DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

It is an obsession to some degree, as it is to - for example - try to maintain a 100% account, getting plats in games you don't like, etc... But yes, the amount of dedication required to get this game done is only matched by something like 100% in DJ Max Respect (the latter actually takes close to 2000 hours, in contrast to Crypt which "only" takes roughly 1000 hours to finish). Personally, I just cannot prioritize finishing a videogame over anything that goes on in real life. I'd love to finish it some day though, seeing it as the only unifinished game on my profile... well, let's say I might be a bit obsessed as well  

 

haha - oops ? - I guess I should have checked if you actually played the game before making my feelings known! ?

 

Well, hopefully you understand I respect you, just not the platinum for Crypt ??

 

Yeah- to me, a game that requires such a massive time investment is only ever going to become a slog at some point - it's what puts me off the idea of MMORPGs as well - I am too interested in playing lots of games, that very few can hold my attention for that length of time.

Probably the closest would be something like Hitman - for sure, across all three Hitman games in the new trilogy, I suspect I am getting close to most time i've spent with a game  - (certainly in the high hundreds of hours) - but that is a lighting strike kind of thing - and has nothing to do with trophies.

I'm playing those over and over because I love them - the trophies were finished far quicker than that

Edited July 6, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Dzware]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

That, to me, is not dedication - it's obsession. It's not being a fan, it's having a fetish.

 

Hey now, no kink shaming please ?

[DrBloodmoney]

My self-imposed rule that all new platinums should be reviewed as part of the current scientific update is taking it's toll this round!

 

I've had to do two additional reviews for this round already, and am now in a race against myself to get this one up before I finish Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart, and have to add that one too ?

[rjkclarke]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

My self-imposed rule that all new platinums should be reviewed as part of the current scientific update is taking it's toll this round!

 

I've had to do two additional reviews for this round already, and am now in a race against myself to get this one up before I finish Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart, and have to add that one too 

 

Ratchet and Clank will be easy though right... Because obviously a games worth must be judged by its trophy list. Therefore, "Rift Apart has teh EZiestest trophy list, bad gam, would not recommand"

 

Oh no, some evil voodoo took over and made me write some drivel that doesn't remotely align with my own opinion and type that, I swear. (I'll change it if you like, I don't want to start a huge flame war with people, I know that's a sensitive subject for some - obviously.. I'm just casually joking around)

Must be this new PC... Better bring my one legged donkey computer with three wheels back. That never made me write silly stuff... Never ever...

 

Honestly though mate, you could stagger the newer platinum's over the next few batches or so? Might be easier for you. Depends on at how fast a rate you are achieving them, I guess it also depends how long it's actually taking you to write them. I don't know how long the scientific process takes you. Often takes me an hour plus to write anything halfway coherent in a review. Then a bit longer to actually make it flow a little more naturally. That's just me though, I zone out a lot.

 

This won't be any kind of huge revelation for you as I'm sure you've said this, or something similar, plenty of times, to other people, but don't feel too pressured to get to adding them all at once. I'd wouldn't like for you to start feeling under pressure and working to a really stringent deadline with these kinds of things. I'd worry that it would stop being fun for you. I'm probably overthinking that, I don't live in your head obviously, I just wouldn't want you to get creatively burnt out by having to do too much, is what I basically wanted to say. Well, and tried to, in my own convoluted way

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by rjkclarke

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

 

Ratchet and Clank will be easy though right... Because obviously a games worth must be judged by its trophy list. Therefore, "Rift Apart has teh EZiestest trophy list, bad gam, would not recommand"

 

? obviously!

 

I know  - every review of that game from a trophy hunter so far reads like an Emo Hipster's Amazon review:

 

"Everything was awesome... 2 stars"

 

 

3 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

Honestly though mate, you could stagger the newer platinum's over the next few batches or so? Might be easier for you. Depends on at how fast a rate you are achieving them, I guess it also depends how long it's actually taking you to write them. I don't know how long the scientific process takes you. Often takes me an hour plus to write anything halfway coherent in a review. Then a bit longer to actually make it flow a little more naturally. That's just me though, I zone out a lot.

 

This won't be any kind of huge revelation for you as I'm sure you've said this, or something similar, plenty of times, to other people, but don't feel too pressured to get to adding them all at once. I'd wouldn't like for you to start feeling under pressure and working to a really stringent deadline with these kinds of things. I'd worry that it would stop being fun for you. I'm probably overthinking that, I don't live in your head obviously, I just wouldn't want you to get creatively burnt out by having to do too much, is what I basically wanted to say. Well, and tried to, in my own convoluted way

 

 

Haha, don't worry - I know my deadlines are only my own - I like to try and get the ones people requested out in a reasonable timeframe, but there is also a slightly selfish reason for wanting to do the new ones at the same time - those are by far the easiest to write, simply because I finish the game and have a lot to say, but they also take the most editing, because I tend to just blurt out a massive scrawl, then have to reign it in a bit ?

 

 

[rjkclarke]

3 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Haha, don't worry - I know my deadlines are only my own - I like to try and get the ones people requested out in a reasonable timeframe, but there is also a slightly selfish reason for wanting to do the new ones at the same time - those are by far the easiest to write, simply because I finish the game and have a lot to say, but they also take the most editing, because I tend to just blurt out a massive scrawl, then have to reign it in a bit 

 

I have that same problem too, I just clearly reign it in less haha  ?...

 

That's all good then anyway. Like I said I'd hate for it to stop being fun for you.. The passion you clearly have for what you are playing/ have played really comes across very well, so I was just a little concerned that might change, if it starts to become a bit more of a workman-like process.

Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be the case and I was worrying about nothing. (That definitely sounds like me, I'm the sort of person that phones after a night out asking if I offended anyone, when I clearly hadn't... Probably mild neurosis or something. )  

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

 

I have that same problem too, I just clearly reign it in less haha  ...

 

That's all good then anyway. Like I said I'd hate for it to stop being fun for you.. The passion you clearly have for what you are playing/ have played really comes across very well, so I was just a little concerned that might change, if it starts to become a bit more of a workman-like process.

Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be the case and I was worrying about nothing. (That definitely sounds like me, I'm the sort of person that phones after a night out asking if I offended anyone, when I clearly hadn't... Probably mild neurosis or something. )  

 

Haha, nah - any time I start feeling like this is a chore, I plan to just warn folks I'm taking some time away from it - but so far, every time that has threatened to be a problem, a good game has re-awakened my love of doing it!

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ??

 

 

Hello Science-Friends and Science-Frenemies, as promised (and in some cases requested), here are the latest results of our great scientific endeavour!

 

 

 

Arcade Archives: Matt Mania Exciting Hour

 

Summary: 

Mat Mania Exciting Hour (or Mat Mania: Pro-wrestling Network for those old enough to remember a western release in 1985 - spoiler, I was 2 years old, so not among them!) is an interesting timepiece in Hamster's stable of Archive releases.

 

The game is old, even among their stable, and it does show - in a number of areas. The controls are pretty clunky and very basic (two input buttons only), the variety of gameplay pretty lacking (the player only plays as one character), and the visuals are - while not terrible for the era - very, very basic by any kind of modern standard.

 

It is interesting to see form a preservationist point of view - The round-by-round progression from one archetypal foe to the next is the clear progenitor of something like Punch-Out - each enemy wrestler had their own signature style (to a point), and look, and the basis for 'round-the-arcade' conversations about the game are clearly in the "who did you get to" variety, much like Nintendo's game. 

However, being such an early version of that style, Mat Mania is missing a lot of the best aspects that would later be added to that style of game. Most enemies do not have particularly clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, and so fighting them feels much more similar, round-by-round than later games would do. Each new foe looks very different, but generally fights in a similar way, and with so basic a set of controls, there is little potential for interesting variety.

