Copanele Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 10 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: Science report Beautiful stuff, loved the DS3 entry. Game is very good but it also felt that there was something missing from it, compared to its predecessors. Plus, so many uninteresting areas + Painting of Ariandel which was...let's not remember Ariamis. Bosses however were 10/10. Even the sucky ones, at least they looked impressive. Assassin's Creed TROIX HOWEVER There, review done Better than Liberation imo, but my god just no. NOW! Since requests are still ongoing, whenever you will find the time, no rush no biggie, do make a review for the rest of them Prince of Persia games ! This time you kinda have to do them in order because that's the charm of PoP, from "1000 Arabian Nights" to "It's not a phase mom" to finally "revenge with my imaginary friend"(I did love them lots though). Eagerly waiting for the next science bulletin! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 27, 2021 Author Share Posted May 27, 2021 7 minutes ago, YaManSmevz said: I was gonna register a multiple post, Jak 2-esque complaint in defense of gta4, but I just don't have the energy (and the outrage would be entirely fictional anyway). Definitely fair, and the online stuff for the plat deserves all the evisceration it gets - I finished it (story, not achievements!) on my 360 and from a trophy hunter perspective I'm not sure I want to bother on my ps3... in spite of actually physically owning it! Regardless, I will always have a soft spot for that game as a whole? Yeah GTAIV is one of those games where, while I personally never really gelled with it, I can never, and would never, mount any kind of full-throated attack on it, or argue it’s merits with the people who love it, because I can clearly recognise that the stuff that put me off was entirely mechanical. If it had been basically the same game, but with the controls and input pacing of GTAV, I suspect I would have loved it, and so because it’s really a case of my own irritation with controls, I don’t see my issues as universal. Saying it is ‘just bad’ simply because of that would be like saying a pair of scissors were not useful, just because they are designed for right handed people, and I’m a lefty! 7 minutes ago, YaManSmevz said: Also your review of Brothers has seen it join my to-play list. I'm lovin this, you're like a gaming version of 'Eat This, Not That!' Awesome! Brothers is a hell of a game - hope you enjoy as much as I did! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 27, 2021 Author Share Posted May 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Copanele said: Beautiful stuff, loved the DS3 entry. Game is very good but it also felt that there was something missing from it, compared to its predecessors. Plus, so many uninteresting areas + Painting of Ariandel which was...let's not remember Ariamis. Bosses however were 10/10. Even the sucky ones, at least they looked impressive. Thank you mate - yeah, still an outstanding game, but with such a sizeable family by that point, standing out is just that much harder! 1 hour ago, Copanele said: Assassin's Creed TROIX HOWEVER There, review done Better than Liberation imo, but my god just no. For some reason, that meme just makes me want someone to do one of those ‘MrX’ Mods for Resident Evil 2 Remake, replacing MrX with a grimacing Connor-bot ? 1 hour ago, Copanele said: NOW! Since requests are still ongoing, whenever you will find the time, no rush no biggie, do make a review for the rest of them Prince of Persia games ! This time you kinda have to do them in order because that's the charm of PoP, from "1000 Arabian Nights" to "It's not a phase mom" to finally "revenge with my imaginary friend"(I did love them lots though). Eagerly waiting for the next science bulletin! absolutely - I shall flag them with your name ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesius Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 I would like to request a review... I'm on the fence about getting RAD, so would appreciate your take on this game 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 28, 2021 Author Share Posted May 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, Arcesius said: I would like to request a review... I'm on the fence about getting RAD, so would appreciate your take on this game Absolutely mate - flagged for priority ranking ?☺️ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DrBloodmoney Posted May 28, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) ?So, with 133 games on the list now, out of 523 eligible games, we have reach a quarter of the way through out great scientific endeavour! ? With that in mind, I though it felt appropriate to do a little Mid-Point, Scientific Analysis of the Scientific Analysis ?? ⚛️The Basics⚛️ Current Top Game: (No.1) Prey Current most 'in-the-middle' Game (No.67) The Spectrum Retreat Current Bottom Game (No.133) Kick Ass: The Game ⚛️Current rough placement of the 'recommendation breaks'⚛️ Must Play - Everything above & including No.30 (Dear Esther: Landmark Edition) Highly Recommended - Everything above & including No.44 (Metro 2033 Redux) Recommended (if genre is at all appealing) - Everything above & including No.72 (Q.U.B.E. Directors Cut) Cautiously recommended, only for genre fans - Everything above & including No.113 (Pic-A-Pix Colour) Not recommended - Everything below & including No.114 (Gem Smashers) ⚛️Current Top 20 Breakdown & Info⚛️ Most represented Genre: 1. Souls-Like (5 Games - Dark Souls, Dark Souls II, Dark Souls III, Demon's Souls, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice) 2. Immersive Sims (4 Games - Prey, Dishonoured, Dishonoured II, Bioshock) 3. Open-World RPG (3 Games - Assassin's Creed Revelations, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Shadow of the Colossus Remake) Most Represented Developers: 1. FROM Software (5 Games) 2. Arkane (3 Games) 3. (All other developers tied with 1 each!) By Console: 1. Both! It's, remarkably, an even split between PS3 & PS4, with 10 games originated on each console! By Year: Oldest games: 2007 (2 Games - BioShock, Pac Man Championship Edition DX) Newest Games: 2019 (2 Games - Resident Evil 2: Remake, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice) Most represented Year: 2017 (3 Games - Prey, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Dead Cells) ⚛️Biggest personal surprises on the list⚛️ Note- while it might seem silly - the idea that I would be surprised by a placement on the list, given that I am the sole contributor to the science - it does happen! It would be foolish for anyone to think I am genuinely prejudging this. I actually was fully expecting some clever-clogs to come on at some point, and make the, (perfectly reasonable and cogent,) argument that I have already given the game away. A detective-like trawl through my long history on this site would very easily reveal that I have, on numerous occasions, given answers to threads about 'Top X games of X', or listed my favourite games in various places. While those more casual answers on random threads certainly give an indication of games that are likely to do very well on this list, they don't paint a full picture however. It's very easy, in the afterglow of a great game, to declare it "one of the best ever!", or to remember games with rose-tinted glasses, or to want to elevate a more niche game by declaring a love that is more fervent than it really is to counter a list of 'obvious' choices, but here, I am trying to be - if not actually objective (this is a subjective exercise of course,) but at least rigidly fair in the comparisons. It can be surprising to me, when I actually sit down and genuinely wrestle with whether one specific game is better than another, where they end up! With that in mind, the following are my personal top 5 'surprises': 1. Jak II not being at the very bottom. Any time anyone had asked me to say my most hated game I had S-Ranked prior to this exercise, my answer would almost always have been either Jak II, or one other (still unranked game.) However, what I've learned here, is it isn't the worst really - just the most memorably bad. In the end, it is only the 10th worst on the current list, which means statistically, it is unlikely to even make the bottom 20 by the time I'm done! 2. The Incredible staying power of Transistor. I knew I loved that game, but it has been surprising, even to me, how hard it has been for games to pass when I really hunker down and consider their merits as compared to Transistor. That it has had well over 100 games thrown at it, including some serious bangers, and has held off all but 5 of them, is remarkable. 3. The power of good co-op. Again, I've always known I like good co-op, but doing this list and looking at specific merits in games, has really brought into stark relief just how much of a premium I place on good, well implemented couch co-op, and how much it elevates a game. Before this list, I would have casually considered Dead Nation to rank below Nex Machina, for example, but the Co-Op elements kept it up above. Good Co-op was the fuel that drove Rayman Origins so high, and bad co-op the anchor that pulled Cuphead down a little. Its presence elevated Trine, and its absence dragged down Shatter. 4. Hitman: Blood Money not making the top 20. I've always trotted out Hitman: Blood Money as an example of one of my favourites - a hold-over from when I played it endlessly on PS2. Coming back and really evaluating it against the current landscape though, and in light of the more recent Hitman games, even I was surprised how many issues it had that dragged it down the list. It still has a good spot - but I really need to stop holding it up as the game it was in my mind, rather than the game that it is! 5. The Lengths of these reviews! Yes, I am aware! I'm sorry for anyone who starts looking at the first couple of batches, and thinks "well, these are nice easy reads, they are only a couple of sentences each" ? Around Batch 4, they were beginning to flesh out a little, as I needed to put more nuance into the ranking, and by around Batch 7 or 8, I just decided to stop pretending brevity was a gift I had, and start doing longer write ups. I do realise this means that most people will not read all of them (or even any of them now,) but I enjoy the process, and it lets me do some writing practice, which I have been lacking in the last few years. I guess by the time this is all done, and I have over 500 reviews, anyone out there who is reading all of them will know my gaming tastes as intimately as I do ? ....they will have certainly read plenty of my writing! Each review and ranking now seems to average about 1,000 words, give or take. If I added together the lengths of both my published novels (for sale now, available on all good Amazon's - Kindle and Paperback - http://bit.ly/divinerevolution - ??), they would come out to about 320,000 words...., so by the time I'm done, I will likely have written more here than both novels combined! (Though, I assure you, dear readers, there is significantly more editing, and less spelling errors, in those ??) Anyways, that's all I got for now - who knows - by the time we get around to doing this update again, at around the 260th game mark, we might have a whole new crop in the top 20 - or or maybe it will all be the same! Who knows?! ? Laters Y'all ?