DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, KindaSabbath said:

 

Bro, I'm so out of the loop! I didn't realise the PS5 version was out? If so, I'll definitely have to give this one a replay. I adore these games!

 

Yup - free for all those who had it on PS4, so should be on the store waiting for you!

 

To be honest, I've rarely gone for games a second time through with these free PS5 upgrades (I'm certainly planning on doing FFVIIR, at some point, and I did the Hitman 3 upgrade to get the better version for all the future content and elusive targets etc, but that's been it so far...

 

...but Little Nightmares II was too good a game to pass up a freebie!

[JoesusHCrust]

Late to the party re. Hitman but since PSPlus has now given away two of the three for free, it might be nice to have all three reviewed seperately as many people will have two of the trilogy in their back catalogue since they've been freebies in the past (or present, with Hitman 2!). 

[DrBloodmoney]

13 hours ago, JoesusHCrust said:

Late to the party re. Hitman but since PSPlus has now given away two of the three for free, it might be nice to have all three reviewed seperately as many people will have two of the trilogy in their back catalogue since they've been freebies in the past (or present, with Hitman 2!). 

That’s my new plan ?

 

Once I get the current batch out of the way (It’s taking a while, because there was a lot to say on the current batch, and there are two bonus games in it!), I’m going to do all 3 Hitman games in one fell swoop - but with separate rankings for each ?

[Orenn16]

Today I learned that you have terrible taste. That’s just science.

[DrBloodmoney]

12 minutes ago, Orenn16 said:

Today I learned that you have terrible taste. That’s just science.

 

Thank you very much! ?

 

Coming from someone with a profile of your calibre, that's one of the best compliments I've ever received, I really appreciate it?

 

Hope I can continue to satisfy, and thank you for the view ?

[AihaLoveleaf]

31 minutes ago, Orenn16 said:

Today I learned that you have terrible taste. That’s just science.

Far better than your terrible manners.

[steel6burgh]

@DrBloodmoney very nice profile full of games you got there!

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, steel6burgh said:

@DrBloodmoney very nice profile full of games you got there!

Thank you sir!

[KindaSabbath]

18 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

...but Little Nightmares II was too good a game to pass up a freebie!

 

You're certainly not wrong there. But to be fair, you do have fucking excellent taste in video games my dude...

[JoesusHCrust]

I'd imagine that being told you have terrible taste from somebody who's profile is chock full of EZPZ stacks and weird Japanese schoolgirl porn is something of a highlight to your week. It certainly would be for me!  

[The Devils Reaper]

Just as I thought your write-ups couldn't get any better.. You're on another level now mate.. IGN/Gamespot etc would be lucky to have you (for real) 

 

I recently finished up The Surge and have just begun my DishonoUred journey. Can definitely see why you rate them so highly, great games (Dishonored subject to change post trials ?)

[ShadyWARcotix]

I'm sad that they never remastered Burnout 3 Takedown. It was the best game in the series (imo) I still had fun with Burnout Paradise too. I remember when everybody was pissed about the Mugshot trophy back in the day.

[Shrooba]

Great work on the latest stuff! I see you've also got Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order! Wasn't aware it was ported to the PS5, looks like it'll be a ton of fun! I look forward to the future updates. ?

Edited September 4, 2021 by Shrooba

[DrBloodmoney]

34 minutes ago, Shrooba said:

Great work on the latest stuff! I see you've also got Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order! Wasn't aware it was ported to the PS5, looks like it'll be a ton of fun! I look forward to the future updates.

Thanks!

I actually bought Jedi ages ago, but by the time I got around to playing it, the PS5 upgrade was already there free for me, so worked out well!

(Of course, if I cared about rarity, it would be a pain, as the rarity is through the roof on that version, since folks can autopop it… but luckily I don’t care about that stuff much)

 

Let me tell you though - it really highlighted one of the flaws with the PS5 system software UI in it’s current form - it was not easy AT ALL to tell which version I was about to load up to start playing 

 

They really need to make it more obvious which version you are looking at the tile for - it is bizarrely difficult to tell! I ended up just loading and then checking the trophy list to see which one had attached to my profile!

Edited September 4, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Shrooba]

14 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

(Of course, if I cared about rarity, it would be a pain, as the rarity is through the roof on that version, since folks can autopop it… but luckily I don’t care about that stuff much)

I agree with you 100%! What I always aim for in games is to have fun, and the trophies are just a motivation to see a game to it's fullest. Rarity, whether it be common or rare, shouldn't get in the way of enjoyment in a game. What matters is that you have a good time and play good quality games, and seeing as you've kept your checklist going for this long, I'd say you're enjoying your games, and it shows in your reviews! You've had a ton of passion put into each one!

