Regarding The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, this is the only Zelda I like (while playing only it and A Link to the Past with any significant time). Personally, I LOVED sailing around and discovering each quadrant's island's secret(s), in addition to the delightful soundtrack. Dragon Roost Island's tune is my personal favorite, but there are several standouts as well. And speaking as someone who isn't a fan: The art style is fine and not the end of the world. Never was. In any event, I would love if Nintendo ported it to Switch, but I'm comfortable enough in saying since they already remastered it, they won't put it out again, even if it was full price.

As for Smash Melee, since it was just me, myself, and I, it became evident in a hurry the game wasn't for me, because the single player was not engaging in the slightest and the gameplay became boring QUICK. I didn't really have a connection to most characters that made up the roster, and now with Smash Ultimate, it's a game I never want to play again.

So it goes to show how little I played on GameCube when 3/4 of my list are games I don't ever want to replay again.

After Huber's enthusiasm for the franchise made me a casual fan, I've gone back and rewatched full playthroughs of all the mainline ones, and this is towards the bottom for me. From the way it looks, the extremely limited inventory, the writing, some of the enemies... As a viewer, this is not that great of a game to watch, and as an outsider, it clearly feels dated with other games in its own franchise being better in many aspects.

Despite the fact I gave it a vote, I really don't like Sunshine, and I've given it two tries; once when I had a Gamecube, and earlier this year on Switch as part of the 3D All Stars Collection. And at 29 Shine Sprites, I hard quit because I just never had fun. I REALLY tried, as in my situation, I always want to finish a game I buy because I'm incredibly choosy with how to spend my limited dispensable income. It's 4th of the four games I've played on the console and the fact I revisited it so many years later and realized, "Yep, this game isn't for me," goes to show my instincts from 15 years ago was still right.

Apologies for the late responses, but now I've got some time. Onto it then:

From @bruno_saurus regarding ramping up difficulty and it being paced well:

Yes I do, because of a mixture of the weapons you're given (and when you get them), the types of enemies you go against (and the increasing amount), and the difficulty modes. In the first level, you go up against zombie soldiers and imps, but eventually, it progressively gives you more variety until a boss level. At which point, they're supposed to be the most challenging moments by introducing a unique looking and quite powerful creature, and if you best them, the following level or two is a step below as a means to give you an opportunity to regroup, before steadily ramping up again, all culminating with the Icon of Sin, which throws SO MANY demons at you (and they never stop respawning). Think of difficulty in numerical terms: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 7, 8, 9, and so on)

From @Oscillator regarding difficulty right at the start:

This kind of ties into my answer to @bruno_saurus above, but unless you pick one of the highest difficulty levels, the first few levels are quite nice in giving you a manageable amount of demons and plenty of ammo to take them down. As I said in my presentation, the first room gives you just two enemies, the hallway has one or two more, the room to the left has an additional two, and the large room has about four (and the exit room has one final imp dependent on your chosen difficulty). The next level has quite a few more enemies, but not any different types, so it's a progression.

From @Oscillator regarding it's visuals harming it and it standing up to modern games and contemporaries:

Absolutely I believe it stands up today, but that comes down to the caveat of 1.) All art is subjective and 2.) Different art design showcases different preferences of different people. To use your example of Quake, I only played that for the first time in the last year or two, and I really enjoy it's design of more modern architecture and external environments. But even still, the demonic style of DOOM is more my jam, especially considering (for me), I never struggle in discerning what I'm looking at. I can tell what kind of enemy is on screen, what kind of texture is on a wall, what kind of weapon is on the ground, etc., all with a glance, as opposed to taking a second of looking at the screen and thinking, "What in the world is... Oooohhh." I had a time or two in Quake. DOOM as a whole also stands out because of its ability to be played on practically anything with a screen (more on that in my answer to @DIPSET below), and it's really easy to know what your looking at. Overall one of DOOM II's defining qualities is how it looks to the point of being iconic.