☮️⚛️ Edited May 28, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjkclarke Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said: Chop- CHOP - CHOPPITY CHOP Great post man! Nice to hear a bit of the methodology - a peak behind the wizards curtain so to speak (Look at me with my 82 year old film references haha!) That bit about wanting to remain at the very least fair when reviewing them resonated with me quite a lot actually. Its all too easy isn't it to get caught up in your own love and hysteria for a title, that you tend to just gloss over the bits that weren't quite the immaculate experience that you remember, if you don't stop yourself. At least that's what I'm finding anyway. I wouldn't worry about the length of the reviews either. Its not easy to really condense everything you feel about a game into a few sentences and still come across passionate about those titles. Your passion for the games you've played really comes across in a fascinating way with how fluently you write. So that alone should keep people interested, even if it isn't a game they might have played. I know I'd personally struggle to write shorter reviews, so I've sort of abandoned the shorter form thing myself. Funny you should mention writing practice too, one of the reasons I started my own thread was to actually get a bit of writing practice again, I'm really enjoying what that process has turned into myself, but I'm not trying to hijack this like a silly person. That's genuinely a scary thought about how many words will actually have gone into all of this by the end, that would make me want to slump into a corner and rock back and forth for a while. I'm absolutely sure people will continue to read and enjoy this awesome journey whatever length they are - I know I 100% definitely will. Edited May 28, 2021 by rjkclarke 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaManSmevz Posted May 29, 2021 Share Posted May 29, 2021 I'm afraid I must tug at your pant leg with another request - Fallout 4. I am elbow deep into the completion process and a strange love/hate relationship is developing. Frankly, I need science to help me make sense of it? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 29, 2021 Author Share Posted May 29, 2021 5 hours ago, YaManSmevz said: I'm afraid I must tug at your pant leg with another request - Fallout 4. I am elbow deep into the completion process and a strange love/hate relationship is developing. Frankly, I need science to help me make sense of it? Absolutely mate, I’ll flag for priority assessment with your name ? I think it might be a couple of batches before I get to that one though, as I think I need to approach Fallout 3 at least, before I get to it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DrBloodmoney Posted May 31, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted May 31, 2021 ⚛️!!SCIENCE UPDATE!!⚛️ The next 10 (somewhat) randomly selected games to be submitted for scientific analysis shall be: A Way OutBattlefield: Bad Company 2 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 detuned Fallout 3 Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride Little NightmaresRad Ratchet & Clank The Bradwell Conspiracy Subjects in RED marked for ❎PRIORITY ASSIGNEMENT❎ [Care of @GraniteSnake , @Arcesius & @Alderriz ] Can 'Current Most Awesome' game, Prey, cling to its title once again? Is new last-in-show Kick-Ass: The Game going to have any competition for 'Least Awesome Game' ? Let's find out! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesius Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 Well, here I am, Mr. Hypocrisy, hoping that you will touch upon the trophies for RAD (in case you convince me to get / avoid it) while hoping that you won't mention them when reviewing Little Nightmares (as I know what you think about one trophy in particular...) ? Oh well.. looking forward to the Batch!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 31, 2021 Author Share Posted May 31, 2021 1 minute ago, Arcesius said: Well, here I am, Mr. Hypocrisy, hoping that you will touch upon the trophies for RAD (in case you convince me to get / avoid it) while hoping that you won't mention them when reviewing Little Nightmares (as I know what you think about one trophy in particular...) Oh well.. looking forward to the Batch!! Haha - yeah, I suspect I will need to at least mention the trophies in both of those - Little Nightmares only a little, as there is one I took significant issue with, as detrimental to the game, but RAD... that's going to be an interesting test case. The trophy lists for rogue-likes do certainly have to mentioned, as that is what defines the 'length' of them to some extent, and RAD has some stuff that needs to be said about it... ? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum_Vice Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 4 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: A Way Out Fallout 3Ratchet & Clank I'm particularly interested in this next update. We usually have very similar tastes but we might have divergence here... I'm in the hipster-curmudgeon camp and living the 'hater' life with these three in finding them drastically overrated. A Way Out: a mishmash of every prison movie cliche from all three prison movies you've seen. Fallout 3: so riddled with trademark Bethesda "bugfeatures" that they needed to design a pause-the-game-and-select-which-body-part-you-want-the-game-to-autoshoot mechanic to fix an inability to program a useful aim assist. Ratchet and Clank 2016: completely misunderstood what made the original's plot and characters so great and turned a great game for 9-13 year olds into a downright annoying game for 6-9 year olds. Ratchet is disturbingly milktoast in this game compared to the original. My 3 cents for you... don't spend it all at once. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted May 31, 2021 Author Share Posted May 31, 2021 23 minutes ago, GonzoWARgasm said: Ratchet and Clank 2016: completely misunderstood what made the original's plot and characters so great and turned a great game for 9-13 year olds into a downright annoying game for 6-9 year olds. Ratchet is disturbingly milktoast in this game compared to the original. I don't know that I agree on that one for the remake of R&C... will need to wait for the science of course ? - but I should note, the one I'm looking at in this next batch is the original game re-release for the PS3, not the remake 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slava Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 (edited) 55 minutes ago, GonzoWARgasm said: Ratchet and Clank 2016: completely misunderstood what made the original's plot and characters so great and turned a great game for 9-13 year olds into a downright annoying game for 6-9 year olds. Ratchet is disturbingly milktoast in this game compared to the original. Haven't played the remake, but I've heard some similar things. One YouTuber (a big R&C fan) said that the main characters don't even argue with each other in the remake, they're instantly friends, or something like that. And there's one giant video essay called "How Ratchet Lost Its Edge" which I haven't watched yet. It's 80 minutes long, and I'm not ready to spend that much time on it yet ?. And I certainly need to play the 2016 game first. But yeah, the one I requested was the very first game, or in this case, the PS Vita port/remaster of it. ? Edited May 31, 2021 by Alderriz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjkclarke Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Alderriz said: Haven't played the remake, but I've heard some similar things. One YouTuber (a big R&C fan) said that the main characters don't even argue with each other in the remake, they're instantly friends, or something like that. And there's one giant video essay called "How Ratchet Lost Its Edge" which I haven't watched yet. It's 80 minutes long, and I'm not ready to spend that much time on it yet . And I certainly need to play the 2016 game first. But yeah, the one I requested was the very first game, or in this case, the PS Vita port/remaster of it. That's actually a pretty good way to spend 80 minutes that "How Ratchet Lost its Edge" video it flies by. Incredibly informative and analytical too, as are pretty much all of GamingBritShow's Ratchet and, well all of his content actually . Definitely one I'd recommend checking out if/whenever you decide to play the 2016 version. Edited May 31, 2021 by rjkclarke 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum_Vice Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 13 hours ago, Alderriz said: Haven't played the remake, but I've heard some similar things. One YouTuber (a big R&C fan) said that the main characters don't even argue with each other in the remake, they're instantly friends, or something like that. And there's one giant video essay called "How Ratchet Lost Its Edge" which I haven't watched yet. It's 80 minutes long, and I'm not ready to spend that much time on it yet . And I certainly need to play the 2016 game first. But yeah, the one I requested was the very first game, or in this case, the PS Vita port/remaster of it. 13 hours ago, rjkclarke said: That's actually a pretty good way to spend 80 minutes that "How Ratchet Lost its Edge" video it flies by. Incredibly informative and analytical too, as are pretty much all of GamingBritShow's Ratchet and, well all of his content actually . Definitely one I'd recommend checking out if/whenever you decide to play the 2016 version. I went and watched this just now based on the recommendation and subsequent upvotes. The analysis was *on point.* Was not a waste of 80 minutes, I can assure you of that. Wish I saw it before playing the game, then I wouldn't have wasted 20 hours on the remaster. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DrBloodmoney Posted June 2, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 2, 2021 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ?? Hello Science-chums and Science-she-chums, as promised (and in some cases requested), here are the latest results of our great scientific endeavour! A Way Out Summary: A Way Out, from Hazelight (the studio built by Joseph Fares following his work on Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons,) is one of that rarest of game types - the-co-op, two player only game. No single-player experience, no CPU AI companions, this is an experience for two people, and is designed to only work as such. While it does offer Online Co-Op, It strongly discourages playing with 'randoms' - the game experience is crafted to be played by two friends, together - in constant communication - and it's built primarily for couch co-op. That is both how I will be reviewing and ranking it. While I am fully aware that some people see the conceptual premise as a mistake, and take umbrage with a studio having the temerity to release a game with no single player component, I do not see it as an issue. I played A Way Out entirely with the good lady Ms. Bloodmoney, and that was certainly the way to play. I would no more treat the lack of single player in a game built exclusively for two as a negative than I would the lack of co-op in a single player game, and so anyone looking for - or expecting - me to use such arguments against the game will not find them here. I have seen people put together exhaustive threads on how to 'game the system' - figuring out convoluted methods to complete the game with a single player, and then subsequently complaining that the game was no fun. I find those threads to be silly, and their complains contemptuous. To my mind, it would be the same as me crafting a long instruction manual for how to complete Mass Effect with two people, each holding one half of the same controller, and then complaining that the game didn't really work that way. A Way Out is essentially an intimate crime drama / prison break movie with a distinctly late 70's / early 80's flavour. It follows two convicts, Vincent - the archetypal 'cool cat,' in the vein of Cool Hand Luke, or DeNiro's character in Heat (a very clear influence), and Leo, the archetypal 'hot-head,' more in the vein of Val Kilmer's character, or Sean Bean in Ronin, or Tom Seizmore in... well, everything. The game follows them as they escape prison, then head on their story of revenge, against the man that wronged them both. The game looks pretty nice - graphically the game is very pretty and environments are well designed and more detailed than required (greatly to the benefit of the game.) The character models are a little oddly stylised given the realism of the rest of the world