(It's also worth noting, in 2021, some of the archetypes are - there is no other way to say this - overtly racist. A sign of the times of course, and it is worth commending Hamster for including the game as originally designed, showing such things as they were, from a preservationist point of view - but they are likely to inspire recoil nowadays.)

 

The game has some flair - it's fun to see the cavalcade of silly cameos in the crowds, and the music is basic, but catchy as chip-tune music of the era goes. The primary colour aesthetics are fun. Sound effects are extremely loud and obnoxious though - I am unsure if that is an issue with the port, or with the original game, but I did find I had to turn the sound down quite a bit to deal with them.

 

All in all, in interesting curiosity, but not one I found particularly fun to play.
I'm glad to have experienced it for a gaming history and knowledge point-of-view, and interesting to see an early influence on future, more rounded games, but not one I would go back to. 

 

 

The Ranking:

On comparison points, this is the least awesome of the Hamster Arcade ports so far ranked, unfortunately. I found it interesting to see, but only from a preservationist point of view, and not from a gaming one.

Ranks below Arcade Archives: Renegade, and slips down a little further, past games I would sooner pick up again, such as Artifex Mundi low-point Eventide: Slavic Fable, and even the woeful Jak II. I would, however, rather spend some time mastering this game than re-entering the fray with Cel Damage HD, and so it finds a rather low spot, just above that game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratchet & Clank 2: Going Commando

 

Summary: 

The original Ratchet and Clank was a very good game. It had a lot of personality, plenty of charm, solid mechanics and a fun mix of decent platforming and 3rd person shooting, with a variety of fun, silly weaponry. 
Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando, makes it look like an amateurish prototype.

 

This game is essentially a textbook lesson in how a sequel being 'derivative' is not necessarily a bad thing. There is very, very little in the way of genuine mechanical or stylistic changes from the original game, but virtually every aspect is either refined, finessed or expanded to the extent that the already great original game begins to look bad, simply by proximity and comparison.

 

Narratively, the game is a little thematically weaker than the previous game - the plot, centred more around themes of corporate espionage than environmental concerns this time, though still leaning heavily into the core concepts of consumerism run-amok (a slightly dissonant concept, considering the legacy R&C would have, across 10-odd games / Movie Tie-ins / Toys etc., but let's not go down that route!) - however, the manner in which it is told - the plotting, cut scenes etc. - are a big step up.

 

Visually, the game remains in the Nickelodeon, teen-sci-fi, space-opera/90's X-Games arena, but with markedly better visuals, and a fantastic variety of art design and whimsical characters, it works remarkably well. Certainly, as someone who finds 90's 'Attitude' to have aged like a fine milk - worse than virtually any other stylistic era - I find R&C to be the one series able to pull it off consistently and effectively, and to draw a wry smile from me, rather than the eye-rolls that it's peers (Jak II / Sly II / Crash / PoP: The Warrior Within) did.

 

Gameplay-wise, this sequel is a little more linear in structure than the previous game - there is less requirement to return to previous level areas, for example, but that is more than compensated for by the length and variety of levels. The game has a very well implemented difficulty curve, slowly building as the player progresses, and enemies this time are far smarter about taking cover / flanking / swarming etc. meaning tactical use of the awesome variety of silly weapons is now a requirement, rather than simply a preference.

 

On the weapons - as always, they are a highlight of the game - and Going Commando is arguably more responsible for varied weaponry becoming the primary signature of the series than even the original game was. There are more here than before, and this was the game that introduced the upgrade mechanics to them. Since upgrades are both meaningful, and fun - and are tied as much to continued use, as to finding collectible bolts, the game encourages variety of play, while still allowing the player to focus on the weapons they enjoy most to upgrade earlier. In addition to weapons, virtually everything in the game can be customised and upgraded - Ratchet's boots can give new powers, his armour and health are on an upgrade path encouraging collection of hidden collectibles, even his ship can be customised and tweaked (though these are largely cosmetic enhancements.)

 

The game plays very well - there is a smoothness and satisfaction to traversal and combat that becomes second nature very quickly. Even on Vita, where I played the game to platinum, the game runs very well, and while there is some reduction in visual fidelity, the smaller screen pretty much disguises this. Yes, it is certainly preferable to see the great design of the 20-odd planets on a bigger screen, but having a game this large and good on the Vita is nothing to sniff at, and the portability is worth the offset in visuals if that's your bag. 

A great game from top to bottom. Where peers failed in their second outing - either by sticking to a formula, but expanding it without proper focus (Sly II), or by throwing out everything that made the original great, and replacing fun gameplay with genre-incompatible copy-cat nonsense (Jak II) - Insomniac took an already great formula, dismantled it, focussed on improving and polishing every individual element, then - crucially - put it all back together again in the right way. 

R&C 2: Going Commando is absolutely a direct sequel to R&C, and has all the parts that made that game what it was, but elevates the formula to a level that makes it impossible not to see the remarkable future the series had as being cemented in this outing.

 

 

The Ranking:

Comparison with the original Ratchet and Clank is, of course, applicable, but it will surprise no one who read the above to learn, Going Commando is leaping quite a bit higher on the list!

 

Above that original game, a reasonable comparison point is the Prince of Persia trilogy of games - they are also 3D action platformers from a similar era. While those games do have a lot of things going for them, the simple act of playing R&C2, combined with the much greater variety of art, and the vastly greater scope for repeatability, owing to the upgrade paths and array of collectibles and secrets, mean even The Two Thrones - the current front-runner of the Prince of Persia games - is unable to outdo Going Commando.

 

Above those games, Prince of Persia descendent, Assassin's Creed provides some (very loose) comparison in terms of 3D platforming. I feel like R&C2 is able to outdo Assassin's Creed II, as the stonking good fun of blasting your way across any one of its best planet-based levels is a higher-high than any single part of ACII, however, the broad scope and narrative, and the vast, well realised historical cities of those games do begin to test R&C2 simply on scale and grandeur. By the time that series hit Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, refining its mechanics and narrative, and adding in the great multiplayer, it becomes too much for R&C2.

 

Therefore, we find ourselves somewhere between ACII and AC:Brotherhood. Again, it comes down to pure, gut feeling between those two games. Looking at the current list, I think Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando has enough to outdo DoubleFine's great little rogue-like RAD, but just doesn't quite have the muscle to outdo Housemarque's Nex Machina, and so, it finds a warm welcome, nice and high on the ranking, between those two games.

 

 

 

 

Superliminal

 

Summary: 

3D Puzzle games love a testing chamber, don't they? 
Ever since Portal cam along, as what appeared, on the surface, to be an innocuous little add-on side project in The Orange Box, yet defined itself not only as the runaway high-point of that collection, but also as the catalyst for a sea-change in the modern 3D puzzle game, other games have been aping it's signature style. 
The 'trapped in a testing chamber, trying to escape some quietly malevolent, out-of-control experiment' has become a staple. 

 

Superliminal is one of these. It is very much walking a path defined by Portal, however, unlike some other, lesser fare, it avoids too direct a comparison by virtue of its clearly defined differences.

The narrative of the game is based on dreams. The player takes control of someone stuck in a dream - and comes quickly to understand that he/she is currently engaged in some kind of experimental dream therapy. Through interaction with the game, two opposing forces make themselves known - a gentle, affable male doctor, and a stern, often domineering Artificial Intelligence with a female voice (in probably the most overt Portal-like aspect.) It becomes increasing clear as the player moves through the game, from early levels which are more defined 'testing chambers' to less defined, more dreamlike and ethereal areas, that the experiment is going wrong, and the doctor is struggling against the rogue AI to wake the player up.

 

It's a fairly unoriginal premise, and, narratively, the game is not particularly stand-out. Voice work on both parts is good, though never amazing, and the actual story is fairly underplayed and not the forefront of the experience. Think Portal, rather than Portal 2.

However, the story is not the high point of the game - the puzzles are.