From @DIPSET regarding distinctions between different versions (ports?) of DOOM II:

Potentially, because unlike the first DOOM where I know of many versions (OG DOOM, Brutal DOOM, Ultimate DOOM, etc.), I only know of the OG PC version, which I thought was the version ported to 360, and that's what I've been referencing (Not the DOOM 3 BFG Edition or the version in DOOM: Eternal). To the point I didn't know of the PSX version. HOWEVER, I don't think it really takes away from any version, nor does it make it difficult to discuss, because it's practically the same levels/enemies/weapons/etc. All that said, the fact you say it blew you away and had so much fun... I don't need it to be nominated to begin with, but I'm even more OK with it not getting in now (and would be fine with a ban) because it fills me with so much joy to know one person gave a game I love a shot and found value in it. And if you find a way to give the PSX version a shot and prefer to it to the Game Pass version, then fantastic.

From @DIPSET regarding about the modding community:

Modding and UGC has been a massive reason why it's endured for so long. The ability for people to create their own stuff on such a simple but immensely satisfying gameplay loop has been a hallmark of the DOOM community and id has leaned into it HARD. When they rebooted the series and opened Bethesda's first ever E3 press conference (my personal favorite presentation of Bethesda's by the by), there's a reason they spent a third of their slot on SnapMap. Because the ability to open up creation tools to the community can provide endless replay value. But back to DOOM II. Personally: I've always played on my 360 (that I remember. My Dad says the first two DOOMs and Wolfenstein 3D were my first games but I highly doubt that), so for not playing on PC, I personally haven't had the experience with mods, but the knowledge PC players have that option and opening up a whole new world of possibilities further showcases how much of an excellent game it is. And DOOM is FAMOUS of being up on EVERYTHING: Printers, graphic calculators, refrigerators, and even PREGNANCY TESTS for God's sake. So many modders out there are way too creative. Or have way too much time on their hands. Or both. Yeah. Both.

As I said above in the Metroid Prime 2 entry, I decided to watch Damiani's full playthrough of the first because Metroid has always been one of the very few Nintendo franchises that, on the outside looking in, had appealed to me. And for a while, I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. But then I started to feel like it started to drag and I'm not familiar with the game all that much so apologies for not having the exact name, but there's a spot where your underwater and that's when I started to not enjoy watching as much. Once Mecha-Ridley was defeated, there was one last quest and I remember it was kind of obtuse and required a LOT of backtracking. Still, for what it is and what it did for the genre, franchise, and the Gamecube, I recognize it's a great game.

Alright, home from work and now I'm able to answer what was posed to me:

From @ffff0 regarding if a first-time new player today would highlight level design as a strength:

In my opinion, yes, for two reasons:

One - In terms of layout, both regarding the physical space and the art design. The physical space is never too cramped, giving you flexibility to move around at your pace to dodge enemy attacks and many levels (though not all, and I'll get to The Chasm [a.k.a. Level 24] in a moment), are able to guide you without simultaneously holding your hand. Since most are corridors with branching paths (and each branch holding something of value, be it health, armor, weapons, ammo, switch/keycard to progress, etc. without going to far before coming to an end, if not circling back to the main path), it's never too confusing because of the art design. Machinery, demonic carvings, doors, lights and the like are able to paint each area with a unique flair and it's through these unique icons which simultaneously serve as clear indicators of the game's secrets. You are correct there are no sound cues, but visually there are TONS, to which here are some examples:

• A portion of the wall being a slightly different shade than the rest of said wall
• The brick (or pattern) on the wall isn't lining up with the rest of said pattern
• A weird eye/face/symbol/machinery that isn't present elsewhere on the wall or room.
• An exploding barrel conspicuously by itself in an open area (and shooting it causing an explosion allows you to interact with the secret it was guarding).
• The aforementioned light pressure pad I mention in my presentation is just one example of falling/running off a higher plane onto something that triggers a wall opening.

And to be clear, not every secret has an indicator, but most do, if you're looking closely enough after you kill everything in whatever room you're in.

Two - The themes of where you are as part of the campaign. After every boss level, you're given a brief text screen explaining where you're going, and it's pretty clear some levels are bases, some are in hell (both in a wasteland or demonic castles), there's one that's literally a city on earth with multiple story buildings, one that's an apartment that opens up and doubles back on itself, and of course the Wolfenstein secret levels. These different hooks stand out for both being memorable and engaging with what each tasks you to do.