design (Particularly Leo, who looks like he has been drawn straight out of Space Ace or Dragon's Lair), but are well rendered and move and animate nicely. The gameplay is pretty interesting, using a lot of pretty good asymmetrical co-op, stylishly implemented split-screens and a good variety of situations, (most of which are unique,) that mean the two players are unlikely to get bored or bogged down on any single action type for long. It is admirable how quickly a well-rendered and lovingly crafted 'set-piece' is used for a short while, then moved on from, never to be seen again. Hazelight deserve significant props for not feeling the need to pad out the game with unnecessary fluff - the game uses a location / mini-game / action set-piece as much as it needs for its plot, then is off to the next one. However, I can't honestly say any individual 'set-piece' is particularly stand-out. By doing so many gameplay types, the game suffers a bit from a 'jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none' aspect. Yes, it is nice to have a game where sometimes you are in conversations while the other player scopes a situation, sometimes you are co-op shooting, sometimes one player is driving and another shooting etc., but that novelty looses its lustre when you realise that very few of these gameplay types are particularly fun or engaging. None are outright bad, but none excel either. Each feels like the non-focus mini-game part of a bigger game, but here, there is no 'bigger game'. Snowboarding, motorcycling and rollercoaster riding were all fun distractions in Final Fantasy VII, but if the only part of the game was the Golden Saucer, the acceptable jankiness of those distractions would not be as forgivable as it is. The narrative is the primary driving force in the game, and unfortunately, it isn't very well done. Plot-wise, it is fine, though never more than that - a milquetoast mishmash of various prison escape and crime movie tropes, with no real original points across it's 6ish hour length. That would be okay under the right circumstances, after-all, it is generally okay - particularly in 'genre' fiction - to stick to the classic tropes if the tone is right, and in games, the novelty of interaction can go a long way to freshening a stale concept, but it requires one aspect to be done right above all - the dialogue. Here, that is sorely lacking. This is not a case of poor voice-work, (the delivery of the lines is generally competent,) but the lines themselves are often so thunderously clunky, tonally dissonant, monstrously expositional or just bat-shit crazy that even the Tommy Wiseau of gaming, David Cage, would have read them and thought "Christ, I need a second pass at that." The game builds to a finale that does a laudable - if predictable - twist, and is a very clear attempt to recapture in co-op the magnificent single-player moment at the conclusion of Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. It works on a superficial level, but where Brothers' moment works incredibly well because it is the culmination of a brilliant game, and one in which a genuine emotional investment with the titular brothers has been established, in A Way Out, not so much. This twist is the culmination of a far lesser game, and one in which both players have likely spent far more time laughing at the characters than with them, and so there is little emotional investment to power the 'punch' of the twist. An admirable try, but failing more than succeeding, A Way Out does itself a lot of harm by so encouraging couch co-op. Not because couch co-op is bad - it is, in fact, a great way to play almost any game - but what it encourages most of all, is conversation. With little to care about on the screen here, a stereotypical plot, terrible dialogue and lacklustre gameplay, those conversations are most likely to turn towards ridicule of the game, rather than discussion of it. That renders the final twist - clearly designed to be the catharsis to an epic journey and an emotional gut-punch - into merely the limp last punch-line in a too long joke. Did me and the good lady Ms. Bloodmoney have fun? Yes, but it was quite often more at the expense of the dialogue than as a result of the gameplay. The Ranking: In terms of 'Criminal Co-Op', an obvious comparison is Kane & Lynch 2. K&L2 has a comparably lacklustre plot, but significantly better dialogue. It only does one thing - shooting - as opposed to A Way Out's many things though, and it doesn't even do that particularly well. While A Way Out also does its gameplay not particularly well, it is a least more varied, and it has a much more conceptually interesting co-op, and so A Way Out squeak's past it. A Little higher on the list, Twin Mirror is single player only, but also has some issues with clunky dialogue and a plot that is a bit less than it should be - but it ties its gameplay together better. While I did occasionally laugh at poor dialogue there, I was certainly more invested emotionally than either Ms Bloodmoney or I was with A Way Out. In the end, between those two games, A Way Out finds its spot, just above lacklustre souls-like Lords of the Fallen, but below much-better-than-expected Match-3/ Motion Comic mash-up Metropolis: Lux Obscura. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Summary: NOTE - Any eagle-eyed reader will notice that I have done something I don't often do here - I have modified the order of these reviews. Generally, these batches feature games in alphabetical order, (a simple side effect of using an Excel table as my starting point,) but for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, I am specifically going for MW2 first, as I think following my own play chronology is more appropriate, as I played Bad Company 2 directly after MW2. In both cases, they are games in long-running series, yet each is the only eligible entry on this list - but for different reasons. In MW2's case, it is because MW2 is the only CoD game I have 100% in, (due to the lack of trophy support for CoD4: Modern Warfare, and the dlc trophy additions on World at War and Black Ops.) In Bad Company 2's case, it is the only Battlefield game I have played, period. However, one thing is common to both games - my experience with the broader series, in both cases, is limited, and ended around a decade ago - that should be noted in reading these. Coming into Modern Warfare 2, expectations were at a high. After the huge impact that the original Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had on the gaming landscape - and on my tastes - Infinity Ward had a big task before them. CoD4 virtually redefined online multiplayer on console, and set the roadmap for multiplayer progression that world be followed for more than a decade afterwards across virtually all competitive multiplayer games. It also elevated the single player FPS War game from the grimy attempts at realism of the early CoD games and Medal of Honour before them, to the slick, Hollywood-thriller-esque, heightened reality that the games would dabble in for the decade to follow. Sometimes to good effect, and sometimes not. It's worth noting that Modern Warfare 2 is not CoD5, though at the time developer Infinity Ward clearly believed it should be. In the intervening year, sister developer Treyarch had released Call of Duty: World at War, using the engine of Modern Warfare, and relocating the action back to the Second World War - a fact Infinity Ward is widely known to have considered a slight, and further fuelling a fractious relationship studio leads Vince Zampella and Jason West had with parent company Activision. That sour relationship would culminate, shortly after the release of MW2, with both being fired, frog-marched from the building and subsequently sued by Activision. All this is not something that I would routinely consider important, or legitimate to mention in a review, however, in this case, I believe it is, as it goes a long way to explaining the deviations in tone that MW2 took as compared to Modern Warfare, which are the source of some issues of mine. Modern Warfare 2 has something of a sneering quality to its presentation and tone, and over-eggs the parts of Infinity Ward's signature style in a way I did not love. In a clear attempt to set themselves apart from Treyarch's more earnest story-telling, Modern Warfare 2 leans much more heavily into the 'Hollywood Action Movie' style that had made Modern Warfare such a stand-out hit. If Modern Warfare was a slick, exciting-but-dumb Hollywood thriller, MW2 goes full Michael Bay. Any pretence that the game is even attempting to play in the realm of realistic warfare is left behind, and instead, the single-player campaign aims squarely at the stoner-teenager version of war - a land of one-liners, rogue military factions, nuclear bombs, terrorist hijacks, edge-lord "Ooohh, I'm shooting civilians" sequences and single-man-saving-the-world-with-a-throwing-knife style over the top shenanigans. It is a narrative tone that clearly works - and arguably one that no game has done with more technical competence. The game looks great, guns feel good, animations are slick and, at 60fps, the game moves with a buttery-smoothness and fluidity that very few games of the era could match - but it's narrative style is one that didn't really gel with me personally, primarily because while silly and over-the-top, it seems not to acknowledge that itself. The story is just a little too stupid to be as humourless as it is, and so where, say, Bad Company 2 manages to cover over its silly sections by hanging a lantern on them with some humour from the characters, here, the game wants the player to both accept the ridiculousness of the story, and to ignore it. It never offers a wink to them to let them know that it knows how silly it's being, so the player is left having to either lower themselves to its narrative level, or simply roll their eyes and plow on regardless. The characters are not particularly interesting or sympathetic, and largely forgettable, and so it is difficult to care about the events happening on a micro-level. All that is left is the macro - and the macro is just so overblown. I was willing to put my brain on the floor for a while and enjoy Modern Warfare's campaign, but the level to which I would have needed to kick it, stomp on it and pour several gallons of THC over it to be fully on board with MW2 was a little too much for me. Setting the Single Player campaign aside though, Modern Warfare 2 has two other modes - the robust and well crafted competitive multiplayer that is CoD's wheelhouse, and a co-operative 2-player 'Spec Ops' mode. The competitive multiplayer remains excellent as usual - fast, arcade-y, twitch-control based and snappy and addictive as ever - adding a variety of new maps. While none of the new ones felt like they quite hit me in the way Modern Warfare's did, that may be more about the amount I personally played. I never played this one long enough to 'prestige' - something I had done several times on the original Modern Warfare. There was something about the game that didn't quite recapture the magic, but That may be as much a time-and-place thing than the games fault. I should note, the same issue was present in World at War - I could tell it was of quality, but it didn't hook me. The only CoD game to truly get its multiplayer hooks into me after Modern Warfare was Black Ops.) Spec Ops is where Modern Warfare 2 truly shines though. Playing along with my co-op buddy (and real life friend) was great across the board - with a wealth and variety of shorter, tactical co-op missions, lacking story, but full of character. Throughout my time with the game, I was constantly feeling the pull of Spec Ops more than either the Single Player campaign or the competitive Multiplayer, to the extent that I would leave either one as soon as a co-op opportunity was available - as that was where the combination of the fluid movement, speed and action-movie flair shined the brightest. The Ranking: Given the dearth of War games on the