 

With most great puzzle games, a single overarching 'hook' can be used to define the premise of the game. Portal had its eponymous Portal gun, Chromagun, Hue and The Spectrum Retreat used colours as their defining factor, The Turing Test and The Talos Principle were about geometric placement of lasers. Superliminal's hook is perception. In much the same manner as the (excellent and wildly under-appreciated) Echochrome, Superliminal works on the premise of perception of reality. If something looks real, it is, or becomes, real.

If a flat, distorted image of a chess piece is smeared on a wall, and across several bits of pipe, it is useless. If the player can position themselves in such a way as to make the perspective and parallax work to make it look real, then it becomes real, and the player can pick it up. If an item is small, and can be lifted up by the player, then they reposition themselves so that the small, close object looks like a large, far-away item, then drop it - voila. it is now a massive version of the same object, or vice-versa.

 

It's a great mechanic, and allows for a great variety of puzzles with really smart, solutions. Many times I struggled with a room for a good half hour, before suddenly realising the solution was right in front of my face the whole time. That is a difficult thing to achieve, and allows for excellent 'eureka moments' - the solutions never made me feel like I was stupid for not seeing them at first, but rather that I was smart for having figured them out eventually.

Because the mechanics are smart and well implemented, each new puzzle earned the game my respect. There is a good level of freedom to the mechanics too - while there is always a defined 'correct' way to solve each puzzle, it is somewhat possible to come up with bespoke, non-standard methods for some puzzles - and indeed, a small number of easter-eggs hidden in the game, to be found by doing more off-the-beaten-path solutions within puzzle rooms means there is value to experimentation beyond the simplest solutions.

 

The game does feel that it loses a little focus as it progresses - as the dream world becomes less and less tethered to reality, the game gets more wild and interesting ,but this does generally seem go hand in hand with a converse reduction in the focus of the puzzles themselves - I found the early portions of the game to be 'true' puzzles, and the latter half more in the vein of a puzzle-adjacent, trippy Walking Sim - although that isn't always the case - probably the most interesting and smart puzzle (involving a miniature model of a row of buildings, not unlike soon to be ranked Maquette!) does fall in this area.

The puzzles themselves though, are generally very varied and interesting. Each mechanic is used only as long as is interesting - there is no feeling of grinding away at the same puzzle type for too long.

 

The game is relatively short - taking around 4-5 hours on the first playthrough without guides, but it is possible (required, in fact, for the S-Rank, as there is a well implemented speed-run trophy) to finish in around a half-hour once fully solved. 

 

All in all, a very good, whip-smart puzzler, with good variety of puzzles, interesting visuals, well implemented controls and a great pace. Let down a little by a slightly lacklustre implementation of what could be a better narrative, but that is not overly detrimental to the overall game.

 

 

The Ranking:

On obvious comparison points, Superliminal, while shorter, handily beats out Q.U.B.E on variety of puzzles and smart solutions, and, while narratively weaker, still wins against The Spectrum Retreat on the same aspects.

 

The Last Campfire has a nice story, and more impressive visuals and artistic style, but despite having an equally good variety of puzzle types, its ease and lack of meat in its puzzles does hamper it in a match-up.

 

I do think, however, that despite the relatively easier and less cerebrally interesting puzzles on show in Observation, the narrative, visuals and presentation - both artistically and auditorially - are too much for Superliminal to compete with.

 

That leaves us somewhere in between. Without many straight puzzle game in between those two, it comes down to feel - I think Superliminal beats out the original Trine, but doesn't quite have enough to it to compete with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and so it finds its spot between those two games.

 

 

 

 

 

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

 

Summary: 

☢️Scientific Note☢️
While I have only 1 actual S-Rank for Skyrim, I have played it thoroughly in two incarnations. The one that makes it technically eligible is the PS3 version, as that is my only S-Rank, but to hold the ranking to that version only would be to obey the letter of my own laws, rather than the spirit, and, quite frankly, I'm sick of talking about game-breaking glitches! As such, this review is based on the way the game runs, technically, on the PS4 re-release. If anyone is going to pick up Skyrim on a Sony console now - that is the one to play.

 

Like many purveyors of genre-based franchises, Bethesda has two major IP's - Fallout and The Elder Scrolls - that operate in series in terms of mechanical progression, but in parallel in terms of genre. 
As Blizzard does with Warcraft and Starcraft, or Bioware with Dragon Age and Mass Effect, or CDProjeckt Red does, now, with The Witcher and Cyberpunk, Bethesda uses a similar progression of technical advancement, flip-flopping between Fantasy and Science Fiction thematic genres, to create two distinct strains within the same gaming genre.

 

There are three Fallout games eligible for this ranking - all three already ranked in fact - which puts Skyrim in an odd position, as it is the only Elder Scrolls game to qualify. Previous entry - The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - came at a time prior to the trophy age, (and was, by the way, my first foray into the Elder Scrolls IP.) A direct, number sequel is yet to be released (and, likely, will not grace Sony consoles, due to Microsoft's power-play purchase of corporate owner Zenimax.)

As a result, Skyrim is likely the only chance I will have to review any of the Elder Scrolls games at all. Luckily, its good!

 

Operating very much on the same basis, engine and mechanics as Fallout 3 & 4, Skyrim is a massive open world RPG. Like those games, it operates on an almost absurdly side-loaded narrative structure - simply following the main narrative through, without stopping to smell the roses, would likely take a player no longer than 5 or 6 hours, but the game is so densely packed with side content, spread across a game map of such astonishing size, that any player looking to lose themselves in the world, could easily do so for several hundred hours, and still come out the back end of such an endeavour with plenty left to see and do.

 

Mechanically, the game is reasonably good (on PS4 - see the caveat at the beginning of this!) There is certainly a significant amount of open-world jank on show, but, like Fallout 4, it is generally of the comical variety: sometimes immersion-breaking, but not often game-breaking. Generally, I find that stealth and bow use and/or magic is a more viable option than hand-to-hand combat in the game, though that is debatable, and perhaps more a matter of preference than anything else.

 

Visually, the game is fairly pedestrian, though it is worth nothing the design work that has gone into the individual townships. Each of the seven main cities is visually distinct, and has a separate broad artistic flavour. Mothal looks decidedly different to Falkreath, or Riften to Solitude, and the artistic flair done there is admirable. Any player could tell, simply from a screenshot in any of the towns, which one it is. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the areas surrounding them.  It would have been nice if this distinction extended a little farther than the surrounding walls of the town - generally, the main areas of world are quite similar in aesthetic, varying only by weather and northernness, but it is still something worth commending.

 

Voice work is fairly good in the game, and incidental writing given a decent flair, and while it becomes fairly obvious that the same actors are used over and over - that is roundly forgivable, given the number of characters. Music is, in particular, a big area of superiority over either Fallout game - the original score and in particular the main Skyrim theme is a rousing, thumping, Nordic inspired affair that gets the blood pumping, and readies the player for some High-Fantasy battle long before the game has even loaded. While Fallout has the great cultivated music, most obviously led by the great Ink Spots songs they love so much, the orginal score is not on the level of Skyrim's.

 

In terms of the writing, Skyrim falls somewhere between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 in terms of quality.
Certainly, the main, driving narrative (here involving dragons, being the chosen one, and - given the generally high-standard of lore in the series - some curiously poorly defined shouty-monks,) is significantly less nuanced and less interesting than even the weaker Fallout 4's was, however, the side content is where the real meat is, and on that front, there is plenty of great stuff.

From the town specific quests across one of the many major townships in Skyrim, to the faction quest-lines (the Thieves, Mage's and Assassin;'s Guilds make a return, and are granted uniformly high-quality material - in particular the Dark Brotherhood,) to the random quests found in caves and ruins and in outposts, like Fallout, the player never knows were a play session will take them, and simply setting out across the map in any direction is likely to yield anything from a treasure, to a new town, to a long, complex and involved quest-line that a simple slight deviation in direction would likely have entirely obfuscated. That offers the games that rarified sense of wonder and discovery that cannot me cheesed or approximated, and can only result from sheer size, volume and quality.

