Balancing The Force

This blog comes in light of some renewed Star Wars discussion due to Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm. Before I get into the actual topic, I'd just like to put down a quick word on my opinion of this turn of events.

This is a good thing. George Lucas has a solid creative mind, but he's a world-builder. He's not a writer or a director. His talent is coming up with the scope and outline. He drew on his influences and ideas to create the greater Star Wars universe, and others filled in the smaller details. That's why the original trilogy turned out as good as it did. George Lucas' excessive micromanagement of the prequel trilogy made for poorer movies, despite the fact it featured some incredible visuals, concepts, planets, and people.

The Disney acquisition brings the opportunity to breathe some fresh life into the franchise, keeping George Lucas as a creative director (where he should be) but turning the reins for the writing, direction, and production over to someone else. Disney is a huge organization, so chances are pretty high that they can come up with a team that will make the next Star Wars movie a true blockbuster hit. Remember, Disney is more than just kid-oriented animation, goofy villains, and G-ratings. If you don't believe me, go watch Finding Nemo and The Lion King again and tell me that those movies are strictly for children. Or think back to the old (sadly closed) Extra-terror-estrial Alien Encounter attraction. Disney has capable creative minds.

---

Disclaimer: Expanded Universe is well and good, but ultimately leads to conflicting conclusions. EU material is, after all, based on the interpretations and opinions of various creators and authors. Here I will specifically discuss my own "head-canon" based on my observations and experiences with Star Wars canon. I don't follow, for example, the storyline wherein the Emperor is only "temporarily" dead because he cloned himself, as this inherently undermines the entire purpose of Anakin Skywalker defeating him in Return of the Jedi. What follows is my interpretation of the Star Wars series and its themes, specifically with regards to Balancing the Force.

"Remember, abilities are not inherently good or evil, it's how you use them." -Kyle Katarn

Darth Vader is well-known for his use of the Force to choke victims. Emperor Palpatine notably never raised a weapon against Luke Skywalker. Instead he demonstrated his power through his words, proving to be an effective manipulator, and his strength in the Force by conjuring lightning to finish Luke off. "Force choke" and "Force lightning" thus became the archetypal "Dark Side" powers. That lends to an incorrect notion of the Force and what "Light Side" and "Dark Side" really mean.

My basic understanding of the Force is that it's just the Force. It doesn't have a Light Side or a Dark Side. It just is. The few times that the phrase "Dark side of the Force" are even used in the movies are to describe not aspects of the Force, but aspects of a person. Yoda says "anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force they are." These are emotions that can be channeled and focused to produce certain effects, such as Vader's grip and Palpatine's lightning. And according to Yoda, they come quickly and easily during trying times, tempting one to submit to them for an immediate gain.

With that in mind, Anakin Skywalker was the "chosen one" who would bring balance to the Force. The Jedi traditionally interpreted this to mean destroying the Sith. According to George Lucas, the original Star Wars trilogy centers around Anakin's children redeeming him and his fulfillment of the prophecy by the end of Return of the Jedi, confirming that the Jedi interpretation was more-or-less correct. Despite George Lucas' inconsistencies and shortcomings, I still believe he is the most credible source for general conceptual canon; therefore, I accept it as fact that Anakin Skywalker "brought balance to the Force" when he turned from the Dark side and killed Emperor Palpatine.

I reject the idea that the balancing of the Force took place during Revenge of the Sith. By the end of the movie, two Jedi and two Sith remained; Expanded Universe says more survived beyond the events of Episode III, but we can at least conclude that by the time of A New Hope, there were two of each remaining. Some fans consider this to be a balance, and it is in strict numerical terms. I like the thematic effect this promotes of a misread prophecy, because it creates dramatic tension and leads to character development for Obi-Wan and Yoda. But this is not the balance to which the prophecy referred. It's a twisted sort of balance, the kind that a man like Palpatine would embrace as right. It's the kind of thing that would cast doubt and instill fear in the last of the Jedi, which are two things that feed the Dark side.

I also reject the idea that "balancing the Force" means literally destroying the Sith. As I said above, the Jedi interpretation was more-or-less correct. It wasn't completely correct. The prequel trilogy gives a look at the Jedi Order and the Old Republic, and what those movies show is very important to the true meaning of balance. The Jedi had become corrupt during a time of lengthy peace, as had the Republic. The Jedi fell into the assumption that their ways were always right, their code was flawless, and their teachings promoted the best characters in pupils. On the other side of their identity coin were the Sith, who were the evil in the universe. The Jedi thought the Sith were extinct. When they discovered that Sith still existed, the Jedi immediately latched on to the idea that the prophecy would be fulfilled by their defeat.

Prophecies are tricky things. They almost always manifest in unexpected way that make perfect sense retrospectively. Aside from the generic end of bringing balance to the Force, there was absolutely no mechanism suggested by which this would occur other than by the hand of a particularly strong individual. And the Jedi failed to realize the true scope of the imbalance in the Force.

