Okay, the switches to start the water flows are at opposite ends, but the actual switching is just in the center room. You don't need to go to other rooms, play the song, turn on and off the iron boots if necessary, and repeat if the level requires it. You just find the direction you need the water to flow, and hit the right switch. Each direction even has a switch on each floor for convenience.

6. Zelda's dress is hotter.

Okay, not the young Zelda, you sickos. I mean the adult Zelda.

Dress in OoT. Concept Art, and In Game.

Okay, the lower polygon count likely meant that a dress that fancy couldn't have too many curves, but it still looks weird.

Twilight Princess Dress.

7. Clawshot more useful than hookshot.

Basically it does almost everything the hookshot does (unfortunately can't take out skulltas in one shot), plus you can hold onto things and eventually dual wield them.

8. Travel is much more convenient.

In addition to all the warp spots, Epona can be gained just before the second dungeon, and there are plenty of whistle grass spots to call her.

9. More intensive sword combat.

Once you get half the sword moves, certain battles become some of the most awesome duels of the entire series.

10. Sniper Scope with the arrows.

Yeah, a lot of long distance shots become much easier thanks to that, especially with the boss of the Temple of Time.

Finally, some things that could go either way.

1. Wolf control might be really annoying in TP.

This actually depends on which version you have. I have the GC version, so the control is basically like controlling human Link, but with fixed secondary actions. I guess with the Wii version the control just doesn't work as well for some reason.

2. Which fetish that happens to Zelda do you prefer?

If you like her able to change her gender, you will like OoT. If you like her hypnotized, you will like TP. BTW, Smash Bros Melee has her both. You get the Shiek ability, and Mewtwo hypnotizes her in one mission.

3. Do you find adult Ruto or restored Midna hotter?

I'm not going into their other forms. That is just too many kinds of wrong.

4. Link without his shirt off in TP.

Could make TP better, if you can stand the fact that in that part, he's sumo wrestling with a much more portly guy, who also has his shirt off.

5. Fishing comes in different styles.

Which one you prefer truly depends on the game.

6. Final Ganon battle.

Really, both are great. One starts with a shot that I swear Peter Jackson lifted for the Lord of the Rings prologue, and one has another intense sword battle.

That is a comment on Anthony Burch's rant Fun Isn't Enough.

That is one of the most ridiculous stat I have heard about games. Even if we broaden that beyond action games with macho heroes (as in including games like simulation racers that fulfill the fantasy of racing cool cars around, or sports games where you can pretend to be your favorite team or player), that is still a really dubious percentage. Even RPGs, which have protagonists that are generally juvenile and male, wouldn't be power fantasies.

And with the Wii and DS, that percentage sure as hell isn't that high, and since Burch indicated this was all games, that number is flat out wrong.

So why the hell would he think most games are like that?

Then it occurred to me, it's that many gamers often refuse to count other games as worthwhile, so the statistic is that 95% of games they care about are juvenile power fantasies.

Wow, those others games must suck then... or do they?

Many of the games they refuse to consider worthwhile are the casual games, the evil part of the market that makes games that are just for playing around with.

I've seen many gamers whine when a game doesn't have a certain feature, like when a Wii game has circular shadows. Their justification is that it supposedly means not enough effort was put into the game, but that's bull. Effort doesn't make a game good. It just makes a game run properly (because a glitchy, unplayable game isn't fun regardless of the genre).

But defining fun as having such arbitrary things as whether it has online, or real-time lighting, or enough enemies onscreen, is not really fun. Fun is not something you can qualify. You have fun or you don't.

And that's why it seems that most games are like that. Gamers have narrowly defined "fun" in video games into being a juvenile male power fantasy.

The solution isn't to make more "art" games, because that just means they can excuse their male power fantasies by being pretentious once in a while. The solution is to rediscover what fun in gaming really is.

And I don't mean going out and playing casual games. I mean not looking at them as the opposite of games like Gears of War. Carnival Games isn't bad (that's Drake of the 99 Dragons). It's just a different kind of game.

I mean stop looking at games in terms of does it meet some arbitrary standards.

Don't look at Rock Band vs Guitar Hero in terms of which has the best features. Look at them in terms how much fun you have with either one (although some do, I just see the arguments online are rarely like that).