list, (more a result of my changed tastes than anything else,) we have to look at non-war FPS games for comparison - and even there, there are few notable comparison points. Something like BioShock obviously has significant FPS elements, but the story-telling and exploration aspects are streaks ahead of what MW2 even attempts, and where BioShock's FPS elements take the form of 'combat puzzles' in which thought and smarts are required, MW2 is pure action and twitch controls, and suffers by comparison. Even BioShock wannabe Singularity has a significant edge over MW2 in the narrative and single player elements, however, it did add a questionable competitive multiplayer, and that one is left in the dust by MW2's offering. Add in MW2's Spec Ops co-op, and the resulting package is one that, while as single player game still loses to Singularity's fun and varied combat, overall, beats it on repeatability and longevity. Modern Warfare 2 also moves, feels and looks significantly better than Singularity, even if the art-style is simple 'realistic' and has no scope for flair on the design side. As good as Spec Ops is, I am still not comfortable placing it higher than better, more fun co-op experiences like Rayman Origins or Dead Nation though, and the narrative elements of the single player campaign pale in comparison to SOMA, Observation and Dear Esther: Landmark Edition, so it boils down to which ones MW2 is able to pass on gameplay alone. In the end, I feel that it does enough to beat out Dear Esther and Observation due to the small scale of those games, but not SOMA. Limbo, just below it, is artistically interesting, and also controls with a perfect smoothness and tightness that can compete, meaning its more rounded and interesting tone, story and gameplay are enough to keep it ahead. MW2 finds its spot therefore, below Limbo, but above Observation. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Summary: EA's multiplayer focussed war FPS began taking the fight to Call of Duty with Bad Company in 2008, adding a theatrical single player campaign and console focus that it had previously lacked, in addition to the larger-scale, more tactical online multiplayer that had been its bread and butter prior. Note - I did not play Bad Company, and hopped on the Battlefield train with this game, the 2010 follow-up Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I played it directly after Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and as such most of my thoughts (and this review) are in some way relative to that game - a comparison that, (spoiler alert,) works significantly in Bad Company 2's favour. On a graphical and mechanical front, there are distinct differences between the games. Bad Company 2 doesn't look as good as Modern Warfare 2. The game runs at 30fps, and while I'm about as far from a frame-rate snob as it's possible to get, and very rarely care about the whole 30 vs 60 debate, side-by-side the smoothness of movement is night and day here. Animations feel a little less fluid, and environments a little less polished, and the larger maps and grander scale of the battle fields means texture and asset pop-in is noticeable in some spots, and jagged edges between textures are more obvious. There is also a level of detail missing in Bad Company 2's environments that seems initially like a step down from Modern Warfare 2, however, the reason for this becomes apparent rather quickly, and it's nature as a rather obvious trade-off in favour of a massive area of superiority Bad Company 2 has over MW2 is revealed - destruction. Most buildings and environmental obstacles are destructible, and can have chunks blown out of them to dramatic effect, and to an impressive extent. Smaller buildings can, through strategic destruction of weak points, be entirely razed to rubble - often with enemy forces still inside. It is a concept that, while simple on paper, is impressive to see, and affords a game that was already the more tactical of the two, a level of combat strategy that blows Modern Warfare 2's point-and-shoot-and-fastest-trigger-wins combat model into smithereens. In terms of the single player campaign, Bad Company 2 is playing in a similar timeframe and war-scape as Modern Warfare 2, however, tonally the game is aiming for something markedly different. Where Modern Warfare 2 fancies itself the type of slick, high octane fare in the Michael Bay mould, Bad Company 2 sets its sights on the more cynical, grimy war-movie territory of Buffalo Soldiers, or Three Kings. The story follows a 4-man combat troupe who straddle the line between cynical cogs in the war machine, and out-and-out rogue element in it for themselves, as they hop from combat theatre to combat theatre, chasing after a weapon-code flavoured mcguffin, and Russian (always Russian, right?) big-bad Arkady Kirelenko, who is trying to find it to... y'know, do the usual bad-guy stuff with it. It's a silly and fun plot, and not unlike Modern Warfare 2's campaign narrative in terms of over-the-top set pieces and curiously convenient plotting, but in every area that MW2 grated on me, Bad Company 2 does better. There is a dry, comical edge to the whole affair, with dialogue between the (much more rounded, fleshed out and interesting,) characters feeling, of not quite natural, at least movie-natural, and in some spots being genuinely funny. The game is not treating itself with the kind of mawkish self-seriousness that MW2 did, and knows exactly where it is getting silly, and makes sure to have some appropriately knowing dialogue to counter any eye-rolling on the player's part. It's rather ironic that MW2, which I would argue is trying much harder to make me care about the fates of the characters, did such a poor job of drawing any empathy from me for them. By the end of Bad Company 2's far less emotionally manipulative campaign, I felt much more invested in the characters of Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard and the Sarge, than I ever did with Price, Soap or any of the other forgettable MW2 characters. Doubly ironic, considering I had played more than one game with CoD's characters by that point, and was only just meeting Bad Company. In terms of Co-op, there is no comparison, as Bad Company 2 has no co-op mode, but on the competitive multiplayer front, it is really a matter of taste. Battlefield's wheelhouse has always been the large-scale, long rounds, with maps that dwarf Call of Duty's offerings, and incorporate a level of team strategy that is playing far outside what CoD attempts, featuring multiple fronts, vehicles, much longer gaps between deaths, and a focus on staying alive, rather than simply racking up kills quickly. When Bad Company 2 is playing in that area, it excels in a way Modern Warfare 2 cannot compete with, but on the flip side, whenever it tries to dabble in smaller-scale firefights, stepping into Call of Duty's home turf, it loses. The controls, frame-rate and combat feel of close firefights is just not up to level of Modern Warfare 2 in those situations. This means that really, it comes down to personal taste - for those who prefer a twitch control, arcade-y run-and-gun shooter, MW2 is the clear winner. For those who prefer a less frenetic, but more strategic (and longer) battle, Bad Company 2 has your back. I am certainly in the latter camp. The Ranking: For the ranking, a lot of the same aspects that placed Modern Warfare 2 where it ended up are similar here. The same aspects that placed that game below Bioshock, but above Singularity are present. There are subtle differences in the ranking aspects that shouldn't be ignored, but in many cases balance each-other out. MW2 had an excellent co-op mode, which BC2 lacks, however, BC2's destructible environments and more tactical, fun and repeatable competitive multiplayer offset that to large extent, making that something of a wash. In terms of single player campaign story though, that is one area BC2 has a clear edge, and it is far more repeatable as a result of the genuine, rather than accidental and eye-rolling, humour. That is enough to jump BC2 a few spots higher, managing to out-awesome the story-based SOMA, and jump past a few (awesome) games like Cuphead, Limbo and Nex Machina, on pure longevity and variety. In Rayman Origins though, it meets a game that controls, moves, feels and plays better overall, and with an artistic and graphical prowess that it cannot match, and robust multiplayer potions that can compete with it, and so it finds it's spot just below it. .detuned Summary: A tech demo developed by .THEPRODUKKT, .detuned is essentially an interactive screensaver, mixed with a quirky music visualiser, in which a besuited businessman in a chair, along with a group of bizarre aliens can be manipulated in various ways with different controller inputs, with accompanying sounds layered over the music. The player can use a bunch of premixed musical tracks, or load in their own music for the purposes of a briefly diverting but ultimately pretty uninteresting visual curiosity. Some of the manipulations can be quite trippy, in an Aphex-Twin-music-video sort of way, but never really hold any interest more than once or twice. The 'game' sits in the same category as things like Linger in Shadows, Everything, Proteus and Fl0w, as more of a curious oddity than a game, but falls on the lower end of that category. It is interesting conceptually, and might have yielded some interesting stuff if it had been adopted and fleshed out into more of a game by other developers (I can imagine Harmonics being able to take some core concepts and run with them to cool effect,) but given that it never was, it is now simply an odd thing, worth seeing, perhaps, as a look at where developers were experimenting in the early days of the PS3, but it's questionable whether the player actually gets any more out of experiencing it with a controller in hand than simply watching a 10 minute demonstration on YouTube. The Ranking: More fun to mess around with that the vita Welcome Park, and more interesting than actively terrible games like The Mysteries of Little Riddle, but doesn't allow for as much creativity as Paint Park Plus, so finds it's spot near the bottom of the list. Fallout 3 Summary: Fallout 3 is destined to be a really hard one to rank, as there has arguably never been so many positive aspects, offset by so many technical issues, in a single game. Fallout 3, in much the same manner as most Bethesda open-world RPGs, is simultaneously massive, sprawling, incredibly dynamic and variable, endlessly explorable... and utterly riddled with jank and bugs. These range from the barely significant, to the whopping and outrageous, and result in a sliding scale of reaction from the player from abject hilarity to utter infuriation. The game is enormous by the standards of console games. Taking the franchise that had, prior to Fallout 3, been an Interplay/ Black Isle developed, turn-based, tactical role playing series, and turning it into a first-person looking real-time(ish - more on that later - ) WRPG in the vein of their other major franchise, The Elder Scrolls, Bethesda bit off an enormous chunk - and manage to chew it... kind of. Story and narrative wise, the game is absolutely excellent. The sprawling open world of Fallout 3 is free to be explored in any manner the player chooses, virtually from the first hour, and offers an absolute wealth of interesting places people, factions and creatures to find. There are hundreds of thousands of lines of fairly well written dialogue to be discovered, fleshing out a world and history that is genuinely epic in nature. Plaudits have to be given to the developer for having so much of its best content on the non-story critical path. While the main plot is pretty good, the most profoundly interesting fun to be had in Fallout 3 is where you stumble across some new location by accident, then find yourself on a quest, or string of quests, and end up spending an evening dealing with a whole new storyline, with it's own beginning, middle and end, all