Remember, the Force is an energy field that connects all life. Jedi and Sith in particular are adept at tapping into it, but it nonetheless connects every living being. The Jedi had a narrow-minded view of balance that dealt specifically with Force-sensitive people only. They failed to regard the billions of beings in the galaxy who were not Force-sensitive and focused only on the struggle between Jedi and Sith. Unfortunately, most of those billions were just as unaware of the imbalance and the corruption that characterized the fall of the Old Republic. Bringing balance to the Force was a much bigger task than anyone realized.

The means by which Anakin Skywalker began the process of balancing the Force were unfortunate but necessary. He started by throwing things into a much bigger, more marked imbalance. If he had truly fulfilled the prophecy by wiping out the Jedi, we would expect to see harmony and peace. Instead we see the rise of a fascist, evidently human supremacist empire headed by a master manipulator with a disregard for the lives of those beneath him. The Jedi and the Republic were corrupt, but nowhere near as corrupt as the Empire and its Sith master. It was that level of corruption that couldn't be missed or ignored that caused the Rebellion to be born.

In the end, Anakin completed his prophetic task by turning from the Dark side (redeemed by his love for his son), defeated Palpatine, and brought an end to the Empire. In so doing, he defeated the man that embodied the Dark side, but also defeated the greater impacts and influences of the Dark side. What was important was not eliminating the persons of the Sith, as thought by the Jedi, but removing the corruption. He didn't win a duel with a Sith Lord, he won an ideological struggle with the Sith teachings. In the wake of the Battle of Endor, the Rebellion was able to found a New Republic and a New Jedi Order to replace the old, in a newly-balanced galaxy.

So ultimately, the imbalance wasn't the over-abundance of Jedi compared to Sith, it was the influence of the Dark side. Not just in the Sith, but in the Jedi and in all of the citizens of the Republic. That influence temporarily gained complete control, but when it was eventually expunged the galaxy went back into order.

Nature vs. Nature

Nature - the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character; disposition or temperament; tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behavior; the normal biological needs or urges of the body

Conscience - the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action; the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.

"They show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Romans 2:15

---

I find it weird that people would look to human nature or instinct as a baseline for morality. I've heard so many people say that morality differs from person to person and from place to place, based on what is "right" for each individual. The entire premise is that an individual's nature, as defined above, sets the bar for moral standards. For the sake of argument, I'll gladly consider that line of thinking. It's worth investigating.

But here's a question: if our nature determines our morality, how can we trust our nature to be reliable?

Allow me to explain. It's universally accepted that no human is perfect. This idea seems so trivial, but in reality it says something very deep about humans. Even the staunchest moral relativist will not deny that no one is perfect. If none is perfect, then all are imperfect. It's an admission, by negation, that there is such a thing as "wrong." Even if only on a purely individual, entirely subjective and relative level, "wrong" exists.

It's also universally accepted that humans have a sense of "ought" and "should." We all have standards to live by and things that we value. These are the things what we strive for. Again, even if only on an individual level, there's a notion of "right." We define this as "conscience."

At this point, I must point out something that's pretty obvious: there's a duality to human nature. We are compelled to do both right and wrong. Nature and Conscience are not always in harmony. So I'll refer back to my question. How can we trust our nature to be reliable? How do we decide which compulsions are morally acceptable, and which compulsions are morally reprehensible? What's on the right side and the wrong side in the battle of Nature vs. Nature?

I have an answer to that question, but it's not a popular answer:

There is no meaningful way to determine morality by human nature. There is an absolute standard of morality, and human nature only gets us part of the way there. The best we can ever do is realize that morality exists and we don't meet its standards. Our conscience tells us this, by introspection. We have a sense of what is right, and yet still do wrong.

I'll bet you see where I'm going with this.

The beginning of Paul's letter to the Roman church lays down a pretty shocking statement about the speculations and intellect of man. If by chance you're a reader of this blog other than a small handful of people I know are familiar with it, I encourage you to read that excerpt a couple of times and think about it.

I don't buy into subjective morality. The best offering's I've heard from that kind of thinking are "that may be right for you, but it's wrong for me." I could be a serial rapist or murderer, and subjective morality would have a very hard time implicating me. Yet the thought of serial rapists and murderers makes us uncomfortable, and inevitably conjures a notion of wrongness.

I'll make a bold claim, because I'm not satisfied yet. Subjective morality only exists to assuage the consciences of the guilty. It's the only possible way around the nagging, inescapable condemnation of our own hearts. It's the only way to justify ourselves, the unjustifiable. But it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. It offers no solution, no answers, and no goodness.

I'll leave with one final question, the biggest one: if you don't believe in God, are you absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the guilt and fear of facing His judgment?

Video Games: Least Favorites

Now, before you read this list, I have to make one thing very clear: this is not a list of bad video games. This is a list of video games that I thoroughly did not enjoy. Some of them are highly-acclaimed, but I don't really give a flying fig what the critics say. I found them boring, frustrating, overly complex, or something else. Some of them I've completed, others I couldn't stand to play long enough. As with the favorites, this is a "soft" order, primarily by how disappointing I found the games compared to how good I thought they would be.