Which brings me to The Chasm. Often (and even with your question), the Chasm is often derided as the "worst" of the 30 levels in the game. As I said above in this post, most of the levels afford you the space to move around, so I get for this level being high atop the acid/lava floor on super thin walls is the anthesis of that playstyle, but why it works for me is that if you play to what the Chasm is asking of you (To carefully traverse the top of this wall to the other side), you find the exit soon after, and you're not playing the level for long. However, as is often the case for most (myself included), it's really easily to fall off, causing you to move FAST as you take damage looking for the teleporter (or a biosuit). This opens up the level to hold various secrets holding an assortment of goodies, if you're willing to pay the pound of flesh to reach them. There's also several teleporters in the level that put you back atop the level, so once you find just one of these, you can just sprint to that spot if you don't want to explore and/or minimize damage.

The final thing regarding The Chasm is it's only one level AND towards the end. You'll play about 26-27 without looking for the other three-four secret levels, so this level might get its criticisms (and most rightfully deserved in addition to being so late in the campaign) but it isn't indicative to the rest of the time it takes to get there. Lastly, while I know I'm in the minority (as you say, with yourself and your family members all calling it quits at that moment), but this level never presented problems to me on where to go; just on getting to the end.

To close, one thing I didn't touch on is the in-game map you can pull up if you do get lost. Since enemies don't respawn, if you clear out most of the level, you can open the vector graphic map, see your little icon and run around to portions of the map you haven't filled in (indicated by disconnected yellow lines signifying walls) without fear of something attacking you (Unless you run into an environmental hazard).

From @Phbz regarding if DOOM II is enough of an improvement on having it in the Hall over the first DOOM:

Yes, and while I tried to make my presentation a reflection of this very question, allow me to go a little more in-depth on some aspects I touched on that I elected not to for the focus on level design (To which, please see my above answer to @ffff0 why I think it's an improvement in that aspect). Let's talk Boss encounters, twice as many demons, and getting you weapons and quickly:

• Boss Encounters - Bosses feel more like an event in DOOM II because in the original, it's pretty clear when you reach the "Boss Level" at the end of the campaigns. You know what to expect, the levels are short, and when you best them, you go to the exit and that's end. Congratulations. Campaign over. But in DOOM II, you don't know until you walk into a courtyard with four Mancubi (and other enemies as well) all simultaneously firing rockets at you, forcing you to think on your feet FAST, or perhaps opening many doors in a small circular room until you enter one, turn right, and see 20 Barons of Hell in front of a massive CyberDemon and if you don't have the BFG (which this example DOES give you in a different room), it's the fight of (and for) your life. Even when you start in a room with ALL the weapons and ammo with a teleporter taking you to a giant mechanized goat's head with a glowing weakspot as it yells at you is incredibly unique and memorable.

• Demons - As I touched on, DOOM II introduces twice as many demons as in the original without sacrificing any of the enemies of old. Spider Masterminds, Mancubi, Archviles, Pain Elementals, Revenants and more all have their own strategies, both to kill you and for you to take them down. In addition, they're tougher the their DOOM 1 counterparts, so combat is livened up greatly (which is the core mechanic of DOOM), especially when you have the aforementioned BFG or Super Shotgun.

• Getting you weapons quickly - As I tried to highlight in my first level example, the game WANTS you to have as many weapons as possible, as early as possible. In the first DOOM, the famous E1M1, the only additional weapon you can find in the first level is just the Shotgun to go with your pistol. In DOOM II, you not only can find the Shotgun, but the Chainsaw and Rocket Launcher as well. As I also state, it does a much easier job getting you the BFG. As long as you don't die and play smartly, you have these weapons permanently. To me, the original DOOM only sparsely awards you weapons as you complete levels, whereas by level 3 or 4 in DOOM II, with the exception of the BFG, you should be fully armed (especially if you go hunting for secrets).

From @JDINCINERATOR regarding if the secrets are the "only big destructive string to DOOM II's bow:"

Please forgive the brevity of this answer, because I feel as if I've actually answered this particular question above: It's not JUST the secrets that are so rewarding, but the diversity of demons, memorable and periodic boss fights, level themes, and other equipment as well all come together to make you feel awesome, no matter what you're doing.