contained in a place you might have missed if you had just happened to hang a little further east or a little further west as you walked. The game looks fine - design is pretty basic, and a lot of assets are, by necessity, reused, but the basic designs are fine. Never great, but they get the job done. Character models are simple, but effective and fairly well varied. Animations are pretty basic, and there is some issues with clipping and characters getting stuck on environments though. Combat is pretty simplified - a 'VATS' system is borrowed from the series' tactical RPG days, and repurposed into a sort of combination 'bullet-time' and dice-rolling pause-system for shooting, and this is both a smart idea, and the source of one of the biggest complaints levelled at the game, outside of the technical problems: While Fallout 3 has the veneer of a first-person shooter, it is not one. It is not really trying to be one either, but by looking like one, it is the harbinger of its own criticism, and is inviting people to mistake it for one. All of Fallout 3's combat is based on dice-rolls. Shooting is based on percentage of probability and RNG aspects, in all situations. This means, when using VATS - where different body parts can be highlighted for shooting, and percentage chance of success shown and measured - it makes sense. If, however, someone picks up the game, and thinks it is an FPS, they will likely think the combat model is simply broken, as each time they shoot, the bullet may still miss, even if their aim is true, as each shot is still based on a dice roll. It is an issue other games have faced when using dice-roll mechanics in combination with shooter controls (Alpha Protocol had a similar mechanic,) and it is a mistake in my opinion, as it always results in negative feedback and criticism from those who mistake it for, and wish to play it like, a shooter. Fallout 3 arguable would have fared betted if it had simply forced VATS system with every shot - disallowing the player from shooting the gun in an action FPS style at all. The game is virtually unplayable that way anyways, and by allowing it, it simply invites ridicule and confusion as to what it is trying to be. In terms of narrative scope, the game is in a very rarified league. There is a feeling of true freedom in Fallout 3 that is rare in games - many RPGs, Mass Effect for example, have both main story quests and side content, but there are very few games with the balance so absurdly loaded towards the latter, and where the latter often outshines the former in terms of rich or interesting narrative. Such is the balance of Fallout 3, that the main story could be theoretically completed in a matter of a few hours, but side content could keep giving new content for another 100, and even then, things would be missed. There is a feeling of true exploration in the game that really cannot be 'fudged' - the only way to have a player genuinely keep finding new, interesting content over 100 hours, and still feel like they discovered it, rather than were presented with it, is to have so much content as to make that possible, and few games can offer that. Fallout 3 does, and that is something special - but the cost is the technical issues. Slowdown, frame-rate issues, crashes, texture bugs, graphical problems, quest completion issues, the list goes on and on. There is a certain level to which some of these technical issues can be considered, if not welcome, at least acceptable, as a necessary byproduct of the sheer size and variable nature of the world being crafted, but that line of acceptability is very much user-dependent. There is an imagined world in which Fallout 3 is a much smaller game, but more technically competent, and therefore far more palatable to many players. (in some sense that game exists, and is called RAGE, but let's not dwell on that.) I can imagine that worlds Fallout 3 being a perfect game for some players, but I cannot argue it would be for me. I fall in the camp of those who, while cursing the jank and the steps required to lessen it on console (a method of alleviating slowdown in the game was discovered at one point, involving 'waiting' in game for 30 full day-cycles, which had to be done in 24 hour increments, to reset all movable world items back to their starting locations and free up memory,) still cannot deny the hold the games narrative and it's gameplay loop had on me. I have poured hundreds of hours into Fallout 3, and the enjoyment I got from it absolutely outweighed the negative aspects. I was able to look past the technical issues in service of that. (I had also, arguably, been trained to navigate the peculiar issues of Bethesda open-world games prior to Fallout 3, as I fell into exactly the same deep hole of obsession with their previous console game, the equally broken and buggy Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.) I do, however, have to acknowledge that, in doing so, I was enjoying something I knew to be unacceptably broken - and I have no retort to those who felt unable or unwilling to do so themselves, besides a meek shoulder shrug and a nod of acknowledgement. The game is, unequivocally and undeniably, broken in ways few big release games are. That is simply the price one has to pay for the freedom and narrative. That is disappointing, but the case. It is a high price, and one I do not begrudge others being unwilling to pay - but for me it was a price worth paying. The Ranking: Goddamn. This one is tough. Without any consideration of the technical issues, Fallout 3 would, with its amazing sense of exploration, sharp, smart writing and sheer size, be competing with the likes of Horizon Zero Dawn and even potentially Mass Effect 2 (though I suspect it would still lose there, even if it ran like a dream,) but the issues simply cannot be ignored. This is not like Assassin's Creed Unity, or Prey even, where some bugs existed at launch and were swiftly corrected and are therefore irrelevent. Here, the game and its engine are fundamentally broken in a way that requires a buy-in from the player right from the start, and an acknowledgement that they will need to deal with its peculiar issues for the duration. As such, the closest comparison point is equally, (well, almost equally,) fundamentally janky Alpha Protocol. Fallout 3, while more broken, is still a better game than Alpha Protocol, and beats it, but working up the list, above it, I am required to essentially assess whether each game is more or less enjoyable than playing a game that is incredibly good, well written and fun, but that feels like it might - and actually will, most likely - explode apart at some point. In the end, its great qualities (which are great, and would propel a more technically competent game into the upper echelons of the list) are enough to jump it a few spot higher, past some games with far more limited scopes, weaker writing and stories, or other similarly great but technically challenged fare... ...but in Assassin's Creed II, it finds a game that, while certainly smaller, does a big world with far less technical incompetence, and is simply too well rounded a package for Fallout 3's jank to be afforded any more leeway. Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride Summary: A decent if not outstanding entry in Artifex Mundi's staple, Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride opts for a straight up fairytale aesthetic. The art is okay, but in some spots not quite up to thier usual standard, and that filters through to the picture-hunt sections, which are a little too easy this time round, and less fun. This entry does, however, have a good variety of puzzles, and they are well spread across the game. No silly boss fights is also a boon. Has a bonus chapter - one of the shorter ones - but still pretty good quality, with a few puzzle variants not present in the main game, which is nice. The Ranking: Not up to the standards of the Enigmatis games, but better than Clockwork Tales: Of Glass and Ink, this one is probably closest in consistency and quality to Kingmaker: Rise to the Throne. Personally, I enjoyed Kingmaker a little more though, and this one slips a couple of places below, losing in a matchup with Late Shift and Zero Zero Zero Zero, but still fending off flawed Vita retro-not-retro RPG Adventure of Mana. Little Nightmares Summary: Taking a leaf out of Playdead (developer of Limbo & Inside)'s book, Tarsier Studio's created, in Little Nightmares, a puzzle platformer that is simultaneously creepy, fascinating and tonally peculiar, with a narrative that is clearly though-out, but never reliant on exposition, explanation or hand-holding. Following a little girl - Six - in a yellow raincoat, who wakes up and emerges from a suitcase in which she has clearly been living for a while in the bowels of some strange, mysterious and oddly over-sized vessel, the player, over the course of 5 long levels, is tasked with helping her escape, and avoid giant, creepy, monstrous people, intent on killing and/or eating Six, along with many other kidnapped children. The narrative is wonderfully creepy - a sort of amalgam of Studio Ghibli's Spirited Away, Jean-Pierre Jeunet's fantastic La Cité des Enfants Perdus, and Guillermo del Toro's filmic fare - and the artistic designs are uniformly brilliant in a way those films would be proud of. The game is not trafficking in jump-scare territory, this is the (much harder to pull off and much more satisfying) unrelenting tonal terror, and the art designs and unusual movement of the enemies can often give rise to an almost nausea-inducing pit-of-the-stomach lurch that is the cherry on top of a sinister cake. Without ever veering into cliché or out-and-out gore, Little Nightmares maintains a compulsively grotesque, fascinating macabre quality throughout, and when it wants to stick it to you, right in the gut, it does it perfectly - every single time. The sound design is utterly fantastic - among the best use of sound I have encountered in gaming. One particular ambient sting, used at a key moment (when Six has to eat... trust me, you'll know when you see it,) tied my stomach in a knot in a way I haven't experienced since watching the french horror flick Martyrs for the first time! I particularly love the sense of fear and panic that are instilled by the slightly peculiar control scheme, and 'loosey-goosey' nature of the protagonist's movement. In some games this would be a hinderance, but in the case of Little Nightmares, I think it both increases the tension, and makes the act of exploring the world and the puzzles more interesting, as you can never be quite sure what jumps are possible, which ledges you might just be able to reach etc. This, coupled with the slightly unpredictable nature of the AI reactions of the enemies makes a shortish game very interesting, and quite repayable. This does give rise to the sole issue I took with the game - and it is a fairly small one, but of note - there is one trophy that I think is a massive misstep in an otherwise virtually unblemished game - the no-deaths speed-run. In the case of this particular trophy almost all of these factors that otherwise make the game great, instantly become frustrating and irksome. I have no issue with speed-run trophies, or 'No-Death' ones, really - in short games like Little Nightmares I think they are well suited to the genre, and even combination 'No Deaths and Speed' type trophies can be great - I'm thinking of Limbo for example - but I really think that only works if the game is one of very precise and tight controls, with predictable AI that can be learned. Here, that is not so. Little Nightmares is comprised of 5 main levels, each shorter than the last for the most part - and the majority of interaction with unpredictable enemies comes on Chapters 3 and 4. I ended up losing count of how many times I made it half way through the game, only to have an enemy in Chapter 3 or 4 seem to see me from a spot I was perfectly safe in 10 times before, or lean a different way than they normally