And today I will not be lazy, and fix the HTML code so they're reverse-numbered.

EDIT: All of these games (with the exception of Super Smash Bros.) were played on Xbox 360. It was brought to my attention that I should have a fairly consistent standard of review, so this is just a disclaimer that I'm not basing any of these opinions on cross-platform experiences.

Least Favorites:

10. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Nintendo 2008)
    Anybody who has ever talked to me about video games should know that I intensely dislike this game. I've never been a huge fan of the Super Smash Bros. series, but I did play the first two games and got at least a moderate level of enjoyment out of them. Not this one. This is one of the most annoying fighting games to play, because it requires a very specific and odd set of skills revolving primarily around air-dodging (read: flying) back to the level after you get knocked off. Some characters like Kirby and Metaknight make sense in this regard, as they can actually fly. But when I blast Solid Snake or Pikachu off the edge of a platform into oblivion, then they "air-dodge" their way back, it completely breaks my desire to play anymore. When I play a fighting game, I want to know the win conditions. If you ring-out, you lose. If you take 100% damage, you lose. Super Smash Bros. takes these standard fighting rules and throws them out the window, instead relying on "smash attacks" to force a super ring-out. That's the only way to win. You can beat your opponent bloody up to 999% damage and still lose. Every time I've ever played this game, I just get a sinking feeling of powerlessness. Especially when someone gets that one pickup item that allows them to do a screen-wide smash attack that basically blows everything else away instantly. I've never had any fun playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl and I never will. I also don't own it, and haven't picked it up in years. The only reason it's on this list is because it stands out to me as one of the definitive games that left a sour taste in my mouth. A close second is the Wii Mario Kart, which was leagues worse than Mario Kart Double Dash on the GameCube (which was a delightful game to play).
9. Aliens vs. Predator (Sega/Rebellion Development 2010)
   If I had to summarize this game in a single word, it would be "uninspired." It doesn't hold a candle to the original Aliens vs. Predator that came out in 1999, nor the excellent sequel Aliens vs. Predator 2 from 2001. Neither of those were perfect (the former having excellent atmosphere but not as good mechanics, and the latter having excellent mechanics but not as good atmosphere), but this game seems to take the flaws of those two games and combine them; it has neither a good atmosphere nor good mechanics. While playing, I always felt as though I were fumbling to control the character. As a marine, my weapons were largely ineffective against even basic alien enemies, forcing me to use a ridiculous block/melee attack combo that makes absolutely no sense (the movies always seemed to show that if you're in close range combat with an alien, you're already dead). As an alien, the marines were blind and had severe short-term memory issues, forgetting that I killed a man a few yards away from them mere seconds ago and proceeding as if everything was just dandy. As a predator...well, I only played the first predator mission, because at that point I was already bored with this game. The campaigns are ridiculously short (about five missions each), so I can only assume that this game was built primarily for multiplayer, which I never even bothered to try. I don't even know if the servers still exist. I don't intend to find out.
8. Prototype (Activision/Radical Entertainment 2009)
   Prototype is a twisted and evil combination of every possible annoying mini-game you can imagine (escort missions, chase missions, escort-chase missions, timed boss battles, etc). It's rather unfortunate, because the game world (New York City) is cool, the parkour-style movement and powers are really fun to play around with, and the story is pretty intriguing too After playing through too many frustrating mini-game-style story missions though, I just couldn't bring myself to do any more. One of the most annoying things in the game is the way that the soldiers patrolling the city will attack you with a ceaseless and indefatigable vigilance, even when there are dozens of more dangerous monsters all around them. It didn't help that I watched my brother play some of the missions I had yet to play, only to discover that more frustration was in store than I could possibly imagine. I just don't have the heart to play anymore. I imagine the developers sitting in a room before starting this game, brainstorming a list of every mission gamers typically hate so that they could include them in the main story. It's unfortunate, because almost every aspect of the game is really neat and innovative. Just not the story missions.
7. Dante's Inferno (EA/Visceral Games 2010)
   This game is clearly a God of War rip-off. That's not what makes me dislike it. The problem is that it's not a perfect God of War rip-off. It's so close, yet so far. They tried for the same kind of epic scenery, but the entire game takes place in hell. After a while, the scenes blend together and everything is more-or-less the same. The controls aren't as polished or effective, and the weapons and powers aren't as good. The game has a weird level-up system that involves choosing between "dark" powers (that focus on the scythe weapon) and "light" powers (that focus on the ranged magic cross attack). The cross is borderline overpowered, except in certain circumstances where it's completely useless. As a result, trying to decide what powers to level up is a nuisance. The enemies are weird and gross, but not really in a way that's scary or unsettling. The puzzles and traps are infuriating, especially the ones involving timers and the exploding zombie things. It's far from being a truly bad game, but it falls in the shadow of its predecessor and its greater. There's no way to fully appreciate it after playing God of War. And why did Dante's wife/girlfriend go to hell because he cheated on her? That's just not fair.
   