From @JDINCINERATOR regarding if DOOM II has something the modern DOOM reboots lack:

Simply: No. This may be a detriment to DOOM II, but the modern DOOMs have the capacity (through both technological advancements and gameplay mechanics [see: Flamethrower generating armor, glory kills giving health, different types of grenades]) that something from the 90s just could never have. It's been said often by id that Eternal was to DOOM 2016 as DOOM II was to the first DOOM: Bigger, badder, more demons, more of a narrative, more weapons, more, More, MORE. But I do think it's incredibly awesome you can play both DOOM AND DOOM II in the Fortress (a hub being something else early games didn't really have) in Eternal. But honestly? DOOM II doesn't need all of that. It's nice to have, sure, and DOOM: Eternal is all the better for it, but there is something to the phrase "Beauty in the simplicity."

I never really understood the appeal of Pikmin, so I've never played it and therefore can't comment, but to each their own.

As always, I'm leaving all questions to all presenters all at once, and because it is early morning as me writing this, I'm unable to answer the questions posed to me for several hours as I'm about to head off to work and I want to make sure I give each, any, and all questions posed to me the time they deserve. Without further ado:

To @ffff0 regarding Forza Horizon 5:
1.) I’m someone who likes playing in isolation as opposed to having any multiplayer components. How integrated is the online experience and is it something you can opt out of/turn off? Is it even possible to play offline?

2.) A major issue with Forza games is the licensing of the cars to the point these games can only be up for sale for only a few years before they’re delisted. Does this make the game (and series/franchise for that matter) having an impending discontinue date limit it’s viability years in the future?

To @bruno_saurus regarding God of War (2018):
1.) For as much praise God of War (2018) gets, it does have some flaws. The first criticism I have is having unnecessary tasks that add nothing, or there just to be there. A premium example of this is the Labors. I get all the different ways of taking out enemies incentivizes different play, but they so pointless with little reward. Do you agree or disagree the Labors add to the game and why/why not?

2.) While I agree combat is very strong, it does suffer from the standard trappings of finding a combination of Runics/Enchantments you enjoy and never feeling incentivized to switch things up. Personally, I have the setup I’ve got and haven’t changed across multiple New Game Plus playthroughs. This includes armor giving me the best stats, despite not being into the look of said armor. Do you think outside of the ice/fire dynamic of your weapons and enemies, which being only binary isn’t all that in-depth in itself, the game provides enough justification for you to switch up tactics/loadouts and fully delve into its systems?

To @JDINCINERATOR regarding What Remains of Edith Finch:
1.) In many cases, it’s not really a personal dealbreaker if a game’s replay-ability isn’t great, and with you saying the game’s only a couple hours, it does have me wondering: How well does the game incentivize multiple playthroughs? Is it a one-and-done until you want to go through the story again, or because the minimal time commitment, is it immune to fatigue for repeated playthroughs in a short span of time?

2.) And on the flip side, you clearly feel, for you, the game does more than enough with the little time it has and not overstay its welcome to leave a lasting impact. However, if someone plays this and doesn’t vibe with the story, well that’s it. There’s nothing else it really offers to people. Do you think it could/should have more aspects to the game (like more family members’ stories, mini-games, etc.) to incentivize players to spend time with it longer?

To @DIPSET regarding The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay:
1.) One thing I always think about when it comes to Hall of Greats, be it the Allies’ or ours, is if the presentation does a wonderful job to entice me to play, how simple would it be for me to get a copy. And as you demonstrate right at the end, physical appears to be the way to go with it being delisted. A cursory glance shows its originally for only OG Xbox and Windows, whereas it being bundled with Assault on Dark Athena brought it forward one generation. If one isn’t concerned about it being used, it’s pretty cheap to get, but new copies are much higher in cost. Do you think going through the effort of purchasing a copy (much like your own real world example of not available to rent, purchase only) for older platforms that many probably don’t own anymore is enough for this single game?

2.) You’ve said a lot of terms that appeal to me: “Stealth based,” “immersive-sim elements,” “simple dialogue trees,” and so on, and the foundational gameplay looks solid, but one thing I’m not able to get past (and yes, it is ENTIRELY subjective) is how it looks. Even with the remaster, everything looks in a way that’s hard to describe, but it clearly shows its age and it’s off putting to me, to the point there are games of the time (and older) that I feel do 3D models a lot better. In your opinion, do you think it graphically holds up, not just in today’s space, but against its contemporaries as well?