Don't look at Dead Rising Chop Till You Drop in terms of whether there are enough zombies. Look at it in terms of whether you have fun killing the zombies that are there (you might not, but the point is that you aren't putting numbers ahead of fun).

Don't look at Mario Kart in terms of whether you can just race your way to the finish line (the blue shell is there to actually prevent playing that game like Gran Turismo), but whether you have fun blasting anyone in your way while you race to first place.

The problem isn't that most games are male power fantasies. It's that many gamers will not look at all the other games. The problem is that they've narrowed their view.

Mark Rein has retracted his earlier statements from about the Wii and the Madden series.

Take from that what you will. I say he should have done some research before speaking up. I don't mean just in terms of fact checking (as the huge financial flops were from HD games), but also who his remarks would upset. He did just go for Nintendo with his comments, he went for basically all major Wii developers, including Sega indirectly and EA directly.

What was he thinking?

He doesn't actually use those words, but the implication is there. He chooses his words carefully, like in the reply "72k for launch week isn't that good." But the tone of the rest of the article makes it clear.

Yes, it isn't that good, but that does mean it's still at least somewhat good, especially since the budget of the game wasn't that high (being an SD game and all), and the fact that Wii game sales are not front loaded.

And that's what he, and "Those who argue against so-called "hardcore" games on the Wii" keep ignoring. You can't go by the first week. Metroid Prime 3 opened around the same time as Bioshock, and had half the opening week. Both games have sold around a million and a half copies. Bioshock sold more, but if you went by the opening week, MP3 should have sold only around half as much.

Of course waiting for the July NPD numbers, or the July and August numbers, would be the proper way to jusge the legs of a Wii game, but that flies in the face of the instant gratification mentality of many gamers. They have to have news now, and if not, they decide what the news is right now. You can't decide reality before it happens.

While true that this is "not a glowing success for the game's launch week", Sega isn't just looking at the launch week. Sega has had most of it's games on the Wii start with less than impressive numbers, even the mega seller "Mario & Sonic at the Olympics" had an opening of less than 100K in the US.

Of course it's hard to say if the legs of this game will be that good, but that's why we wait.

Sure it's not the great opening Wii fans wanted, but declaring it a failure to show these games can sell just means you are jumping the gun.

This may be the first generation where not a single major system (as in backed by a committed and capably company) is, as some say, "left in the dust".

Every generation before, we've had systems that were just lagging far behind the others, in terms of both software and hardware sales, and in developer support.

In the 3rd gen (since before the crash '83 left all systems in the dust), it was the Master System, and failed comebacks by pre-crash companies.

In the 4th gen, any system other than the Game Boy, SNES, and Genesis was left in the dust. The Game Gear and Turbo Graphix 16 had good starts, but they faltered after that (I think the Neo-Geo made money, even if it remained a niche system). Not to mention the systems that tried to jump the gun on the 5th gen.

In the 5th gen, it was the N64 and Saturn, even if the former had some of the bestselling games of that generaion.

In the 6th gen, it was the Gamecube and Xbox.

This time around, the Wii and DS may lead in hardware, but in terms of support and game sales, all the systems are doing well. The PSP may have the lowest attach rate, but it still caught a second wind after Monster Hunter became the first platinum PSP game in Japan. And the PS3 may have lost exclusives, but it's only lost a few games outright, and it's multiplatform games usually sell about 2/3 of their 360 counterparts, if not more.

If developers had not been so slow to catch on to the Wii's success (which Capcom outright admitted), the Wii would likely be leaving the other systems in the dust. The system may likely have a lot of support by the end of the year, but the other systems already have some bestselling games, which guarantees companies will be supporting them as well.

This announcement for Final Fantasy XIII may be just the final sign this is so. Even though the HD system do have high selling games, the costs of them are already sky high, easily twice as high as what a big budget Wii game would be. So multiplatform releases make the most sense in this case. Even games on the 360 are usually on the PC as well. I'm not sure how much FF XIII will cost, but if it's even close to Too Human's $70 million, or even GTA IV's $100 million, I can see why S-E is hedging their bets.

In short, it was investing in systems with sky high development costs, combined with slow support for the system that would turn out to sell the most, are two major reasons that this generation will have support for the systems spread far more evenly than they have before. This will ultimately be good for all of them, since the Wii is selling out even without dominant developer support, and the other two systems are still selling, even if not as fast.