 

It might feel like, reading this review, that there is a copy-paste element to my reviews with Fallout games, and that is probably accurate. As stated, there are myriad similarities to the games, but there is one are in which I think, simply by virtue of genre, Skyrim, (and The Elder Scrolls as an IP generally,) suffers terribly in comparison to its sister IP. The lore, and the immersive storytelling.

The lore of The Elder Scrolls is, simply, not as interesting as Fallout's is. I am not necessarily a 'Sci-Fi over Fantasy' guy, so this is not just a case of preference - it is to do with the level of engagement the player has with the world they are exploring, and the levels in which the game is able to speak to the player:
Skyrim has 1, and Fallout has 2.

It is that simple.

 

In Fallout, there are two separate levels of interest to everything - the world of the game, post-apocalypse, and the world it is built on-top of - the pre-apocalypse. 
Lore, stories, found objects, artistic design - in Fallout, each of these has multiple different ways they can engage the player. Messages left on a terminal, or around the place might date from pre-bombs, or post-bombs. A building being explored is interesting both as a relic of the forgotten world, and as a current hiding place or makeshift fortress. There is inherent interest in everything you find, both as it relates to the current state of the world, and how it related to the old one - and the ways in which those two things are married together are varied and interesting.

 

In The Elder Scrolls, there is none of that. Everything the player does, and is told, or discovers, is simply in aid of expanding the lore of the 'current' world. Since the player has no stake in, nor real understanding of, any previous (or future) state of the game world, exploring something 'ancient' within the game lore, is really no different to exploring something 'new' - it is only interesting on a surface level.

 

Granted, that is an issue inherent to the genre as a whole, but when held up against Fallout - a comparison impossible not to do, given the proximity of the two games on a genre level - it does make Skyrim feel lesser.

It also might feel like nit-picking, but bear in mind, the impact of it is fairly intense across the game. Because of the 'rubber-banding' difficulty level - in which progression and levelling up makes little difference to the actual game, as enemies level along with you, the primary reason for exploring the world is not to 'level up' - it is to explore for exploration's sake. That sense of wonder and lore-seeking is the game. Given that that element is essentially cut in half here, as compared to its closest cousin, it is difficult to ignore.

All in all, Skyrim is, like Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, a mixed bag - massive and interesting and exciting, yet still plagued with a some issues. The parts of those games that falter also falter here, and the parts that shine there, shine here too - but in this cases, the biggest shining factor - the lore and narrative - is dulled a little by the lack of 'layers' to the world and the limited interest a player can find in simple exploration.

 

 

The Ranking:

Fallout 3 (and Fallout: New Vegas) never got the remakes on PS4 that they needed to be eligible for ranking sans-bugs, and so the fact that Skyrim did, guarantees that, while on paper a lesser game, arguably, than both, it is destined to outshine them on this list. 

 

While broadly, there might be more in terms of length and variety here than Fallout 4, and a wealth of nuanced and interesting side lore, the uni-directional nature of said lore does mean it loses the interest of the player far quicker than Fallout 4's does. Without a 'real-world' facsimile to each area, one cave begins to feel like any other cave, one Dwarven Ruin begins to feel like every other Dwarven Ruin, and one cursed, dead ghost begins to feel like every other cursed dead ghost.

 

There isn't much space between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 on the list, and so Skyrim takes its spot just above Fallout 3 - on paper, and bugs aside, Fallout 3 remains a markedly better game - owing primarily to its superiority in the lore and narrative aspects, but its technical performance hinders it.

 

 

 

 

The Surge

 

Summary: 

Souls-like as an industry term was born of a seed planted by Demon's Souls and cultivated by Dark Souls, but its existence as a cross-developer, multi-affiliated genre was never going to happen based on the output of a single developer. For 'Souls-like' to become it's own genre, it needed games from other developers to ape the peculiar and specific style FROM Software had built, thus separating and categorising the individual components of the games - which specific aspects were 'of the genre', and which were simply 'FROM Software' style.

 

The first non-FROM 'Souls-like' came from Deck-13 in 2014, in the form of Lords of the Fallen. That was a relatively middling effort - certainly aiding in defining the genre, but doing little to establish distinction between the aspects inherent to the genre, and the aspects inherent to FROM Software, for the simple reason that - aside from a dramatic reduction in difficulty and in quality, it did very little to distinguish itself from the FROM fare at all. It was entirely derivative, and therefore lesser. It took another few years for any Souls game to come along that was both high quality enough - and distinct enough from the FROM stable - to enshrine the Souls-like genre permanently - and came along in the form of 3 games. The excellent 2D Souls-Like platformer Salt and Sanctuary, the Samurai/ Ninja flavoured Nioh... and Deck 13's next effort - The Surge.

 

The Surge, like Lords of the Fallen, wears its Dark Souls influences on its sleeve. Unlike Lords of the Fallen though, it is not slavishly devoted to Dark Souls stylistically, nor is it beholden to every aspect of it mechanically.

 

Set in a massive, sprawling (and isolated) sci-fi corporate industrial complex owned by mega-corp CREO. The player takes the role of first-day-on-the-job, physically disabled Warren, who knows little of the ins and outs of the company, other than that they offer people with physical disabilities like himself a chance to work in exchange for 'support' with their impairments.

After a quick induction, and a (horrifically painful looking!) mechanical melding with an industrial exoskeleton (think Ripley at the end of Aliens,) in which the system -malfunctions and forgets to anaesthetise him, Warren passes out, and wakes to find that 'The Surge' has cause all other employees who have implants to be infected with a nanite virus, and becoming killing machines.

 

It's a fun, hokey plot, and treated with exactly the right level of 'corporation knows best' wry humour and knowing self-awareness necessary to remain interesting throughout. Lore-wise, The Surge is not playing in the 'obscure mystery' arena that Dark Souls does - the plot is more akin to a non-souls game, but that is generally a good thing. Warren knows little about the company, and less about the disaster, so it still feels fresh and interesting.

 

Mechanically, the game is uniformly excellent. Combat is very much in the Souls wheelhouse - animation priority heavy, upgrade and speccing oriented, challenging, nuanced (if a little less so than later Souls games,) and a ton of fun. There is a fantastic 'specific limbs' mechanic in play in the game, whereby specific parts of an enemy can be targeted for attacking and removal. If an enemy has a piece of cool looking exo-tech on his arm, targeting that and severing it allows Warren to equip that piece of the suit. The same for head-pieces, individual legs, arms and torsos - allowing full new 'sets' of suit to be farmed by individual components. This is not purely good form a build and spec point of view - it is also a way of identifying enemy weaknesses. If Warren cuts off an enemy leg, and in equipping or inspecting that armour, discovers it is weak to a certain element, then using that element against said enemies in the future is a way to get an edge in the difficult combat.

 

Upgrading is a very customisable affair too - the basic rig upon which all modifications are mounted has a certain pool of tech points, and these can be dispersed to a huge variety of augments (collectible in world) allowing a very versatile range of play-style dependent builds.

 

One aspect distinct from Souls games (and, to give credit where it is due, inherited from Lords of the Fallen,) is the multiplier factor for 'scrap' (this games 'souls' equivalent.) In addition to the Souls-esque 'lose all souls if you die, return to them to find them next time or they are gone' mechanic, The surge adds two extra wrinkles. Firstly, the 'corpse runs' are timed - in addition to fighting your way back to where you died, now, you are also on a ticking clock before the scrap is gone forever.  That is cool, but not a huge difference, but the other change is much more meaningful - the multiplier factor. The more scrap Warren is carrying, and therefore the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward - a multiplier is applied to scrap picked up. If you have more, you get more, and if you 'bank' them, they are safe, but you get less. It's a great addition, and one I think FROM should look seriously at for any future games.