   
6. Fallout 3 (Bethesda Softworks 2008)
   The next two games I didn't put very much time into, because I was quickly disillusioned. My problem with Fallout 3 is extremely specific, and not representative of the whole game. Even knowing this, I have to place it on the list because the experience I had with it was really dissatisfying. See, in Fallout 3, you have guns. Whenever I have guns in a game, I assume it's a shooter. That's not an unreasonable assumption, all things considered. When I starting assigning skill points, I skipped over the skill that grants "action points" to use with the VATS in combat. I figured, what do I need VATS for? I've played plenty of shooters, I'll just use my shooter skills to kill bad guys. The answer, of course, is that you're not supposed to play like a shooter. You're supposed to use VATS to do the work for you. So there I was with my one action point per combat scenario, attempting to fight off mutants and giant ant things and bandits, and it wasn't working. My guns were ineffective without VATS. I might as well have been shooting spit balls. So I quit. I don't want to play a game where I have to choose between doing any kind of noticeable damage and aiming/shooting my own guns. A gun is a gun in my book, regardless of how many skill points I put into my targeting-computer skill tree. It should kill things without requiring three full magazines of steady fire. I may yet try Fallout: New Vegas, especially considering my experience with my next-least-favorite game and its sequel...
5. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2K Games/Bethesda Game Studios 2006)
   I almost didn't play Skyrim because of this game. I'm glad I ended up taking some time to try it despite my reservations. I really did not enjoy the time I spent playing Oblivion. Choosing a race and class and skills at the beginning is extremely complicated. Before playing Oblivion, I had no experience with The Elder Scrolls. It isn't beginner-friendly at all. I remember sifting through what seemed like 40 different classes, the distinction between each being skills that I wasn't familiar enough with to actually make a meaningful choice. After I chose a custom class with a few skills that just sounded cool, I set off into the game world to be harassed by wolves. Then I found out that I could gain skill points in athletics (or something like that) by jumping. And I asked myself, "do I really want to play a game where I have to level up a skill by jumping, over and over again?" The answer was a resounding no. There were just too many skills in Oblivion. It was too complex for me to sit down and get into. I stuck it out for a little while, venturing into the titular realm of Oblivion and facing off against some demon-imp things which made short work of my inexperienced self. That's when I decided I couldn't do it anymore. I had no idea what was going on, there were 4,000 different skill trees to develop, and the combat in one of the first battles killed me. Oh, and the third-person view (which I greatly prefer  to the first person in Skyrim) was terrible. It made for a very negative entrance into the world of The Elder Scrolls, which fortunately was vastly improved when I later played around with Skyrim.
   
   
4. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (LucasArts 2008)
   This is hands down the most frustrating game I have ever played. It's worse than Prototype, because it doesn't even have the sweet parkour moves or the giant city to run around. A big part of the problem is that every Force-sensitive character in this game is obscenely powerful for no apparent reason. Remember in Star Wars when Darth Vader ripped down giant trees, smashed TIE fighters into each other, and made towering leaps, all with the Force? No? That's right, because it didn't happen. In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda lifts an X-Wing by concentrating deeply. Yoda is canonically one of the most powerful Force users ever. But this game isn't satisfied with that namby-pamby stuff. If you aren't slicing AT-ST's in half vertically, ripping airlock doors open, or dragging Star Destroyers out of the sky with a mere thought, what are you doing with your life?
   