To @Shoulderguy regarding XCOM: Enemy Unknown:
1.) You briefly touch on it in your presentation, but there appears to be a lot of things you need to manage to stay on top of things, and while you explicitly state a couple times this is one of the most approachable strategy games out there, that doesn’t mean the genre in itself is simple, nor many of the systems can be ignored. So a two parter: A.) Can you please explain the gameplay differences in these systems (to use your listed examples: Battles, new research, launching satellites and Monitoring monthly council reports) and B.) How integral they are to success/failure?

2.) One of the most notorious things I’ve heard about XCOM (and I think you briefly vaguely reference it in the optional mode you discuss), is how you can have a high percentage chance of a hit at point-blank range and completely miss it due to RNG. How prevalent are these kinds of examples and further, how punishing/forgiving is the RNG overall?

To @Capnbobamous regarding The Outer Wilds:
1.) One of the biggest hangups I have regarding this is how, as you state a couple times in your presentation, and Isla as well, to truly talk about the best aspects of the game fundamentally spoils its very nature. Do you think this is a detriment when trying to convince people to play, when the “going in blind” advice needs to be so heavily relied upon?

2.) Personally speaking, I’m not a fan of almost aimless, “go where you want, do what you want” types of games, insofar as not having at least one concrete marker to guide me when I’m ready to progress to a main objective. With all that happens in The Outer Wilds, do you think the game does a good enough job helping you keep up with all your discoveries without running the risk of forgetting key details while simultaneously implicitly pointing you in the direction you need to go?

To @Oscillator regarding Star Fox 64:
1.) To me, on-rails shooter is a genre that on its surface sounds restrictive in that most (but not all) of time you don’t fully have three-dimensional, 360 degree spherical movement, nor do you have the ability to explore outside of shooting targets and enemies. Does Star Fox 64 allow you any freedom to fly around many of the levels and take in the atmosphere?

2.) In the two videos you’ve provided, something that jumped out to me is the camera is always behind you and in order to look/go behind, you must do a u-turn, but the camera quickly sticks back behind you again. Do you think it’s a hindrance to not have any expansive camera control during gameplay?

As it pertains to Double Dash, I believe this is the game I played the most in the brief span I owned a GameCube. I beat all the CC levels on all tracks and unlocked all the racers and karts (Plus introducing a couple tracks that are fantastic), but it became so repetitive after awhile that I found myself gravitating to going back to the PS2 (which I LIVED off of for a decade). Still, the two racers per kart is a neat idea and I'm surprised Nintendo has never revisited the concept as a mode in MK 8: Deluxe or with another stand alone game. Shout out to @bruno_saurus and @E_Zed_Eh_Intern for giving it votes as well.

Regarding Twilight Princess, to pull from what I said in the 2006 Countdown:

"The only experience with Twilight Princess I have is playing my cousin's copy on her Wii and I got to the first dungeon and I think I messed up somehow right before the dungeon's boss and got stuck. Afterwards, she took her Wii back to her place and I've never had an opportunity to replay it.

I remember the Allies playing Twilight Princess at EZA's launch stream, but as far as a full playthrough, I don't think they have and I would be down to watch a full one from whichever Ally would do so, if ever."

To add to this, if the remastered ports to Switch (This and Wind Waker) were true, I would probably buy them both and give them a shot, but until such a rumor actually gets proven true, this stays on a list of games I don't think I'll ever revisit, not because of being obsolete, but rather for not having a system to play it on.

Finally for Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door, when I DID have a GameCube, it was on my wishlist to get at the time, because I thought a Mario RPG as paper caricatures was hilarious of an idea. But when my ownership of the console was involuntarily taken from me, I didn't get this in time and felt it wasn't worth pursuing. Now, much like Twilight Princess above, if it were ever ported to Switch I might give it a look (especially considering I currently own so little for the Switch as is), but at the same time, I'll always have the option of checking out Ben's playthrough if I don't want to make the financial investment.

Regarding Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, I'm going to pull from my blurb in the 2006 countdown:

"Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy was decent, but I don't remember playing it as much as I did the first Lego Star Wars. I think I dropped it still within a New Hope and I can't remember why I dropped it."

And what with the Skywalker Saga being a thing, I don't believe I will ever revisit this incarnation.