I think you're misunderstanding how Quick Save works in NSMB. It's a temporary save. When you load it, it deletes (signified by the balloon floating away on the save screen). So if you do a Quick Save and then your kid loads it up but doesn't make any progress, he can't just turn it off. That Quick Save is gone. Got to make another one or else you're going back to the last castle you beat.

This is to prevent save-abuse. They want you to get through half a world at the very least with the amount of lives that you have. They also don't want you to immediately reload if you fail to get a coin that requires a particular suit or something.

Some people still feel that it should be Save Anytime (which you unlock when you beat Bowser), that fair is fair and if I beat a level it should immediately be etched in the annals of Mario History. It's debatable.

This phrase makes me very, very angry.

To some. To me, it's not. It honestly, and I'm not exaggerating, makes me never want to turn on the game again.

You look so happy and fulfilled!

Why am I both picturing and horrified by a "Deliverance" mod for the Hunter? And if someone doesn't say "X-COM" in next week's Games You Can Play Now segment, I'll be disappointed.

It just depends on what the game is designed for. In Demon's Souls, a save system beyond the temporary quick save that happens when you quit a game would fundamentally change the experience. You're meant to die and experience the tension permanent loss of resources brings.

In Mario, I think a save anywhere system would ultimately reduce the play time quite a bit. For a decent player it's only a six hour game as is. If you could save right before a tricky part, you'd be done in half that time I bet. Tough value proposition for a full price Wii game.

I'd prefer save anywhere be an option in Mario right from the start rather than a prize for finishing the game. Like vita-chambers in Bioshock, players could choose how much they're willing to replay a section.

On the other hand, it's pretty damn clear after immersing myself in Demon's Souls that fighting to increase your player skill through repetition and tension is rewarding in its own way. Given the option to save anywhere, I'd use it because like most people I don't like losing progress, but the game would be half of what it is now.

Glad to hear Elysium (and Cory) back on the show. His input/stance during the JRPG segment is a good example of what he adds to the show, of which I miss when he's gone. No more extended traveling for you, sir.

Looking forward to the Xmas show.

Great Show,

With respect to Japanese games. I can relate to Sands, but I'd say my dislike is more focus onto a narrow stereotype of Japanese games.

BEGIN RANT(); OverGeneralizing="true";
That would be Square RPGs and anything that is remotely like Square RPGs. FF7 was popular, but please stop! How in the heck am I supposed to take your game seriously when every other character looks like they were trying to reach a space-disco fashion show and got trapped in my Playstation? The last "JRPG" I liked was Chrono Trigger, and I'm pretty sure at this point that it was because the sprites were so simple, and the dialogue so well localized (not just translated) that it didn't come across as overwhelmingly Japanese. This is not to say bald space-marines are automatically better than large-breasted-she-looks-12-but-she's-really-21-so-it's-ok-cat-girls. I think the bald space marines get somewhat of a pass just because of the culture difference of "I'm more comfortable feeling like a psycho-path while blowing skulls off of torsos than I'm feeling like a pervert watching a squeaky anime girl bounce up and down during a 20 minute cut scene."

I think most JRPG fans will consider the wild character designs and lengthy cut scenes a bonus, and sure, that's fine for them, but I think these sorts of games could reach a much wider audience if they held back just a little. Maybe come up with a plot reason why party member X is fighting in a dress made out of belts instead of, like, armor. Maybe think twice before putting that cat-girl in there.
END RANT();

Surely you mean "The hell with that game."
The Media Molecule guys are actually very nice.

I happily separate the actions of a team who develops a game and their real life personas, so let me be more specific.

Individually, I'd love to sit down to a nice dinner with the Media Molecule individuals to discuss the finer points of game design.

If, however, the entire team formed into some kind of Voltron like entity, I'd punch it right in the face.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, so I'm sure I'll get more context and have more comments yet to come, but I can't help but raise my eyebrow at this comment, if only because it so completely clashes with my own personal experience.

As a six year old, I was getting my @$$ handed to me by Legend of Zelda and Castlevania; to me, challenge (and, most importantly, failure) is not only a part of gaming, but one of the key parts of what makes the content in the games compelling in the first place. Simply experiencing the defeat of Dracula in Castlevania offered a little bit of pleasure as a kid, but it was the additional context - the realization that I've fought my way through this long, arduous game - that really made it that much more satisfying.

By contrast, I feel like what I've played of the Lego series (the pre-eminent "play this with your kids!" recommendation) with my daughter has been nothing but pablum, just mindless game mechanics carrying us across the game. She likes Lego Indiana Jones, sure, but she also likes Super Mario Bros, Bubble Bobble, and Pac Man...and the difference with the games in the latter is that she seems much more engaged in the actual game itself, the act of playing it.

All of this, of course, is completely anecdotal. And maybe, after a while of playing more Lego Indiana Jones, she'll come to like it more. But I'm convinced, at this point, that her appeal with Lego is the actual Lego universe itself and not her ability to wander around it with impunity.

EDIT: And apologies if I'm retreading old arguments, either on the podcast or on the forum at large. Just wanted to throw my own specifically-personal take on it.

Wil Wheaton will be our Billy Crystal.

Does Evochron do trading (like Freelancer) or is it only combat (like Starlancer)? Otherwise I'm surprised EVE wasn't at least mentioned. Maybe it's jumping into the deepest of deep ends, but what else is there that contemporary and successful in the realm of space sims?

As for a board game that's easy for non-geeks but satisfying for veteran players, won't take all night, replayable, co-op, and lots of fun? Last Night on Earth!

Citadels (one of my absolute favourites) would also be a good idea, and can accommodate up to eight players. It's quick, easy to learn, and has a big and familiar poker-ish element of bluffing and double-bluffing that could mitigate any non-geek's apprehension over a game about city-building with cards.

I don't think there's much comparison to be made between the games we were playing as kids and the games of today. I just think the complexion of the industry, the size of the player base and the ability for developers to make age-appropriate content has changed too much. I also believe statements like this are made through the distorted lens of memory.

I know a lot of six year olds. A by product of having one. Here is one thing I can say confidently. They suck at video games. Maybe the ones you know are fueled by some illegal local eugenics program, I dunno.

Enforced artificial difficulty is a byproduct of an immature industry. It is a cancer that should have long since been excised.

If you like Demigod you should come over and play League of Legends with a bunch of us. You're able to play for free.

It's east of France and I'd hazard that's the furthest into Europe most of us in the States consider mainstream, and that only because of Ubisoft.

In response to the exercise talk, who would've thought so many people would be interested in starting an exercise routine the week after Thanksgiving?