   You ask, what's wrong with that? It's a game, and cool awesome powers are cool, right? In theory, yes. The problem is, in order for this game to be anything close to a challenge as you run around blasting the life force out of everything with just a flick of your wrist or a wink of your eye, the enemies have to be incredibly, unrealistically tough. Storm troopers die pretty hard to a blast of Force lightning. So give them impenetrable energy shields! AT-ST's are prone to being sliced in half vertically (I think I mentioned that earlier). So give them homing rocket launchers and super armor! Make up some super powerful new Imperial soldiers that would have crushed the Rebellion to a pulp! Give the emperor's personal guards lightsabers and Jedi training! The result is a game in which the player character is exaggeratedly strong in the Force, and the enemies have the most ridiculous arsenal imaginable. It's too much, because those enemies outnumber you hundreds to one. Throw in some excruciating boss battles (that junkyard guy with the metal legs and weird lightsaber-staff, Shaak Ti, and sure-why-not Darth Maul), and this game is a cocktail of rage-inducing gameplay. The on-screen prompt for the Star Destroyer pull was 100% useless as well, forcing me to look to the internet for a walkthrough just so that I could do it properly. The story was nothing great either, being a shoe-horned tale of Darth Vader's "secret apprentice" that sort of explained the beginnings of the Rebellion unnecessarily. And there's a sequel, too. I think I'll pass.
3. Borderlands (2K Games/Gearbox Software 2009)
   Borderlands is one of those co-op based RPG games where looting stuff is basically what you do. Loot to find better weapons, and in lieu of that loot to find stuff to sell to buy better weapons. I don't necessarily have anything against that aspect of gameplay. However, I quickly discovered that Borderlands is almost impossible to play single player. I don't necessarily have anything against that aspect either. However, it's also an RPG complete with skill points and weapon proficiencies. Again, that's not something I necessarily have anything against. When you combine those three aspects though, you get a game that is hard to enjoy except under a specific set of circumstances. You need to have a group of friends who are willing to accomodate your play style, who allow you to loot when you need to, who won't rush, and who (basically) have the same level of experience with the game as you do. When I tried Borderlands, I had none of those things. Playing as Mordecai the sniper with a couple guys who just love to punch/machine-gun-at-close-range everything and blast through the game, having already beaten it multiple times and amassed a fortune in game-dollars, is not even remotely fun. Since playing single player isn't really an option, Borderlands has basically nothing to offer me. Also, the quests are glorified errand-running, consisting of either killing someone or finding X of Item Y and bringing it somewhere. Whatever story there is doesn't really have much play, at least during the beginning few hours of the game that I played. So I just quit playing. I won't be buying Borderlands 2.
2. Half-Life 2 (Valve/Sierra Entertainment 2004)
   It wasn't until about a year ago that I decided to finally play through Half-Life 2 and its subsequent expansion episodes. I played through about 70% of it previously before my computer had issues and would no longer run it, but I started again from scratch with the Orange Box edition on Xbox 360. Half-Life 2 introduced the Source engine with its revolutionary physics, and while I admire the achievement, the game only served to kill the proverbial horse and then beat it. Over and over and over again. There were just too many bland physics puzzles based on balancing a see-saw with some barrels, or lowering an elevator with some barrels, or making a bridge with some barrels, or floating some barrels in the toxic waste. To be fair, there were some cool moments in the game like unleashing the ant lions on Nova Prospekt prison, crossing the support beams of a massive bridge, and blasting Combine troops with the super-charged gravity gun. But the rest of the game just didn't have it. It was too easy to miss plot-relevant conversations if you weren't standing close enough (read: six inches away from) speaking characters. The silent protagonist aspect wasn't as effective as the first game because in this one there were more characters milling about and actively addressing Gordon. The story itself was hidden in the world, as Valve is known for doing, but in this case the story needed to be active and engaging rather than relegated to graffiti and NPC conversations. I never got the sense that I was in a story. Instead it felt like I was leading Gordon Freeman down a predetermined path because that was the goal of the game.
   
   
   And the straw that breaks the camel's back comes straight out of Episode 2. The final mission was nightmarish. I tried it several times before giving up completely. There was no way I could 1) throw sticky bombs at striders while 2)surviving against hunters who shoot me and destroy the bombs I'm trying to shoot at the striders, while also 3) trying to drive a clunky-controlled car around a small town, 4) on a time limit. Combine the infuriating number of difficult things to do here with the lack of engagement in the story, and you get me just skipping over the level entirely to see the game's finale. Which was a cliffhanger (that's okay) that has yet to be resolved by an Episode 3 or a Half-Life 3 (that'ts not okay). Screw you, Half-Life 2.
1. Mass Effect 3 (EA/BioWare 2012)
   The first question I'd ask myself about this is, "How can this game be #1 if you've played it for over 300 hours?" Well, that's easy: almost all of that time was spent on multiplayer. The multiplayer really isn't too bad. It's a little repetitive and the reward unlock system is often frustrating, but I can derive satisfaction from unlocking new things and winning matches (which, on higher difficulties, is no small feat). Plus, the DLC has been fairly steady and, more importantly, free. Thus, I've kept enough interest to play with a small group of friends.
   
   
   That said, Mass Effect 3 easily deserves the top spot on this list. It's no contest at all. Mass Effect 3 brought very little to the table. To be specific, it brought improved combat mechanics and weapons, and that's literally all. The story was an unmitigated disaster, which wasn't as apparent watching it unfold, but in retrospect it's clearly a debacle. Most side quests were nothing more than errands that didn't even involve leaving the ship; the only saving grace was the Reaper chase mini-game that was amusing and granted the really cool Reaper horn noise if you scanned too many times. The level design towards the end of the game was bland. The enemies weren't threatening or difficult, and the fake-impossible pseudo-boss-battle with Kai Leng (where he had unlimited shields and an invincible gunship) was annoying and cheap. There was no payoff with Harbinger, the big villain from Mass Effect 2 with his constant taunts and threats; he was relegated to 20 seconds of screen time and had no speaking lines. The high points in the game, fixing the Krogan genophage and winning Rannoch back for the Quarians, were overshadowed by an idiot plot and relegated to almost complete irrelevance outside of their respective missions and a "war assets" score. The gaming journalist Jessica Chobot of IGN was given a voice role for an avatar character. Conflict of interest? What's that? Perhaps most insultingly, numerous blatant lies were told by high-level developers during the marketing campaign, even up until the week prior to the game's release, about game features and content. Mass Effect 3 was a disappointment and a PR catastrophe. 