do, or do a little random sneezing animation, slowing them down so my planned route no longer worked. Those are great things for the game generally, but soul-destroying for a speed-run / no-deaths run. It's tough enough when you know it's all your own fault - like in Limbo, but where you feel it is partly due to random game factors, it is really crushing. Still though, setting aside one single trophy issue, Little Nightmares is an absolute powerhouse of good design. Without a single piece of text, it conveys a world that could support an entire filmic franchise, keeps it's creep factor alarmingly close to perfect across it's entire length, and is filled with smart, interesting puzzles and moments of panicked, fearful grotesquery around every corner. The Ranking: Obvious comparison points on the current list are SOMA and Limbo, both of which play in the horror-puzzle genre, and in both cases, Little Nightmares manages to surpass them on consistency of tone, wildly imaginative design and peculiar grotesquery. Both those games have occasional moments of pacing issues caused by the more esoteric puzzles, which Little Nightmares avoids, but never by making thee puzzles so easy that they feel superfluous. Much higher, Hotline Miami is also a shorter game with a wildly consistent and imaginative tone, and while artistically, I think Little Nightmares outdoes it, Hotline still wins overall, due to the repeatability and the incredible soundtrack. One place lower though is Demon's Souls. While Demon's Souls is a much grander, larger game, it is also playing in creepy, grotesque design, and while it does a lot more, it is a little inconsistent, and has some flaws to it. Little Nightmares does less, but nails virtually every aspect, and the only downside it has - that one trophy - is not really an anchor in a fight with Demon's Souls, as Demon's Souls has it's own share of irritating trophies in the form of the weapon crafting stuff. In the end, while much smaller and more focussed, hour-for-hour, Little Nightmares is more consistent, and so finds its remarkably high spot on the list, one rung above Demon's Souls, and one below Hotline Miami. RAD Summary: A fun and stylish run-based, rogue-like brawler / top-down shooter from Tim Schaffer's Double Fine Studios, RAD has simple but satisfying combat, a great variety of powers (taking the form of mutations), a good pace, a smallish but good variety of enemies and bosses, and - crucially in the case of any rogue-like - a really well thought out and implemented gameplay loop which is satisfying, moreish, addictive and compulsive. It has a ton of style - all based around a late 80s / early 90s Nickelodeon, Saturday morning kids tv aesthetic, and Double Fine did a great job with the particular powers and items - mapping retro 80's paraphernalia to traditional game items. The whole game is steeped in the kind of fun style that one expects from Double Fine, and Schaffer's keen instinct for knowing exactly how much humour is required, and which tropes to skewer and which to adopt is on full show. I found the game both satisfying to play, and genuinely funny at times - the comically overbearing ‘announcer’ voiceover could be annoying in a lesser developer's hands, but never really grated on me, and was often quite funny. (I found it charmingly ridiculous when he shouts “PAUSE!” in one of 20 or so random ways whenever you pause the game.) The music is good, the story fun and silly, and the ‘little bit more of the story every time you beat it’ mechanic works in a smart and satisfying way that keeps the player engaged and coming back again and again. The continual unlocking of items, lore and game modes is clearly very well thought out, and is spread across the duration of the game nicely, meaning something new is always just around the corner. There is a fairly major flaw in the game though. It purely affects the trophy-hungry, but let's face it - I'm one of them, and so, I'm guessing, are you. As much as I try to avoid using the trophy list as a metric in these rankings, in the case of RAD (like many rogue-likes) it is unavoidable, as it is intrinsic to the experience, and the source of the games biggest flaw from a completionist point of view. My first 30 hours or so with the game, comprising my first 50 or so runs, was a really great time - satisfying, fun, engaging and full of discovery. I enjoyed it immensely... but then came the grind. Make no mistake - The trophies in this game can be painful. No matter how much you enjoy the game, the rarity of some of the items required to fill out 100% of the ‘Tome of the Ancients’ (the list of game info and source of arguably one of the games most irritating trophy,) is such that a player is basically guaranteed to have to play long after they have finished the rest of the game to complete it. That is a little annoying, but at least it just required playing the full game over again as you search for every combination and item. However, the true bane of any trophy hunter in this game is the missions. It took me 46 runs to get all endings, and another 30 odd to fill out the ‘Tome of the Ancients’ and get all but 1 mission done... ...it then took another 156 runs to get that one last mission. Yes, you read that right. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX. I cannot describe how disheartening that final grind was. I realise that this is RNG I was up against, so some people might get certain things to unlock quicker, but the rarity of the mission completion and 100% Tome of the Ancients trophies is, in some cases, absurd. It seems like no matter who plays, there will likely be some version of this particular grind that will affect them at the end. Different mission maybe, or item, or lore monument, but something. Some grinding nightmare that will either necessitate a brute force battle against the gods of RNG, or make the trophy hunter give up entirely. As much as I liked this game - and again, I think there is a huge amount in it to like - I cannot ignore that end game/ post game grind. That makes this an easy recommendation to anyone who doesn’t hunt trophies or care about completion, but a hesitating, cautionary recommendation to any completionists. RAD is a very good game. It is a fun game. Sometimes it even borders on a great game. I can comfortably say that I am glad I played it, and would do so again, even knowing the post-game grind I would have to endure, as that grind was still a price worth paying for the games, but from a completionist point of view, it has to be noted. The Ranking: In terms of Rogue-likes, RAD definitely falls somewhere between Dead Cells and Void Bastards. While its overall polish does not measure up to either, the actual gameplay loop, while not as compulsive or repeatable as Dead Cells, is a clear superior to Void Bastards', and from a personal standpoint, the twin-stick rogue-like is more my flavour than the FPS rogue-like. While I have mentioned the post-game grind required for the trophy completion, I do not consider that to be a major factor in the actual ranking - it does after-all, not negate the inherent awesomeness of the game, and the game does have a level of fun that is laudable. As a twin-stick shooter, RAD does lose in match-ups with Hotline Miami, certainly, and in a pairing with Dead Nation (due to lack of Co-Op,) and Nex Machina (due to looser controls,) but the other elements it has (the humour, the style, the rogue-like elements) are enough to make it a closer fight in the latter case. Given Cuphead's failed co-op elements mean it is competing primarily as a single-player experience, I think RAD manages to out-do it, as while it's visuals are no competition, it's gameplay loop is significantly more satisfying, with far, far more scope for repeatability, and so it remains above that game. Ratchet & Clank Summary: After their very successful run on PS1 with the Spyro the Dragon games, Insomniac kicked off a new character-action franchise with the PS2, in the form of Ratchet and Clank. Following the adventures of anthropomorphic, mechanically-minded (and significantly sassy-pants) Lombax Ratchet, and failed Kill-Bot cast-off (and cynically deadpan) Clank, along with over-the-top, Zapp Brannigan/Buzz Lightyear-esque galactic 'hero' Captain Quark, the game spans a bright, lively and 90's-'tude-to-the-max-bro universe in a quest to stop the nefarious Chairman Drek from destroying planets in order to create a new home-world for his people, after his company polluted the old one into uninhabitability. Coming during arguably the golden years of character action platformers, and playing in the same sandbox as Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Sly Cooper and Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank's focus is squarely on the 3rd person shooter / platforming side of the genre - and is, to my mind, the superior of all those franchises. Where Jak and Daxter started strong, then went off the rails, Spyro and Crash never hooked me much, and Sly Cooper, while fun, was more up and down across the series, R&C as an ongoing series has been certainly the most consistent and appealing. Where all those games play somewhat in the same style - a Saturday morning cartoon, Nickelodeon-esque kaleidoscope of colour, heavy stylisation and artistic flair, Ratchet and Clank is the most tonally consistent, artistically varied and uniformly fun of the lot, and that is all established in the first game. Yes, future games would introduce a lot of the aspects that would define the gameplay going forward (the first game is much heavier on platforming than later entries, and features less in the way of upgradable weapons etc,) but a lot of the series hallmarks are present here already - good music, non-linear gameplay paths, a fun, adversarial dynamic between the hot-headed, gung-ho Ratchet and the more cautious, smarter Clank. The variety of worlds that comprise the levels is admirable, and the artistic style of the game means it holds up remarkable well even 20 years later. Certainly no one is going to mistake the game for a modern one, but one does not need to quint to see good art design through a veneer of dodgy 3D graphics as they did with, say, Jak and Daxter. Controls are fairly tight - they would improve quite a bit in R&C 2, but are perfectly serviceable here, and level design is fun and allows for satisfying exploration. Some of the incidental characters are quite fun, and the overall thematic notion of environmentalism and the dangers of pure capitalism, while a 90's staple, is treated with a cynical humour that permeates every encounter, and is often genuinely funny. Captain Quark, also, gets more laughs than one might expect, with his best lines evoking a Johnny Bravo-like sense of self that is well written and fun. There are some aspects, such as hoverboarding, that I have never enjoyed in these games much, and I still don't, but they are fairly minimal, and the stuff that is good - the platforming and the shooting are lent a big helping hand by the frame-rate, which at 60fps, gives the game a great feeling of speed and a smoothness that is very satisfying. This first game is not the best the series has to offer, but a very admirable starting point, and still a fun game to go back to 20 years after the fact. What 90's 'attitude man' staples it has - an eye-rolling holdover I never enjoy much - are still markedly less grating than in many other games of the time, and the humour still shines through in most spots. The Ranking: Wont reach the highest point that the series will see, as there were improvements in subsequent games that were good, but R&C is still a great game. Obvious comparison is Jak and Daxter - a game I also liked - and Ratchet and Clank beat that one handily. However, in terms of kid-friendly fare, Sonic and SEGA All Stars Racing is also a colourful, bright and fun game with both a good single player offering, and a robust and repeatable multiplayer, and in the specific instance of this first R&C game, I don't think it quite has enough