 

Visually, I really like the look of the game - it runs nicely, and environments are rich and interesting. Given that the whole game takes place in a single companies compound, there is a remarkable variety of aesthetics, but still maintaining a broad visual style. Warren's journey takes him everywhere from the scrap-head outskirts of the warehouses, to the industrial mechanical areas, to factories, to laboratories, to the front-facing consumer areas and up to the executive lounge areas and the boardroom, and there is a fantastic attention to detail in each environmental area. Enemies are a little less varied, and can become a little more derivative of one another, but generally still of high quality, and it remains fairly easy to identify ones who have unique or different armour types ripe for the stealing.

 

Sound design is very good - not outstanding, but more than serviceable, and there is real 'clang and scrape' to the metal-on-metal fights. Voice work is limited (about on the same frequency as most souls-likes), but what is there is well done, and nuanced.

 

Boss fights are, while not quite as abundant or difficult as souls-games, very very high quality, and each fight is unique and interesting, often with multiple phases, and sometimes featuring smart 'out-of-the-box' methods the player can use to gain an edge, or to be stomped to death if they fail.

The game controls pretty well - it still maintains the 'jump with L3' control scheme from Souls games that I don't love, but it works as well as is needed.

 

I don't often discuss DLC, but here it is worth mentioning - both the Theme-Park and the Western themed DLCs for the game are absolutely fantastic additions - really, Deck-13 are following in FROM's shoes here too, by offering DLC that matches, and often surpasses the quality of the main game - both are meaty, lengthly and interesting side-takes on a game that is already mechanically excellent.

 

All in all, The Surge is a great game. Not quite as long, or as tricky as any single Souls game from FROM, but distinct, interesting, smart and offering a good number of meaningful (and well implemented) deviations from the standard formula that both cement the Souls Genre as being able to work in a Sci-Fi setting, and allow the game to stand comfortably among the best of said genre.

 

The Ranking:

Well, comparison points are obvious - Souls, Souls and more Souls!

 

Given the polish and the flair on show in The Surge, and the admirable ways in which it sets itself apart from the fare that came before it, and proved the format to be suitable for a whole new thematic genre, means I am comfortable placing it above Demon's Souls. That takes nothing away from the PS3 classic that began my Souls-obsession, but it is a little rough around the edges in a way The Surge isn't and the fact that it is being usurped and surpassed by the games it birthed is really only a testament to it, rather than a slight.

 

I do, however, think that, for all it's good points, The Surge never quite reaches the heights that Dark Souls III or Sekiro does. The game is shorter, and has less variety in terms of enemy types and combat encounters, and it is a little less repeatable, due to the more on-the-surface narrative and lack of in-depth lore.

 

As such, it comes down to the short list of amazing games in between Demon's Souls and Dark Souls III. I think The Surge has enough in the way of size, scope and repeatability (and variety) to outdo Little Nightmares, but the incredible originality, addictive, punishing nature and stonkingly good soundtrack of Hotline Miami is too much for it to pass, and so it finds a spot between those two. 

 

 

 

 

 

⚛️⚛️BONUS GAMES⚛️⚛️

2 Additional eligible Platinums earned this round!:

 

 

 

Maquette

 

Summary: 

In approaching the review of Maquette, in such close proximity to the review of Superliminal, it is difficult to decide if the two games are of a lineage, or the prefect inverse of one another!

 

A 3D, perspective based, narrative focussed puzzle game (stop me if you've heard this before!) Maquette is a very interesting case, as it is broadly of the same basic genus as Superliminal, and yet, is almost it's mirror image in terms of strengths - in all the area that Superliminal is at its weakest, Maquette is at its strongest, and in all the areas Superliminal excels, Maquette shrinks.

 

Narratively, Maquette is at its best. 
A strong emotionally investing story of a relationship between two artists, the game, and the puzzles contained within it, over the course of 7 short chapters, follow the relationship through it's stages - from the couple meeting, to falling in love, to cracks forming, to an ill-contemplated marriage, to break-up and finally to catharsis through moving on.

 

The story is told primarily by two means. Firstly, through short, written words - always from the man's point of view (the player is taking control of him,) - that appear on the walls around the area, serving both as a window into his the feelings on the relationship, and as a guide as to the direction the player should take in the environment. Secondly, by way of short 'radio-play' style auditory set pieces in which conversations are heard from the couple, at whatever stage of their relationship the current level is representative of.

 

The story is a simple (and familiar one,) however, both actors (Bryce Dallas Howard, and real-life husband Seth Gabel,) give very good, nuanced vocal performances and the writing is pretty good. In the early stages of the game, where the player is likely still coming to understand the mechanics, and may take longer to progress, the relationship is one of courtship, and it did veer a little into saccharine territory - Full disclosure: I was a little worried that my eyes were going to be rolling the whole time -  however, by the time the game was at it's mid-point, the performances felt quite real, and during the most fractious of these auditory sections - in which the full-blown fight that is the harbinger of the relationship's end happens - I found it to be genuinely uncomfortable to listen to - in the same way that hearing any real life couple fighting is.

 

In addition to the good narrative and performances, the game features an excellent cultivated soundtrack - it is all selected from artists native to the San Francisco area, and has been featured on heavy repetition on my Spotify account ever since. (Not so much the first track, in level one, which I found very annoying, but the rest gets much, much better!)

 

On the puzzles, though, is where the game runs into trouble. They are designed to act as metaphors for the stages of the relationship, and in many cases, function much better in that respect than they do as actual, cerebral puzzles. 
They are varied, non-repetitive, and clever in concept. Some, it must be said, are very interesting, and well thought out - primarily all based around the interplay between large and small versions of the same areas, the changing of items in one having a corresponding effect on the other - however, implementation is an issue.

Several times, it turned out I had the solution, but inability to properly implement it due to finicky controls, has made me assume it was wrong, and try alternate solutions for a long time, before finally trying again and having it work. 

 

There is also a bit on an issue with 'trapping' oneself. In most good puzzle games, care is taken to ensure the player cannot put themselves in a position of 'breaking' the puzzle and having to restart. On several occasions with Maquette, I jumped into an area, only to have to restart, as I could not get back out, or placed an object in an irretrievable position and had to roll back. The game is well checkpointed, so this is not a huge issue, but once it happen a few times, it begins to discourage the very experimentation puzzle games are supposed to encourage.  

I do also think that, because each puzzle is fully unique, there is something of a lack of in game indicators of what the concept of the puzzle actually is. I don't mean clues as to the solution, but rather, definition of what the objective is. 

In some cases, wandering around, it is not obvious what the problem is, and without knowing what to aim for, solving the puzzle is not possible. This is somewhat alleviated by the text appearances, which at least give a broad-stroke idea of direction, but the metaphors alone are not always enough to confirm whether you are trying to get into that building, or find a crystal in another one, or simply walk away down somewhere else.

 

Maquette is a short, enjoyable game, with a clear, grown-up message about the nature of relationships, and a variety of mostly interesting puzzles. Some finessing of the controls would go a long way to improving it, and a little more guidance as to the actual puzzle-to-puzzle objectives, but even without it, there is much to love here - good performances, smart design, a nice aesthetic and a great soundtrack.

 

 

The Ranking:

Not on the same level as Superliminal, and despite the good aspects, the actual puzzle elements are weaker, and mean Maquette has trouble against something like The Spectrum Retreat and Hue.

I do think it has more to offer on the puzzle front than the surprisingly good, but still quite short and simple Type:Rider though. 

 

Between Type:Rider and Hue, Astro's Playroom is also a short game, but wildly entertaining in a way that Maquette has difficulty in a bout with, but certainly there is more enjoyment in the few hours Maquette lasts, than in any single few hours of Assassin's Creed III, and so it finds a spot in between those two games.