Video Games: Favorites

I decided to make up a list of my favorite and least-favorite video games. I'll start off with my favorites. They are in order, but it's kind of a "soft" order based on a number of factors (nostalgia, personal impact, and overall liking of the game) rather than a strict scale. The least-favorites will be in a subsequent post. Disclaimer: there may be some spoilers in here. I'm just writing my thoughts as they come out.

Favorites:

1. Tomb Raider (Eidos Interactive/Core Design 1996)
   
   I place this game at number one primarily because it was the first "real" game I played (but mostly watched Billy play) in addition to  it being a great game. Tomb Raider is cool. It has guns and puzzles and nifty ancient locations inexplicably filled with hostile wildlife and complex traps. The most common complaint is the clunky control scheme, but it was a perfect fit for the game. Combined with the square grid construction, it makes the action and the puzzles simple (if not always easy) to solve and execute, relieving a lot of tension and frustration that results from game puzzles that are less strictly built. For example, there's never any need to question "can I make that jump?" and follow up with repeated save-scum attempts. You count the number of squares and go from there. Often I miss this feature in games today. Leaps of faith just aren't fun gameplay mechanics. As for story, Tomb Raider has one of those plots that mostly serves to simply tie all the levels together, but still has one of the craziest twists leading to the visceral (literally) and creepy final set of levels in Atlantis. It's a solid game to kick off a solid franchise that lives on today (though I rue the multiple unnecessary reboots).
2. StarCraft (Blizzard Entertainment 1998)
   
   StarCraft is so epic in scope, in a couple of ways. I'll talk about the multiplayer first, because that's where many, many hours of my early teenage years were spent. StarCraft is incredibly versatile. The standard matches were fun enough, but the custom maps were what really made it shine. The blending of customization and standard gameplay (specifically on the "infinite money" maps) is something that  greatly appeals to me. I like to make huge armies and have giant battles without having to worry about meticulous resource management (the latter is something I leave to the pros). But even that falls in the shadow of some of the truly ingenious "use map settings" games that people devised. There are maps for basically everything imaginable: Star Wars, Aeon of Strife, StarCraft Expanded Universe scenarios, Risk, Diplomancy, Roleplaying, Crash RPG (one of my favorites), Tower Defense (the original), Resident Evil, Lord of the Rings...you name it, there was almost certainly a map for it. And most of them were cool, well-designed and well-executed maps. But that's not the only thing that made StarCraft great. It has an incredible campaign mode with a riveting story; it's weird to say that about an RTS, but it's true. The campaigns themselves are fairly easy to complete, but there's a wealth of neat scripted events and dialogue that move things along. The manual contains a very in-depth back story leading up to the events of the game, and there's a real sense of a massive war going on in which the stakes are the future of life in the galaxy.
3. Mass Effect (Microsoft Game Studios/BioWare 2007)
   
   Mass Effect loses the top spot only because Tomb Raider and StarCraft are such a huge part of my childhood/teens. Mass Effect likewise defines a significant portion of my young-adulthood and my beginnings in what people call "gaming" (i.e. playing video games as a specific hobby, rather than just casually). Of all the games on this list, I would consider Mass Effect to be the greatest. It has its flaws: a little too much menu-jockeying, an abundance of mostly useless loot, a cover-fire system that doesn't serve any real purpose, recycled sidequest locations, and the infamous Mako driving sections. But the flaws are far outshined by the overwhelming successes. Mass Effect creates a deep and believable world in which every planet has a dossier, every piece of technology is described in depth, and every race has a complex background that sets the stage for the events and conflicts of the game. It puts you in the shoes of a character that you can shape according to your personality and by your actions. It gives you the ability to use awesome futuristic powers and weapons. It has a cast of interesting characters with unique experiences and tales to tell. Best of all, it mixes bright-eyed science fiction of days gone by with Lovecraftian cosmic horror, while promoting themes of unity, hope, and perseverance in the face of the longest odds. Meanwhile it explores applicable issues (Tolkien would be proud) of racial prejudice, technological impact, and governmental/bureaucratic hindrance. Mass Effect is huge, cool, and rich. And it has Garrus Vakarian. What more could you ask for?
   
   
4. Mass Effect 2 (EA/BioWare 2010)
   
   I generally don't believe in putting two games from a series on a "best of" list, but I have to make an exception. Mass Effect 2 is distinct and good enough to warrant a place alongside Mass Effect. It continues the epic tale set up in the first game, kicking off with one of the most dramatic and immersive opening sequences I've personally laid eyes upon. It improves on just about every flaw from the original by fixing the cover-fire system, simplifying the interface and menus, doing away with recycled locations, and giving the already cool powers more kick and versatility. The cast of characters is increased (some old faces return, and even more new ones are introduced), and the game really focuses in on developing those characters. It sheds light on some of the seedier parts of the Mass Effect world, such as the ruined Krogan home world and the "wretched hive of scum and villainy" that is Omega Station. One of the most impressive and interesting parts of the entire game lies in uncovering some of the truth behind the Geth, the primary antagonists of Mass Effect. It's darker than the first, but continues to explore the same themes and issues. It's more compact and personal, and in so being effectively fills the role of Trilogy Act II. The follow-up may have been lackluster, but Mass Effect 2 remains one of the best games out there.
5. BioShock (2K Games 2007)
   