going for it to beat that one out, and so it finds it's spot just below it. The Bradwell Conspiracy Summary: The first game from developer A Brave Plan, The Bradwell Conspiracy is trying hard, but never quite manages to pull its ideas off, and comes off as a bit of a missed opportunity. The game is set around a disaster having happened in a facility owned by the eponymous Bradwell corporation, a scientific venture studying a newly discovered material 'Bradwellium', which allows the rapid destruction and reforming of objects based on blueprint data, in a facility in and under Stonehenge. As a bystander at an event that was taking place when some calamity happened, the mute protagonist awakes, and is guided through their quest to escape and unravel the history and mystery of the company and facility via an employee, Amber, who communicates over a radio with you. The story and mystery are fairly interesting, if never outright fascinating or particularly revelatory, and some of the environmental design is pretty nice. The whole game is rendered in a clean, low-polygon aesthetic, which is basic, but does the job for the most part, and there are some neat designs in the front-facing sections of the facility. Later though, in the working areas, its all pretty standard videogame fare, and in these sections the low-poly aesthetic doesn't really have any places to shine, and so seems less like an artistic choice, and more like the game is just older than it actually is. Low poly as art is good, low-poly as technological barrier is not, and it does start to feel that way. There are very few character models in the game - just Amber late in the story - but her model just looks bad, and animates pretty poorly. The game has some good voice work - particularly in the 'found' audio recordings, but the voice work on the actual active 'dialogue' from your (largely unseen) helper, is pretty hit-and-miss. Often times, the tension they are trying to build is massively undercut by how jovial and unafraid she seems - as she swings from telling you how scared you should be and how dangerous something is, to making a pun about some piece of scenery, and draining all tension from the situation. Gameplay-wise, the game tries to try and split the difference between a Walking Simulator and an 3D Puzzle game, and ends up in a kind of quagmire between the two. There is a mechanic where your character can photograph things in the environment and get some explanation from the helper - which is an interesting concept, and harks back to Adventure games in some ways, where clicking on things gets different dialogue, but it is really oddly used here. On multiple occasions, sending photos of random stuff gets a full description and a bunch of dialogue, but actually photographing the thing that is supposed to be the puzzle solution, just gets an "I don't know what you mean". Quite a few times, it turns out I was on to the correct idea for what to do, but a combination of the bad controls and the lack of dialogue when I photographed those key items / paths made me disregard it, only to later find out it was correct, after wasting half an hour trying other things. In terms of the puzzle aspect, the premise is sound - finding blueprints of objects, and recreating / duplicating them in different places to solve traversal puzzles, but the finicky controls and difficulty in actually placing objects in the environment made solving the puzzles much more difficult than they should be. I could never rely on my instincts - It was rarely clear whether I was trying the wrong thing, or if it was the right thing, but the controls were just being difficult. Sadly, in a lot of cases, it was the latter. There is a lot of possibility for that puzzle solving concept to make a great game, but here, it feels like the developer couldn't get the mechanics to work well, and so deferred to just minimising the puzzles, and went for story instead. That's fine, but a bit disappointing, considering the game is sold as a Puzzler, and more so, given that the story is, while competent, never terribly engaging. I would add that I remain interested in whatever A Brave Plan do next, as there is plenty of promise here, but it just isn't realised in this game. The Ranking: In terms of 3D Puzzle games, The Spectrum Retreat and Q.U.B.E Director's Cut provide some comparison, but despite some laudable story work, The Bradwell Conspiracy falls markedly lower than both those games. Lower down, the hit and miss puzzles of The Bradwell Conspiracy mean it has trouble competing with an also mechanically flawed, but more competently executed puzzle game like Dokoru, and the mechanical issues it suffers means that much less ambitious, but still technically smooth games like the better Artifex Mundi fare can out do it. In the end, it finds a sadly low spot below dull, but technically competent LEGO: Legend of Chima, but above cancelled and therefore lacking Jacob Jones and the Bigfoot Mystery. ⚛️⚛️BONUS GAMES!:⚛️⚛️ 1 additional game S-Ranked this update! Mass Effect Summary: The game that set in motion one of the grandest narrative games of the modern era, Mass Effect is one of those games that are a little hard to judge comparatively now. On the one hand, it is marked smaller in scope and less technically impressive than the subsequent games it paved the way for, but on the other hand, it is the genesis for the entire trilogy, and it is notable just how much of the subsequent games were narratively mapped out in this first entry. The fact that Mass Effect 2 was able to leapfrog so far past its predecessor is only possible by virtue of the fact that so much solid, great groundwork had been laid out. Following commander Shepherd as she (yes, she, till I die motherfuckers!) assembles a crew to face down rogue Spectre Saren, uncovering a plot by progenitor machine race the Reapers, here embodied by the malevolent Sovereign, to follow through on an age old and prophesied culling of organic life in the galaxy, the game does something absolutely remarkable: It creates and explores, over the course of its 30-ish hours, an entire, functional and complicated universal lore, documenting thousands of years of universal history, and populating that lore with a rich and complex spectrum of races, alliances, history and interdependent narrative hooks that were a bedrock capable of sustaining an entire trilogy of games. On a mechanical level, Mass Effect is markedly less finessed and accomplished than Mass Effect 2. Combat is much flatter and less precise, though never outright bad. On a gameplay feel level, it is certainly worse than the average 3rd person shooter of its era, but not on the level of, say, Bethesda's Fallout 3, and while never the high point of the games, is still serviceable. Graphically, the game still holds up relatively well nowadays, though with a lot less flair than the games it led to, and art design, while impressive, is a little more pedestrian that the heights the series would later reach. There is a much smaller scope here, and while the attempts to make the galaxy feel large are admirable, there is a certain repetition that can be felt in the over-use of the same sets of designs. There is essentially one of each type of structural area - one 'space colony' area, one 'mine' area, one 'residential' area, and they are only slightly altered across different planets, meaning that once the player has played through a couple of the same type, they do start to feel a little bland. That feeling of smallness extends to quite a few areas of the game, when viewed through the lens of the entire trilogy - the crew is smaller, the narrative shorter, the scope for conversation and romance options a bit more limited, but this is hard to hold against the game given all the things it did do so well. It is remarkable how quickly the player feels 'at home' in the galaxy Bioware has created. The rich history and great writing afforded to even the most minor of areas and aspects is really impressive, and while some aspects of the universe, such as the Salarian history or the Turian / Human historical conflict are only hinted at, it is done so in a way that allowed for significant fleshing out of the concepts in subsequent games, without the need for ret-con or contradiction. Music and sound design are notably excellent (there are few auditory stings more satisfying than jumping through a Mass Relay with your subwoofer up on full, and watching your windows rattle!.) There are a few issues of 'padding' in the game - the exploration of non-story-critical planets in the 'Mako' rover vehicle is a painfully dull process, with each planet seemingly randomly scattered with hills and valleys, and very little fun is to be had in negotiating them - a task which has to be done far more often that I would have liked. There are story critical Mako sections that are pretty fun, where the environment is bespoke and crafted to allow for fun vehicular combat sections, but the less crafted planet sections are simply dull. There is also an issue with 'check-listing' - landing on planets early on will routinely result in finding objects that cannot yet be interacted with, but there is not in-game method I can see of flagging them to come back to - the player has to simply remember which ones were opened and which were not if they are trying to fully explore every nook and cranny. I do also find the game to drag a little more when not on the main narrative path than the subsequent games, as most non-critical missions are pretty bare-bones in terms of gameplay. Story-wise, they do a good job of fleshing out the interesting world, but not nearly as much as in the later games. All in all, Mass Effect remains a wonderful game, filled with narrative interest, and compelling, lovable characters who I care a lot about and want to see as much of as I can. Aside from some very visible limitations in scope, questionable Mako explorations and limited combat finesse, the only real issues the game has are created by comparison with its immediate sequel, which did everything Mass Effect did and more, correcting almost the issues, and adding much more to the lore of the universe - but it was only able to do so because of the incredible work done here. The Ranking: Doesn't reach the heights of Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect is no slouch. The questionable combat is enough to ensure it can't place higher than The Last of Us, of even Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice or Dark Souls III, but the lore alone is enough to keep it very high on the current list. The incredible affection for its character that it instills, along with the compulsively engaging story is enough to ensure it can place higher than Hotline Miami, but the slightly morel limited nature of the game does mean I have trouble placing it higher than endlessly repeatable and addictive Cities: Skylines, and so it finds a well deserved high spot in between those two great games. So there we have it folks Thanks to @GraniteSnake, @Arcesius & @Alderriz for putting in requests! Prey still cling onto 'Current Most Awesome Game' Kick Ass: The Game remains the current 'Least Awesome Game', once again! What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the shiny apple... or the mouldy banana? That's up to randomness, me.... and YOU! Remember: SPECIAL NOTE If there are any specific games anyone wants to see get ranked sooner rather than later - drop a message, and I'll mark them for 'Priority Ranking'! The only stipulation is that they must be on my profile, at 100% (S-Rank).... and aren't already on the Rankings! Catch y'all later my Scientific Brothers and Sisters! ☮️ 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleggworth Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said: Following commander Shepherd as she (yes, she, till I die motherfuckers!) assembles a crew to face down rogue Spectre Saren, uncovering a plot by progenitor machine race the Reapers, here embodied by the malevolent Sovereign, to follow through on an age old and prophesied culling of organic life in the galaxy, the game does something absolutely remarkable: It creates and explores, over the course of its 30-ish hours, an entire, functional and complicated universal lore, documenting thousands of years of universal history, and populating that lore with a rich and complex spectrum of races, alliances, history and interdependent narrative hooks that were a bedrock capable of sustaining an entire trilogy of games. 