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Effect: Andromeda

 

Summary: 

The Mass Effect Trilogy is one of the most widely lauded and (rightly) revered series of games in the history of the medium. That is reflected in virtually every list of "Top X" games - including, this one - and with good reason.My personal love of the original trilogy is extreme. As my reviews of those games no doubt attest - I hold those games in very high regard - even the third one, which I am fully aware has its detractors.

 

Following up that trilogy with a new game was always going to be difficult, and was always likely to result in something lesser. Certainly, from what I understand, Mass Effect: Andromeda had a very rough road during development - one that has been well documented and dissected - and while I acknowledge this, I will pre-warn anyone reading this - I will not be taking that into account during my review. 
My feelings on the impact and validity of difficult developments cycles is that it isn't reflective of game quality. Duke Nukem Forever had a difficult one, and it was woeful. LA Noire and Sleeping dogs also did - and they turned out great. Development difficulty isn't a good barometer for quality, and so, I prefer to simply ignore it, rather than try to account for it.

 

Going into my time with Andromeda - long removed from it's launch period, where it was plagued with technical issues and internet meme-worthy animation glitches (the extent of which are the primary reason I initially avoided it) -  I really had no clue what to expect. It might be argued I gave it the worst possible chance at enjoyment, doing so directly after finishing playing all three original Mass Effect games in a row - and so inviting direct comparison - but I do think that it really made little difference beyond my first fledgling days with the game. 
The reason for that, is, as became increasingly clear during my first few days of playing:
Mass Effect Andromeda is not a Mass Effect game. 
It is a Dragon Age game.

 

Andromeda is set in the Mass Effect Universe, in so much as the specific races - Turian, Human, Salarian, Krogan - that make up the 'Andromeda Initiative' - a collective of misfits gathered together to take a 600 year cryo-sleep-requiring voyage to a new galaxy, and colonise a new set of worlds in the unexplored Andromeda sector. However, aside from that as a starting point, there is very little in common with the previous games.

 

The format of the game is completely different, for starters. Unlike the original trilogy, Andromeda is much closer to a traditional RPG. The gameplay loop is not one of cinematic 'set
pieces' in the episodic format that the original trilogy became known for. Gone is the 40-60 minute 'beginning, middle and end' episodic mission structure, that gave the original trilogy it's televisual style. Instead, Andromeda works on the more Dragon Age-esque loop of having several discrete, large 'open world' areas, with individual missions scattered across them. Instead of concentrating on one mission at a time, and having nuanced conversations at the beginning and end of said mission, now, interaction with the game is generally about having a large mission list, and systematically checking them off that list. Interactions with your team, and with npcs is more fluidly dispersed throughout the world.

 

That is a big difference, though not an inherently bad one. It does mean the narrative lacks a cinematic flow, but I would be lying if I said I cannot enjoy a more traditional RPG of this style - God knows, I have played many of them, and they are satisfying. It does, however, give the game a far more genre-generic flavour that the more unique structure of the original trilogy.

 

Combat is a marked improvement over all previous games. The 'cover-shooter' mechanics of the original trilogy meant that level design was somewhat hampered by having to work to that format. Here, combat is far more dynamic, and far more free - Sara Ryder (The Pathfinder) and main protagonist, is far more agile than Commander Shepherd ever was, and her jet-boost jumping ability means combat is a zippy, very variable, multi-layered affair, the likes of which the original trilogy was never able to even approximate.

 

The game is longer than any single previous one of the trilogy, and fairly varied in setting, if not gameplay. Actual missions may have much better combat, but the point-to-point mission parameters are generally a bit one-note, and not terribly interesting. While this could be argued about the original games too - there is a bigger problem here - the narrative is simply weaker, and so the dullness of the mission parameters is more obvious. It was forgivable, when the characters and story were so interesting, for the actual objective to be a simple 'walk here' 'hit switch' 'walk here' - but without it, they start to be visible for how pedestrian they are.

Visually, the game is pretty good. Character models are a mixed bag - and the game does still retain some poor animations and lip-synch - however, characters look okey for the most part, if never great. Environments are, however, very nice to look at, and there is an artistic flair to the design - most prominently in the areas that are markedly distinct from any reference to the Milky Way based stuff of the original trilogy - the Angoran home-world, for example, is wonderful to look at, and a real highlight. The ancient relic areas - created by some long passed race - are built in a nice, other-worldly visual style, though can get a little tired given how long the player spends in them.

 

It is also worth noting - a true highlight of the game is the sound. Music is good - I love the minimalistic score that gives the score it's main theme, but more than that - sound design and folly work is outstanding. Gunshots, footfalls, jump-jet sounds and impacts, tyres on gravel - these things are so good as to be noticeable - and among the best I have heard across all of gaming, bar none.

 

While there are plenty of good things about Andromeda - almost always where it deliberately deviates from the original and cuts it's own path - the fact remains, in virtually every area it does the more 'Mass Effect' specific stuff, it falls down.
The narrative is, simply, not as good. Plain and simple.

It is not awful - there is genuine interest to be found in the exploration of Andromeda, the new enemy race (The Kett) and the new indigenous races, but The actual journey of Sara Ryder, and her character, are not on the level of Commander Shepherd's.

 

It is slightly strange that the game decides to use the trappings of the Mass Effect universe, in terms of the individual races aboard the Andromeda Initiative, but then seems to go out of its way to undercut those trappings at every turn. Each of these races - the Salarians, the Turians, The Krogan - all have pre-established traits that any long-term player has an intimate understanding of, and yet the characters interacted with in this game seem to discard most of those traits. It could be argued this makes sense - after all, a project involving a one-way trip to a new galaxy without knowledge of what awaits there would likely attract the most eccentric and unusual members of any specific race - but it does beg the question - if you don't want to actually use the pre-established information, why tether yourself to it at all? It invites negative comparison, without reaping benefit.

 

The other issue is the lack of characterisation in Ryder's crew.

This is not the big issue I initially thought it would be and seemed like it would be in the first 10 hours or so - though still of note.

Each member is introduced very quickly. There is no 'recruitment missions' as such, and so there is little time to individually 'greet' and get to know the background of characters before they join the Tempest crew, however, I must admit, I did come to enjoy the company of most by the end of the game.

 

One area that is a huge step up from the original trilogy, however, is how dynamic conversations are between crew-members. In the original games, aside from a few very specific missions, which members were taken on which mission often made little tangible difference to the narrative. Here, there has been a really astounding amount of unique, dialogue, not only for each character, but for each combination of characters. They are no longer simply addressing Shepherd, independent of one another, but now they address both Ryder, and each-other with regularity. That is impressive, simply by volume - there are 20-odd possible combinations of characters for missions, and they are quite chatty (especially when travelling in the ground vehicle) , and across a 60 hour playthrough, I never heard the same conversations twice.

 

There is a multiplayer here - a good one, based on Co-op horde style mechanics, and while not heavily populated, it is still busy enough to ensure a game whenever one is requested. I did not spend a huge amount of time with it, but it was fun while I did. There is a heavy micro-transactional element to progression within it, though that seems primarily cosmetic, and regular play did yield a fair amount of in game 'credits' pretty quickly, ensuring engagement with the paid-for component is an option, rather than a necessity.

 

All in all, Andromeda is not a game that can measure up to the original trilogy - it could be argued it had very little chance at that anyways - but is a mixed bag in a different way than I expected. Where it tires to be Mass Effect, it almost always suffers. Where it tries to be its own thing, it often succeeds.

Frankly, I think if the game were called 'Andromeda' and simply replaced the Salarians, Turians and Krogan with some other facsimile - and called itself a new IP, it might have sold worse, but would have been received and fared far better.