   BioShock, the spiritual successor to System Shock, is one of the more engrossing games I've played. It has a unique art deco setting laced with steampunk technology, crafting a sort of high-minded yet slightly unsettling atmosphere. It's like the uncanny valley of game worlds. Add to that the fact that almost everyone in the city of Rapture has gone crazy from genetic manipulation (and those who haven't aren't exactly all there themselves), and the vigilant patrols by the Big Daddies and the eerie harvesting Little Sisters, and it makes for a tense, creepy, and emotionally impacting game experience. It's truly harrowing, and kind of tiring in a sense; when I completed BioShock, I felt mixed senses of relief at escaping and disgust and horror at the place I'd left behind. It was a kind of closure that felt so much like I'd actually been there, and never ever wanted to go back (which is not at all to say I wouldn't play it again, but I didn't really feel to keen about playing the sequel). As for gameplay, the genetic modifications and powers made it fully customizable and extremely fun; never before have I been able to choose between setting an enemy on fire with a snap of a finger, unleashing on them a horde of angry bees from out of my hand, or hacking a security terminal so that automated drones hunt them down; and that's just some of the abilities BioShock offers. The multitude of weapons and upgrades adds even more variety and strategy. The divergent ending shows two possible outcomes depending on how you chose to deal with the eerie Little Sisters. And I would be remiss not to mention one of the coolest plot twists ever, one that throws everything you do in the game into question while neatly hanging a lampshade on the nature of linear gameplay. BioShock is so well done in every way.
6. Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast (LucasArts/Activision/Raven Software 2002)
   
   There are tons of Star Wars games out there. Of the several that I have played, a couple of them make this list very easily. Jedi Outcast follows Kyle Katarn, an ex-Jedi, as he investigates some shenanigans that the Imperial remnant are up to in the outer reaches of a galaxy far, far away. It turns out to be more than he bargained for, and long story short Kyle decides to pick up the lightsaber and become a Jedi again. The game is a huge improvement over its predecessor, Dark Forces 2. The comical live-action FMV sequences are gone and the controls are improved greatly, especially the third-person lightsaber combat. The story is a little bit contrived, centering around Force-infused crystals that grant Jedi powers to soldiers so that they can be more powerful soldiers that can overthrow the new Jedi Order, but the gameplay shines. It's smooth and powerful, and really gives the feel of playing as a nigh-unstoppable Jedi against an army of well-equipped bad guys. There's no ability to choose which Force powers to level up, which some might consider to be a negative feature, but it allows the game to flow smoothly and scale properly by granting powers at the appropriate time and giving the player scenarios they can handle with those powers. Other games (notably the sequel, Jedi Academy) that allow power customization suffer from a sort of stagnation, where each level features roughly the same enemies and puzzles, just in case you didn't level up this or that power. In short, I mark this as a positive feature of the game. It's suitable and effective. The locations in the game are also very neat, ranging from Imperial outposts to Nar Shaddaa alleyways to a huge Imperial flagship that Kyle must help to disable from within. Interestingly, there's no light/dark side scale/choice in this game. Again, this is suitable, because it allows the game to do its thing without being overly complicated while still giving you access to a range of powers including Force choke and Force lightning. The game is what some might refer to derisively as "linear," but in this case it's a hugely positive thing.
7. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (LucasArts/BioWare 2003)
   
   Knights of the Old Republic is the other obvious Star Wars game to make this list. Quite the opposite of Jedi Outcast, this game offers complete customization and role play, focusing less on the sheer brute combat power of the Jedi and more on the diplomatic side. That's not to say that combat is scant, but the pen-and-paper-RPG style of this game feels quite different. Knights goes back thousands of years before the Star Wars movies, into the true Old Republic during a period of war. The Republic has a full army and are locked in a struggle with the Sith army for galactic dominance. The player character is on a mission to find the legendary Star Forge and attempt to stop the steadily advancing, apparently limitless Sith armada. This game does a lot to expand the Star Wars universe, visiting familiar and new worlds alike (at the time of the game's release, Kashyyyk and the greater Wookiee race had not been shown on-screen yet). It also takes a close look at the dynamics of the Jedi Order, their teachings, and the nature of the omnipresent light vs. dark struggle. Each character has their own alignment and insights to offer on the struggle, and the ultimate takeaway is that the Jedi Order, despite their best intentions, have to be ever vigilant lest they become corrupted by their own strictures (this theme was displayed again in Revenge of the Sith, but didn't come across quite as well as it could have). It's a game that's deeply about choices and self-determination; the big reveal gives a unique opportunity for players to define themselves by their actions rather than their reputation. It's also about compassion, and how the Jedi exemplify it and the Sith refuse it (even though the light/dark side choices are very heavy handed). It's a very deep game, and it's not for everyone, but it has a ton to offer anyone who picks it up.
8. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda Softworks 2011)
   