I always like to look back at Persona 5 Royal; it's plat sits above 40%, and if I avoided it for that, I'd have missed out on one of the best games the PS4 has to offer. It's great to see you stick to what you love doing, keep it up! ?

[The_Kopite]

41 minutes ago, Shrooba said:

I agree with you 100%! What I always aim for in games is to have fun, and the trophies are just a motivation to see a game to it's fullest. Rarity, whether it be common or rare, shouldn't get in the way of enjoyment in a game. What matters is that you have a good time and play good quality games, and seeing as you've kept your checklist going for this long, I'd say you're enjoying your games, and it shows in your reviews! You've had a ton of passion put into each one!

I always like to look back at Persona 5 Royal; it's plat sits above 40%, and if I avoided it for that, I'd have missed out on one of the best games the PS4 has to offer. It's great to see you stick to what you love doing, keep it up!

Agree 100%. Play what you want to play, because you will enjoy it. Gaming is supposed to be fun

[DrBloodmoney]

54 minutes ago, Shrooba said:

I always like to look back at Persona 5 Royal; it's plat sits above 40%, and if I avoided it for that, I'd have missed out on one of the best games the PS4 has to offer. It's great to see you stick to what you love doing, keep it up!

Not to give away too much about the upcoming batch…

…but I wholeheartedly agree ??

[JoesusHCrust]

I hope you enjoy Jedi: Fallen Order. I'll look forward to reading your writeup. I bought it as a special treat for my 100th platinum, but to be honest it was a little disappointing. I've seen it described as 'Star Wars parkour' and this is pretty much exactly what it is. It's a sort of puzzle platformer with a Star Wars overlay. Not bad by any stretch, but a solid 5/10. Unremarkable! Anyway, my science training is in climatology and biodiversity so I'm not qualified to comment on proper gameological scientific research! We'll see what the real science says!  

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ??

 

 

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

 

 

 

Batman: Arkham Asylum

 

 

Summary: 

The release of Arkham Asylum by relatively new studio Rocksteady in 2009, seemed to come like a bolt from the blue to those unfamiliar with the backstory. It seemed an incredible surprise. To those in the know though, and with one eye on the lineage of the new studio, the release of the game might have been less of a shock, however, the quality of Arkham Asylum wasn't simply surprising - it was downright astounding.
 
Comic book licensed games, much like movie tie-in games, have a pretty rocky history. They are, still, hardly synonymous with quality. For every The Warriors, there are ten Fight Clubs. For every X-Men Origins: Wolverine, there are a hundred Enter The Matrix's. 
For every Arkham Asylum, there is a Catwoman...
...and therein lies the rub. 

Catwoman is part of the reason I was, personally, very sceptical about Arkham Asylum. 
I was, it seemed, one of about 7 people to have actually played Catwoman.

 

Catwoman - the lacklustre 2004 Gamecube tie-in to the dire Halle Berry movie - was the final game crafted by (and final nail in the coffin of) Argonaut Studios. (It wasn't actually the last Argonaut game released, as they created Starfox 2 for Nintendo in 1996, the release of which was delayed until 2017, but I digress.)

Rocksteady, to all intents and purposes, is Argonaut. Both Jamie Walker and Sefton Hill (Rocksteady's founders) were major players in Argonaut (Creative Director and Head of Production respectively) and in building the studio, a large swathe of their early hires were former colleagues.
In some ways, that may make some of the more surface level elements of the Arkham Asylum tale make a little more sense - it is less surprising that an IP as valuable as the Batman licence would be given to a relatively young, 'unproven' studio when one considers that there will have been some previous relationships already in existence between the parties - however, while there are some visible areas of direct lineage between Catwoman and Arkham Asylum in terms of game design, there is nothing obvious in that 2004 game that hints at the level of quality Rocksteady would manage to pack into their next comic-book related character action game.

Having played Catwoman (to completion, I might add - God help me!,) I expected a middling-to-bad 3D platforming, linear-narrative game with some very ropey combat. 
What I got, was one of the most lavishly produced, intimately detailed, lovingly crafted and stridently confident 3D Metroidvania games I had played up to that point.

 

Set over the course of a single night in Gotham's premier loony-bin - the eponymous Arkham Asylum - the game opens with Batman delivering old nemesis The Joker back its sweet embrace after yet another escape. Over the course of a long, well implemented walk-and-talk intro, in which it becomes quickly apparent that the Joker has more than a few aces up his sleeves, The Joker manages to escape the confines of his capture, free all the criminally insane residents of the Asylum from their cells and take over the entire campus (with the uneasy allegiance of various other storied Gotham villains), forcing Batman to spend the night recapturing it, while doing battle with plenty of his old nemeses - the Riddler, Poison Ivy, Mr Zsasz, Killer Croc et. al - and stop him from enacting a plan to both become a hulking monster (Via Bane's serum) and enact a plan to devastate Gotham.