1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said: It is remarkable how quickly the player feels 'at home' in the galaxy Bioware has created. The rich history and great writing afforded to even the most minor of areas and aspects is really impressive, and while some aspects of the universe, such as the Salarian history or the Turian / Human historical conflict are only hinted at, it is done so in a way that allowed for significant fleshing out of the concepts in subsequent games, without the need for ret-con or contradiction. This is what is missing from Andromeda btw Excellent read as always Doctor. I could have written your entries on A Way Out and Fallout 3 myself, significantly less well though of course. Your review of Little Nightmares has had the opposite effect on me than your Transistor review though. The speed run/no death trophy felt manageable but those random variations out of nowhere are possibly my most hated thing in games. Its position on my to play list is in jeopardy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted June 2, 2021 Author Share Posted June 2, 2021 13 minutes ago, Cleggworth said: This is what is missing from Andromeda btw Yeah, that seems to be the thrust of what I’m hearing - a step forward in combat, and sevral steps back in the narrative. A shame, but I’ll see how I feel after finishing the LE trilogy - if my appetite is still there, I may still check Andromeda out from a curiosity point of view. I suspect knowing what I’m in for, and managing expectations will help. Quote Excellent read as always Doctor. I could have written your entries on A Way Out and Fallout 3 myself, significantly less well though of course. thank you sir! Quote Your review of Little Nightmares has had the opposite effect on me than your Transistor review though. The speed run/no death trophy felt manageable but those random variations out of nowhere are possibly my most hated thing in games. Its position on my to play list is in jeopardy! Oh, I wouldn’t let it put you off - the game is wonderful really - and that trophy can be save scummed if necessary... to be honest, if I had done that from the beginning it might not have driven me to such distraction - I did end up doing it myself, as I couldn’t handle repeating the first few levels over again after the first 10 or so tries in a row. It is a game worth playing for sure - I don’t want to think I had a hand in waving you off it.... if nothing else, you HAVE to experience the moment I referenced. It’s just ??delightfully macabre! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesius Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 You know.. Here I am, fighting to put together coherent sentences, trying to avoid making too many spelling and grammar errors... And then you come along and - or so it seems - quickly and effortlessly review 150+ games, with each review being on an incredibly high literal level ? I really enjoy reading your reviews, especially when I'm interested in the game as well. So, Little Nightmares... I'm glad to see that it ended up that high on the list For quite some time it was one of my favorite games, and one of the few games that made an very long lasting impact. I played it four (?) years ago, right around release, and still today I still know the entire game's progression route pretty much by heart... If Little Nightmares 2 is equally good... Man, really looking forward to getting to that one soon! As for the no-death / speedrun trophy.. It really didn't bother me at all. If anything, I found it really fun to go for. I played Little Nightmares at a time where I dind't necessarily play too many challenging games. And more importantly, I played it very early after creating my account (never had an online gaming account before.. so no trophies or achievements in previous generations). And so, going for this trophy was... fun, different, exciting! And pulling it off felt amazing I understand your complaints though! It is just not something I thought about, especially since I didn't have other games with similar requirements that I could compare this to. Also, back then the WR for the any% speedrun was still somewhere around 50 minutes (it is 41 minutes today), so to be able to pull this off you pretty much needed to be on WR pace ? Now, for RAD... The post-game grind sounds awful... But I am not one to avoid a game due to difficulty / grindyness / length if I'm otherwise interested in the game, and you sure make it seems like RAD is a game worth trying out. Seeing it so close to Nex Machina really makes me wanna play it ? One question though... 156 runs sounds like a lot... How long does a run take? ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted June 3, 2021 Author Share Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Arcesius said: You know.. Here I am, fighting to put together coherent sentences, trying to avoid making too many spelling and grammar errors... And then you come along and - or so it seems - quickly and effortlessly review 150+ games, with each review being on an incredibly high literal level I really enjoy reading your reviews, especially when I'm interested in the game as well. I appreciate that mate, thank you ☺️ Quote So, Little Nightmares... I'm glad to see that it ended up that high on the list For quite some time it was one of my favorite games, and one of the few games that made an very long lasting impact. I played it four (?) years ago, right around release, and still today I still know the entire game's progression route pretty much by heart... If Little Nightmares 2 is equally good... Man, really looking forward to getting to that one soon! As for the no-death / speedrun trophy.. It really didn't bother me at all. If anything, I found it really fun to go for. I played Little Nightmares at a time where I dind't necessarily play too many challenging games. And more importantly, I played it very early after creating my account (never had an online gaming account before.. so no trophies or achievements in previous generations). And so, going for this trophy was... fun, different, exciting! And pulling it off felt amazing I understand your complaints though! It is just not something I thought about, especially since I didn't have other games with similar requirements that I could compare this to. Also, back then the WR for the any% speedrun was still somewhere around 50 minutes (it is 41 minutes today), so to be able to pull this off you pretty much needed to be on WR pace Yeah, there was certainly a bit of an added factor of my own bull-headedness - I really didn't want to resort to 'save-scumming' the trophy, though after 10 or 15 runs, I did end up doing it after chapter 2, just to try and avoid having to do all of the first two levels again - and if I had done that from the start, it would likely have been so inconsequential an experience that I would not really have remembered it negatively. It really didn't sour me on the game though - it's such a difficult style of 'Hans Christian Anderson / The City of Lost Children type fairytale horror' to nail, and they do it so well, that it would be a great shame if that one trophy put anyone off experiencing it. I think I'll probably do the second one's review pretty soon, should be in the next few batches - I'll flag it with your name so I don't forget! ? (Spoiler alert - it has no similar trophy!) Quote Now, for RAD... The post-game grind sounds awful... But I am not one to avoid a game due to difficulty / grindyness / length if I'm otherwise interested in the game, and you sure make it seems like RAD is a game worth trying out. Seeing it so close to Nex Machina really makes me wanna play it One question though... 156 runs sounds like a lot... How long does a run take? Yeah, I'd say go for RAD - it is really fun, and has a style that's pretty unique, and the combat is certainly simple, but fun, and the variations of weapons keeps it fresh, even where the variety of enemies is a bit limited. (Not to mention, it is criminally underplayed, and chalk full of Ultra Rare, if those matter at all!) A full run (a successful one) is probably in the 45-60 minutes area, but that wasn't the case for those 156. The way the RNG worked out for me, the one thing II had left to get was only spawn-able in level 1-2, so those runs were just enough to get through 1-1, then explore 1-2 fully, to see if the stars had aligned in my favour, so only in the 7-10 minute range. Not too long, but then, at 10 minutes a pop, that was still 26 hours of running the same level - not exactly a short amount of time, especially since I had already mastered the game ? Edited June 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infected Elite Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 So glad you see R&C ahead of Jak. i like both series but ive always seen R&C ahead of Jak and even like games such as Sly Cooper. Really wish my ps3 worked, id go plat 3, and Into the Nexus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted June 3, 2021 Author Share Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Infected Elite said: So glad you see R&C ahead of Jak. i like both series but ive always seen R&C ahead of Jak and even like games such as Sly Cooper. Oh, for sure - that was never really in question for me. I actually missed almost all those character-action platformers back in their original PS1 / PS2 days - I think my immediate dislike of Crash Bandicoot gave me a false sense that the whole genre wasn't for me, but I discovered most of them with the PS3 rereleased trilogy stuff, and was pleasantly surprised in some cases - but most of all by R&C. It just seems to hit the sweet spot between shooter and platformer perfectly. As probably the only person in history to play Resistance Fall of Man before any R&C game, it was weird and cool to see where Insomniac's love of weird weapons came from! Quote Really wish my ps3 worked, id go plat 3, and Into the Nexus You know, Into the Nexus and A Crack in Time are the only two I still haven't ever played - and ironically, the ones people most consistently cite as the best ones! ?? One of these days I need to get on that - I think I have PS3 copies lying around in the garage somewhere of both - I'm thinking after the new PS5 one, my appetite might be re-whetted and I'll maybe dive back into the PS3 stuff and play them Edited June 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infected Elite Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 18 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said: You know, Into the Nexus and A Crack in Time are the only two I still haven't ever played - and ironically, the ones people most consistently cite as the best ones! i really enjoyed Crack in Time. My hope for Rift Apart is a decent campaign. give me 20hrs, 26+ with extras... not like 10hrs lol. (i can dream), and i hope that Rivet stays in the series. Yes i love R&C but adding an extra character could bring new dimensions. Similar to Spider-Man sequel in development soon(i hope) would have Miles and Peter both I can understand the Crash hate. I personally like Crash, but it was a nostalgia thing. 4 was keeping it to the roots. But i grew up in the Crash vs Spyro, and was always team Crash. i have a weird attraction to games where you play as some kind of animal. Im always like YES!... Biomutant, i keep calling the mutant a cat lmao... need to start that. Also... ugh. Resistance 1 and 2. omg. so good. 3.... not so much. But id love to see this series come back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now