   Skyrim is one of a tiny few games where the greater story and setting are practically irrelevant to me, and that speaks volumes about the quality of the game. Don't get me wrong: that's not to say there is no story or setting worth writing about, or that the environment isn't completely amazing. It's just something that I didn't focus on. The Elder Scrolls series is absolutely laden with story and flavor elements that are intricately tied to the setting, but I was a newcomer with Skyrim (though I tried my hand at Oblivion and found it too complex for my liking). I don't have the background knowledge to get really immersed in that aspect. As for Skyrim itself, it has no real overarching plot, but rather several story lines running concurrently that have more-or-less equal relevance and importance. The two most obvious are the civil war and the dragons' return (the latter is the "main quest line"), but some other big ones are the Winterhold Mage College, the Thieves Guild, and the Dark Brotherhood. And this single aspect is primarily what makes Skyrim so tremendously great. It's not just a game, it's an entire playable world. There are dozens of characters working for countless different ends, and as the player you are free to involve yourself in any of them. You can build yourself from the ground up. You can construct your own custom weapons and armor with the ability to add various enchantments; craft potions and poisons; become a master thief, a silent assassin, an armored juggernaut of destruction, a powerful mage of several varieties, a werewolf, a vampire; the possibilities are too numerous to write down. And as you wander the world, you will see that it's alive (especially when you wander into a fight to the death between a dragon, a wolly mammoth, and a pair of giants). The scenery is no less epic, with huge mountains, waterfalls, giant frozen oceans, shipwrecks, cities, mining camps, and fortresses of all sorts across the continent. It's so easy to get lost inside the world for hours upon hours, just being a part of all of the things going on. It's a lot more streamlined and simplified from Oblivion (and I'm told the enemy level scaling is fixed as well), which allowed me to get right into it without feeling like I was overwhelmed by the number of skill trees to level up. Skyrim is a near-perfect virtual world experience, quite unlike most games I've played.
9. God of War (Sony Computer Entertainment 2005)
   
   God of War is a spectacle. The concept is extremely simple: kills many, many things, solve some puzzles, fight a boss, dust off your hands and repeat. The execution is much more. From the very beginning, God of War has some of the coolest set pieces in all of video gaming. The first level involves clambering around some ruined ships and confronting the Hydra, and it only gets cooler from there, traversing the city of Athens, the Desert of Lost Souls, the massive Temple of Pandora located on the back of the Titan Cronos, and even the underworld of Hades. The game is challenging, even on the lowest difficulty setting (as none of the puzzles offer any reprieve for playing on Easy mode), but immensely satisfying. A few segments of the game are truly frustrating, but not enough that it sours the whole experience. The controls and combat are excellently designed, allowing simple yet effective combo attacks, dodges, and parries with a very manageable learning curve. The fixed camera is a gem, focusing on the excellent scenery while at the same time making combat simple to handle (though certainly not always easy). The story is nothing to write home about (find Pandora's Box, overthrow Ares), but it's competent and serves to drive the game from point A to point B. Kratos is no one's hero, but strapping on the Blades of Chaos and blasting off towards good old Spartan vengeance is about as worthwhile as it gets in beat-em-up games. It's not a particularly long game, but the several hours of gameplay provided (and more, should you attempt the extremely hard God Mode) are a great experience.
10. Halo: Combat Evolved (Microsoft Game Studios/Bungie 2001)
    
    Halo is so iconic in video gaming that it's hard to imagine it wouldn't land on my best-of list, but I don't include it because of its influence on gaming or the absurdly huge franchise it spawned. On its own merits, in a vacuum, Halo is a great game. I never owned an Xbox, so it wasn't until the PC release that I got to play Halo's campaign in its entirety. Somehow I avoided spoilers (though I speculate it's probably because the internet wasn't quite as huge yet in those days), so when I played it from beginning to end it was a brand new experience. And boy, was it good. Discovering that the eponymous Halo was a weapon of mass destruction designed to wipe out sentient life in the galaxy was a chilling plot twist. It's one of the big reveals that I keep filed away in my mental file of awesome reveals (alongside Revan, Sovereign, and Andrew Ryan). The appearance of the Flood was similarly impacting, and it was nothing short of terrifying to battle them through the rest of the campaign. The graphics look pretty good to this day. The gameplay, more-or-less standard FPS, is spot on and the weapons are nifty and varied enough to promote tactical forethought. I have to give specific praise to the driving mechanics, which are very well done and intuitive. The driving sections are remarkably not a chore, which is something a lot of games fail to pull off. Oh, and it also brought console shooters and competitive multiplayer into the mainstream, accomplishing what Goldeneye foreshadowed years before.

Honorable Mentions: There are a few games that I love that just don't quite have all the things these ten games have, but qualify as great games that I have to include somewhere. Just missing this list by a hair is Saints Row the Third (I had to decide between that and God of War for the 9th spot, and I chose the one with the greater nostalgia factor). The other games I feel worth mentioning are Aliens vs. Predator 2, Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, Dragon Age: Origins, Portal, and The Sims. All of these are excellent, and if you're reading this and haven't played any of those games, they come highly recommended.