 

The game's narrative and tone is very strong. This is not set in the gritty realistic slickness of the Nolan filmic trilogy, nor the child-friendly, 'nickelodeon-gunge' world of Batman: The Animated Series, but falls somewhere in between. 
The game is licensed from the comics, rather than any specific filmic or televisual rendition, however, as a long-term Batman comic-book reader, I can attest that that says very little really. The comics have as many variations in tone and tenor as there are writers and artists who have applied their craft to the Dark Knight over his 80 year tenure as Gotham's protector. 
In truth, Rocksteady's interpretation of the Batman lore is its own distinct variant, and stands tall among the other adaptations. Yes, there is lineage - the vocal cast, including Mark Hamill's Joker, Kevin Conroy's Batman, and Arleen Sorkin's Harley Quinn are lifted directly from the cast of the Animated series and animated DC universe - however, even these performances (in particular Hamill's Joker) are slightly different here - more anarchic and with more edge and more venom than most of those animated instances. 
While there is, aesthetically, a much more direct line to the (much derided) Schumacher movies, the tone is far closer to the Burton movies. 
In truth, as non-comic media takes stabs at tackling the vast Gotham-based lore, the general rule of thumb is that the more of the lore that they include, the less 'gritty and real' the take becomes. That theorem holds true here for sure - certainly the tone here is not realistic, but heightened and comic-book-esque - however, the Arkham games may in fact be the closest the Gotham lore has come - outside of possibly the Grant Morrison comic-book runs - to covering the full spectrum of the Dark Knight's canonical lore, and his vast coterie of villains, (without a doubt the most eclectic and vast rogue's gallery of any superhero,) without straying into out-and-out comedic, over-the-top escapades. Despite the more bizarre elements of the lore being in play here, the Knight himself remains stoic and serious, and despite the over-the-top nature of the villainy; the threat, the stakes and the violence feels relatively grounded and real.

 

The game looks great - graphics are good for the era, but more than that - art design is top notch. Arkham feels like a truly unique, singular design, and visually it is detailed in a way few games ever are. Despite multiple full playthroughs, I still feel like I see new little details every time I play.

 

Audio is excellent - the voice cast are great across the board, and music and foley are very well done. Batman doesn't kill people (it's the lore, chaps, despite what Zack Snyder would have you believe,) but that doesn't mean when he breaks a thugs arm it doesn't sound like the most painful thing you can imagine. Because the combat (more to come) is so mob-heavy, audio cues are used to confirm when a thug is fully knocked out, and these work extremely well. It becomes second nature knowing which thugs will get back up and which won't incredibly quickly, and that is in no small part due to the audio.

 

Mechanics-wise, Arkham Asylum works incredibly well. 
I called Arkham Asylum a Metroidvania... and t is. Broadly. 
The game is contained within a limited map, divided into areas, and access to different places, as well as to solve specific puzzles, is gated by the use of acquired items, and so, Metroidvania is the overarching 'shell genre'. However, Arkham Asylum is, in essence 3 separate genres, contained within that shell: A Puzzle Game, a Stealth Game, and a Rhythm Game - and each one of these genres stands relatively distinct from each-other depending on the circumstances.

 

The broad flow of the game, as a metroidvania, sees Batman moving through various areas and buildings within the Arkham campus, solving progress-gating puzzles as he goes via the use of his armoury of gadgets. 
As each new gadget is made available, progress in the game is too, but it also opens up new variants of secondary puzzles scattered liberally throughout each area. These range from simple details, like discovering the cells of other patients - villains not contained in the game, but who's presence in the Gotham universe is hinted at - to discovery of the history of Arkham Asylum and its founder, and, primarily, to the Riddler challenges. These are the crux of most of the non-critical puzzle elements of the game. 

The Riddler challenges have quite a few types - collectible trophies, riddles to solve, clues to scan, secret areas to find - and each area is packed full of them. There are over 200 in the game, and discovering them is both hugely rewarding and tremendous fun. By giving a clear indicator of the number in each area, and enough clues as to how to find them - either via map hints, or riddles - Arkham Asylum deserves significant praise for showing how to very effectively implement collectibles in a game. For all that "too many collectibles" is often a complaint in games (particularly among the the trophy-thirsty audience frequenting this site,) I have heard very few complains about the collectibles in this game in particular, despite the enormous volume. That is no surprise. The fact is, these are genuinely fun to collect. They prove that while collectibles can be a burdensome or tired addition to a game, simply adding padding - they don't need to be. With a little effort, they can be a great addition to a game's design. Here, not only are they fun to find, they are also very rewarding - each collectible unlocks both mechanical upgrades, and interesting lore about various villain. Some are simply text, however, a fair number also have fully voiced recordings of patients speaking, and are very well produced.