 

The Ranking:

It feels ironic, after my insistence that this is not a Mass Effect game, and should not be viewed as one, that the most obvious comparison point is the original trilogy, but Mass Effect: Andromeda brings that on itself!

It is no contest in terms of that comparison, the game has areas it does better, but the narrative lets it down dramatically, and it is destined to fall far below all three original games.

 

In terms of more open RPGs, a reasonable comparison if the Fallout games. Again, despite excellent combat and nice visuals, I do think Andromeda still has trouble owing to its lacklustre overall narrative. Individual conversations and voice work is better, but the level of interest is far lesser than those games. 

At the lower end of Fallout fare though, lies Fallout: New Vegas, and just below it, Alpha Protocol.

Fallout New Vegas is a better game than Andromeda, but its very, very serious performance issues do make that a far closer fight than it should be on paper. I think Fallout New Vegas takes it, but only just.

Alpha Protocol, however, doesn't. It has a decent story, but less going for it than New Vegas or Andromeda in terms of interesting lore - and it is markedly less variable than both those games, considering it is so poorly balanced that really, only one of it's many advertised approaches is actually viable.

 

Therefore, Mass Effect Andromeda finds a new home, between those two Obsidian games.

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

Thanks to @Slava , @grayhammmer , @JoesusHCrust & @totakos1 for putting in requests! 

 

 

 Invisible Inc stays on top for now as  'Current Most Awesome Game'

And Space Overlords stays as king of the crap-tastic olympics, as  'Least Awesome Game'

 

 

What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the tasty treat... or the sour grape?

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! ☮️

[Copanele]

Thanks to this scientific report, The Surge has been installed, to be approached soon  

I really want to give it a whirl now.

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, Copanele said:

Thanks to this scientific report, The Surge has been installed, to be approached soon  

I really want to give it a whirl now.

 

Glad to hear that mate!

 

Great game - and given your Souls credentials, certainly one I'll be interested in your opinions on! I have a hunch that - like me - you will really get a kick out of the 'limb targeting and harvesting' mechanic - It's such a cool concept, and really serves as a great way to make even smaller fights feel like meaningful progression ?

 

[Squarevii87]

You should review games in big sites mate you are very good on that much better than some others ?

[totakos1]

Thanks, appreciate it! Very nice scientific review already downloading The Surge ?

[DrBloodmoney]

7 minutes ago, Squarevii87 said:

You should review games in big sites mate you are very good on that much better than some others 

 

Thank you mate - that's very nice of you to say! ?

 

I appreciate it ?

 

[Together_Comic]

I was really looking forward to your Andromeda review scientific evaluation.  I, also being a big fan of the original three, have been constantly putting it off basically on reputation alone and have been trying to decide if I want to tackle it sooner rather than later.  Your review  evaluation seems to put it in the mediocre camp which while not glowing, does assuage my fears of it being an awful slog.  Thanks for the insight . 

 

I may have already mentioned this to you, but I know you had an issue with the daedric artifact in your other version of Skyrim.  If you had the same issue that I had,  (you couldnt get the dog to appear to take to I believe calactus vial's shrine) there is a way around it depending on which reward you chose for hircine's quest.  If you got the werewolf ring, by letting the werewolf live,  you can go back to the "bloated man's grotto" and kill the werewolf to get the other reward for the quest allowing you to get an extra daedric artifact.  (May not be worth your time, but I wanted to mention it just in case)

 

As always enjoyed the breakdown and am looking forward to next time.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Together_Comic

[DrBloodmoney]

7 minutes ago, Together_Comic said:

I was really looking forward to your Andromeda review scientific evaluation.  I, also being a big fan of the original three, have been constantly putting it off basically on reputation alone and have been trying to decide if I want to tackle it sooner rather than later.  Your review  evaluation seems to put it in the mediocre camp which while not glowing, does assuage my fears of it being an awful slog.  Thanks for the insight . 

 

Yeah - I certainly was fully prepared for it to be a bad game - and I kind of felt like it was for the first 10 or so hours, but once I realised just how little it had in common with the trilogy, I began to simply take it for what it was, rather than mourning what it wasn't and genuinely found myself quite liking a lot of parts.

Sure, it's not the Shepherd games, but really, what is? ?

 

Still well worth a playthrough - and to be honest, at the end, I was even a little dissapointed that there won't be an Andromeda 2 - it sets up some future stuff, and I can't help but wonder what a sequel could have been, if the development pipeline were sorted, and they were really able to run with the new format.

 

 

Quote

I may have already mentioned this to you, but I know you had an issue with the daedric artifact in your other version of Skyrim.  If you had the same issue that I had, you couldnt get the dog to appear to take to I believe calactus vial's shrine there is a way around it depending on which reward you chose for hircine's quest.  If you got the werewolf ring, by letting the werewolf live,  you can go back to the "bloated man's grotto" and kill the werewolf to get the other reward for the quest allowing you to get an extra daedric artifact.  (May not be worth your time, but I wanted to mention it just in case)

 

Yeah... I know....

 

I actually mucked up more than one Deadric quest, so even doing the trick, I was still one short! 

 

Hey -ho, gives me a chance to have another playthrough at some point I guess!

 

Quote

As always enjoyed the breakdown and am looking forward to next time.

 

 

Glad to have you following along ?

Edited July 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Together_Comic]

4 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Still well worth a playthrough - and to be honest, at the end, I was even a little dissapointed that there won't be an Andromeda 2 - it sets up some future stuff, and I can't help but wonder what a sequel could have been, if the development pipeline were sorted, and they were really able to run with the new format.

 

I mean, ethical dilemmas on the live service model of games aside,  Bioware did pull its primary development team from Anthem to work on a new Mass Effect game (or given your evaluation, maybe I should say a new game with the Mass Effect IP)... so there is always that I suppose. 

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, Together_Comic said:

 

I mean, ethical dilemmas on the live service model of games aside,  Bioware did pull its primary development team from Anthem to work on a new Mass Effect game (or given your evaluation, maybe I should say a new game with the Mass Effect IP)... so there is always that I suppose. 

 

True - not sure how that will work out - my guess is that they will simply ignore Andromeda given the wide critical and commercial issues it had, and simply start something fresh, as if that never happened.

I can say that, having played all of the games now, I would be perfectly happy to have a new game continue, or as least reference, the Andromeda stuff.

Edited July 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Slava]

My favourite improvement in terms of core mechanics in R&C2 was the ability to strafe from the start. In the first game it was tied to an item that you unlocked late in the game. And it was kind of clunky to control. In the sequel it's perfect. Just hold a button. It's almost hard to believe that it wasn't implemented in the first game.

 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

12 minutes ago, Slava said:

My favourite improvement in terms of core mechanics in R&C2 was the ability to strafe from the start. In the first game it was tied to an item that you unlocked late in the game. And it was kind of clunky to control. In the sequel it's perfect. Just hold a button. It's almost hard to believe that it wasn't implemented in the first game.

 

I didn't even remember that being an item-specific unlock - what an odd idea to do that!

[rjkclarke]

Great read as usual.. You actually kept me nice and sane this afternoon.. Every time I started to feel a bit of frustration creep in, when I messed up, with that pointy hatted skipping rope dick head, (sorry Vivi, I'm sure you'll turn out to be a great character) I had a tab open with this on it, so I'd just relax for a bit and read a review or two. So I appreciate today's instalment in more ways than one. I had to stop though, because I was making really good progress until one of my neighbours decided to channel Leatherface and go a bit nuts with a chainsaw, kind of murdered my concentration somewhat

 

Mass Effect Andromeda sort of sounds like Dragon Age: Inquisition specifically. Which kind of makes me a bit apprehensive about what I'm going to personally think about it. I'll be playing it regardless. I did buy it ages ago, so it would be a waste otherwise. There's plenty to like about it though from what you mentioned. So I think there'll be plenty of positives to be found.

