Unlockables: An Unnecessary Hurdle Between Frustration and Fun

I recently finished Kirby Super Star Ultra, however there may still be stones left to be uncovered. Anyone who's played a Kirby game from NES's Kirby's Adventure to Kirby's Epic Yarn will agree that unlockables are a core part of the experience. There are unlockables to uncover in most games but I feel Kirby games are prime examples.

I feel unlockables are almost completely unnecessary. When I purchase a game I want all that content to be available to me from the very beginning. I do not mean that games shouldn't have a build up and gradual progression system. I mean that there should be special options in every game to grant access to anything in the game right from the beginning that may or may not bear any weight against typical gameplay. I'll give you an example: most linear action games, once you complete a chapter, give you the option to start a new game from any chapter you've reached and/or completed. In this case I believe every chapter should be available right from the start without requiring a complete playthrough. You may be thinking, 'Well, wouldn't this ruin the story if you played it out of order?' Yes, but if you're worried about the story you wouldn't be skipping around now would you? Games like Half Life or Uncharted are tightly scripted but have the option to start up any chapter you've unlocked.

In the case of Kirby Super Star Ultra you're presented with a host of different mini campaigns and mini games. Upon completing them you unlock more campaigns to play that expand upon the earlier campaigns. Sure, variety is great and the game is particularly fantastic but I really would have appreciated having all of the campaigns available to play right from the beginning. In fact, I was disappointed and felt the game was a bit light on content until I realized one of my campaigns wasn't complete and by finishing it I eventually unlocked three more campaigns which more than made up for the disappointment I previously felt. The game went from 'disappointing' to 'outstanding' in my opinion solely based on what was unlocked. To me this is a serious issue with the premise of unlockables that needs fixing. After all, when you start up a DVD you can watch the special features without watching the movie first, right?

In some cases there are things that are appropriate to be locked out. In shooters you'll gradually find stronger weapons throughout the campaign which helps to offset the gradually rising difficulty of the enemies. In games like Legend of Zelda or God of War you accumulate items that enable you to reach new areas that were previously unavailable. These cases you shouldn't be able to break the game by simply granting yourself items earlier than you were meant to obtain it. However, there should be a special mode, separate from the main game, where you can. This is a mode that'd be applicable to all types of games. Let's call it a 'DevMode'. In this mode, available right from the first booting of the game, you'll have access to a host of codes and abilities with which to have fun and explore the world the developers painstakingly created. Cheat codes have largely become an endangered species and these are the types of codes you'd expect to find. Things such as teleportation, all weapons/items, God mode, spawning enemies, etc. Again, this would be a mode of play completely separate from the main campaign(s) simply for fun. Imagine if every game had essentially a Garry's Mod mode built in. How hard could it be to implement, really? I mean, there already are Dev Modes in every video game, it's just not built for use by the player using an appropriate controller. A few tweaks and it should be good to go.

If we can't get this going then can we at the very least have all areas, weapons, items, chapters, codes/mods, etc available right from the start? Guitar Hero figured out that party games are no fun when you have you to play several hours just to unlock all the songs, at the very least all the other party centric games could figure this out (I'm looking at you Super Smash Bros and Mario Kart).

"I don't question our existence, I just question our modern needs." -- Eddie Vedder

It's impossible for us to know what's best for us both as individuals and as a species. There is some basic physiological knowledge coded into our DNA that aids in survival instincts but we're not living in a world where this comes into play often enough to matter.

With self awareness comes self interest, with self interest comes greed. Everyone is greedy but the difference is how much damage are we willing to do for personal gain? Before any of us are born most of the greediest decisions have been made for us. With infrastructure comes destruction. Our self interest has confused our wants with our needs making us insatiable. This gets worse with every generation who has more to expect but less to strive for.

Would we be better off if we were subordinates under a higher being? Imagine the life of pets. Their instincts have almost been completely disappeared and replaced with a life of leisure at the mercy of its owner, much like infants. That's not to say we'd be reduced to mere house pets under a higher species, although that'd certainly be a grand life. What if all our decisions were made for us in our species' best interest? I imagine something like what John Lennon imagined. We wouldn't own our land we'd simply inhabit it. We wouldn't compete for resources we'd just share. With the species united there'd be no competition at the expense of well being. We wouldn't need to starve because there'd be no gain in hording. Our sick wouldn't have to die because there'd be no health care to sell and no one to benefit off the weak. I'd be willing to make many sacrifices for a united species where greed would be irrelevant. Since there's no way we'll be able to come to this on our own I believe we need a higher being, an alien race, or something to take over for us. We've had our run, we've done our damage, it's time to walk away.

"It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings" -- Kurt Cobain

We have animal rights activists but why don't we have vegetable rights activists? Fungi rights activists? Microbe rights activists? Mineral rights activists? Our physiology was designed with a certain diet of flora and fauna, it shouldn't be tampered with. Why do animals deserve rights and not trees or mushrooms? It's because we have the ability to empathize with animals. If we could empathize with plants then perhaps we'd see things differently. Some of our spiritualist populous would be overwhelmed with moral obligation to protect flora and fauna alike however wouldn't be able to consume with a clear conscience. Conversely, these same people would identify how ludicrous the entire idea is in the first place and can eat with a clear head. Rights are a man-made concept that differs with each government. We, as a people, have built a society and have made ourself rules to live by. Within those rules are our list of rights to be upheld by our society and enforced by the government. No where are animals or plants included because they're not a part of our society. If you're worried about your soul if you eat animals then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you...When you bite into a tomato you've got corpse guts dribbling down your chin. Accept it or get out of my way so I can chow down on these ribs. No matter what you do you're destroying life so that you may live. Be proud of your relative superiority. No one's asking you to eat Fluffy. Besides, no one seems to care about the rights of ugly animals anyway. Is this a strong foundation to base a philosophy on? Aesthetics? For a great example of a society driven and ruined by aesthetics I recommend Bioshock.