 

Objectively,  Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't the worst entry in that series, but it sure doesn't feel like a fun time to play (least it wasn't for me anyway) . If I was going to make any analogy about it, for me it was like Bioware blowing a huge party horn (you know the ones that unravel at the end) into my face whilst shouting ISN'T THIS FUN... To which I just have to look at them with puzzlement and ask, what is fun about trudging across giant empty spaces, with barely any memorable characters in them, to do some pointless fetch quests that ultimately end up meaning very little and are just there to pad the run time? I expect in the amount of time that passed between me asking that hypothetical question - I would have had several more doses of the party horn to break up my speech. Well that got strange quickly..... Erm.... Erm... Good Review Doc....

 

There totally isn't going to be an rjkclarke shaped hole in the wall of this thread as I try desperately to run away from that analogy

Edited July 7, 2021 by rjkclarke

[DrBloodmoney]

15 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

 

Mass Effect Andromeda sort of sounds like Dragon Age: Inquisition specifically. Which kind of makes me a bit apprehensive about what I'm going to personally think about it. I'll be playing it regardless. I did buy it ages ago, so it would be a waste otherwise. There's plenty to like about it though from what you mentioned. So I think there'll be plenty of positives to be found.

 

I haven't actually played Inquisition (got a physical copy, bought at lauch, and still in the shrink-wrap - that was a good use of my money, right? ? )- buuuuuut, I have seen gameplay, and know the game a little bit through seeing others play, and yes, you are 100% right - Andromeda made me think of that game specifically.

It makes sense of course - those were the first two Bioware Frostbite engine games - and so they are probably more closely aligned to each other than they are to their respective series ancestors.

 

 

Quote

Objectively,  Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't the worst entry in that series, but it sure doesn't feel like a fun time to play (least it wasn't for me anyway) . If I was going to make any analogy about it, for me it was like Bioware blowing a huge party horn (you know the ones that unravel at the end) into my face whilst shouting ISN'T THIS FUN... To which I just have to look at them with puzzlement and ask, what is fun about trudging across giant empty spaces, with barely any memorable characters in them, to do some pointless fetch quests that ultimately end up meaning very little and are just there to pad the run time?

 

Those are all points that are valid for Andromeda - 100% - but, I will say, Andromeda does have a legitimate answer (of sorts) to this specific question - the combat.

Combat in the game is uniformly good fun, and because - unlike the original trilogy - you can level infinitely, and can unlock every potential skill-set, (you aren't stuck picking Infiltrator or Biotic or Soldier etc. at the start - you can dynamically switch, and unlock whatever combo of skills and powers you want) and can - for a very modest sum of in game currency, with which there is precious little else to do - respect every character, ad-nausuem and to your heart's content - there is always some new way to fight that you can re-spec to, any time it starts to feel old.

 

That might not quite be enough for some folks (and really, for an RPG, it isn't enough, period,) but it is what kept me interested in the game on an hour-by-hour basis, during some of the long stretches where I wasn't engaged in meaningful or 'big' story stuff.

 

 

Quote

There totally isn't going to be an rjkclarke shaped hole in the wall of this thread as I try desperately to run away from that analogy

 

?

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[rjkclarke]

4 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I haven't actually played Inquisition (got a physical copy, bought at lauch, and still in the shrink-wrap - that was a good use of my money, right?  - buuuuuut, I have seen gameplay, and know the game a little bit through seeing others play, and yes, you are 100% right - Andromeda made me think of that game specifically.

It makes sense of course - those were the first two Bioware Frostbite engine games - and so they are probably more closely aligned to each other than they are to their respective series ancestors.

 

Well I'll be honest I've done a much more shameful thing than that.. I've literally had Dishonoured 2 in its shrink wrap, possibly from launch too. That one is even worse, because I love the first game a hell of a lot. I've got no worries or reservations about starting that game either, I absolutely know I'm going to enjoy playing... So... I'd say that's probably worse

 

I hope I haven't put you off Inquisition too much, there's plenty to like in it just like Andromeda seems to have. Although the people who join your little inquisition, are some pretty uninteresting bland people, that if they were a dinner, they would be fish fingers, chips and pease pudding. If you like that, great..  Well actually if you specifically like that, you are probably my Dad.. I doubt there's that many who would be fond of something so specific. I took a longer time than necessary to just say beige, I guess haha

 

Actually, I'll tie this onto what I would have responded, had I quoted your bit about the gameplay of Andromeda. Inquisition essentially has the same thing going for it, by the sounds of it. Which is it's combat. There's plenty of really versatile and viable builds to be played around with in Inquisition. Its so versatile in fact that, there are a lot of incredibly viable character builds for the highest difficulty.

You can't say that about most games. They often have a few accepted meta-builds that essentially will get you through the difficulty, but it's rare for there to be so many, that actually enhance the experience in a positive way. Meta-builds for characters while useful, often steer you into playing a certain way, which is functional sure, but not always enjoyable. Looks like Inquisition and Andromeda have a lot more in common than I expected. Which probably means I should tackle the platinum in one playthrough if that's an option, so it doesn't outstay its welcome without meaning to.

[DrBloodmoney]

11 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

 

Well I'll be honest I've done a much more shameful thing than that.. I've literally had Dishonoured 2 in its shrink wrap, possibly from launch too. That one is even worse, because I love the first game a hell of a lot. I've got no worries or reservations about starting that game either, I absolutely know I'm going to enjoy playing... So... I'd say that's probably worse

 

I hope I haven't put you off Inquisition too much, there's plenty to like in it just like Andromeda seems to have. Although the people who join your little inquisition, are some pretty uninteresting bland people, that if they were a dinner, they would be fish fingers, chips and pease pudding. If you like that, great..  Well actually if you specifically like that, you are probably my Dad.. I doubt there's that many who would be fond of something so specific. I took a longer time than necessary to just say beige, I guess haha

 

Actually, I'll tie this onto what I would have responded, had I quoted your bit about the gameplay of Andromeda. Inquisition essentially has the same thing going for it, by the sounds of it. Which is it's combat. There's plenty of really versatile and viable builds to be played around with in Inquisition. Its so versatile in fact that, there are a lot of incredibly viable character builds for the highest difficulty.

You can't say that about most games. They often have a few accepted meta-builds that essentially will get you through the difficulty, but it's rare for there to be so many, that actually enhance the experience in a positive way. Meta-builds for characters while useful, often steer you into playing a certain way, which is functional sure, but not always enjoyable. Looks like Inquisition and Andromeda have a lot more in common than I expected. Which probably means I should tackle the platinum in one playthrough if that's an option, so it doesn't outstay its welcome without meaning to.

 

Yeah - It certainly sounds like both games were plagued by the same problem, and - from what you say - also failed to implement the one thing that was in their control that could have alleviated it - good writing.

 

The thing is - it is fairly well known that Bioware had a lot of problems with Frostbite - it was an engine designed for FPS and action, and didn't have any of the modules needed for RPG mechanics, which had to be added from the ground up. That makes it totally make sense that combat would be the strongest aspect, and the RPG and cinematic side would suffer a little - and that could be forgiven given that they were essentially force to use an engine that was difficult to tame...

However... 

The one thing they absolutely did have control over was the actual writing. That isn't contingent on an engine - all they needed was a pad and a pen!

I'm willing to accept that the individual RPG mechanics are simple as a result of the engine, but there's no reason why some of the side quests have to narratively be about as interesting as a TED talk on the colour beige.

 

You would think that, if you know you have a mechanical weakness, you want to make sure the writing is absolutely blistering.

Indie games, that don''t have the budget for big tech-heavy showy games do it all the time. You are Bioware for goodness sake ?

Edited July 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[dalailama1989]

Damn, some of your "reviews" are longer than the games themselves. ?

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, dalailama1989 said:

Damn, some of your "reviews" are longer than the games themselves.

?