 

Puzzle elements of the game do not disappear entirely when the game switches to combat however. There are two different, distinct types of combat in Arkham - 'Predator' stealth sections, and out-and-out 'group combat' sections.

In the Predator sections, the focus is on stealth. Batman will frequently find himself in a room full of well armed guards, and can make use of his gadgets and abilities to take them out - if successful, without ever being seen. The number of ways in which guards can be taken out is very impressive - from silent takedowns from gargoyles, to ledge pulls, to Baterang strikes and zip-line smashes to explosive wall destructions - and taking out a full room of guards, as they slowly become more and more fearful and agitated, while never being seen and toying with them is one of the best examples I have seen of taking a gameplay mechanic where the player is technically weaker than the enemies (certainly, if spotted, Batman can be felled with a few bullets,) yet making the player feel powerful. You feel - and there is no better way to say this - like Batman!

 

Combat sections, where Batman has to engage with groups of enemies directly are also well implemented here - by what is arguably the most quintessential takeaway from the Rocksteady games: its rhythm-based brawling mechanics. 
The game was the first example I can recall of its particular style of hand-to-hand combat, in which simple direction pushes will 'snap' to the closest available enemy, and each move can seamlessly flow into the next. Certainly, "Arkham style combat" has become the defacto short-hand for the style, and its influence can be seen in many games since, from Shadow of Mordor to Spiderman and a host in between.

The focus here, in which each move by an enemy has a clear broadcast and counter attack, and flowing, uninterrupted success builds a a combo meter, increasing both score, and the availability of special moves, shifts the "mob vs. one" style combat of 3D brawler games away from the button-mashing escapades of, say, Kratos in the God of War franchise, and shifts the player input requirements closer n line with something like Parappa the Rappa or Dance Dance Revolution. While button mashing may get you somewhere on low difficulties, higher ones (and for sure the combat challenge rooms separated from the main narrative game) will require a mastery of timing and rhythm that elevates the player input almost out of the realm of brawlers entirely. If the player is doing well at these games, he/she is virtually unaware when the enemies are actually being taken out individually - they are more interested in ensuring their next move is available after their current one. While there may be 40 enemies in a mob, the player is required to pick out and focus on the most dangerous or interesting ones - gun or knife wielding goons, or the enormous 'brutes' who require specific moves to take out, and so the flow of the fight is more of a test of patience, rhythm and coordination than it is of brute strength. The difference between a flawless, perfect free-flowing victory over 100 enemies, in which Batman never takes so much as a scratch, and a quick bone-breaking death by their hands is often simply a matter of good timing, and efficient crowd-control. It's never the result of a lack of button mashing violence.

 

There are a few issues with the game that are worth noting, though.

 

While combat and stealth mechanics are uniformly great, there is a stiffness to Batman's movement outside of these instances. In a post-Uncharted age, the cumbersome way in which Batman moves around Arkham does feel slow and plodding, and while tonally correct - he doesn't need to move quick, he's the mother-fucking Batman - it does make end-game collectible hunting feel more of a chore than it should.

 

While the main combat is fun, I cannot say the same for the boss fights, which are often a little bit hackneyed and simply not as fun as the non-boss combat. In the best instances (Joker and Bane) it is simply an extension of the mob v.s one combat with an added element, and those are fine, but when bosses or sections deviate from this (Poison Ivy and in particular Killer Croc) and have more unique elements, they tend to drift from the game's strengths. The Killer Croc section in particular, in the sewers, if a section I sigh every time I approach, as it is, quite simply, a chore, and not a fun one.

 

There is a minor issue with the game in the sense that there are no infinitely spawning enemies - once the end-game is reached, most game areas will be empty of thugs, and therefore there isn't much chance to make continued use of the moves and gadgets Batman has assembled, however, tis is alleviated by the inclusion of the Combat and Predator challenge rooms - instanced versions of the main locations from the game, with leaderboards and challenges associated with them, that are fun, rewarding, and ask a level of mastery of the game mechanics far in excess of what the narrative game does.

 

All in all, Arkham Asylum represents probably the most successful superhero tie-in game crafted up to the time of its release (and one of the best since then too.) Its confident merging and blending of genres within a strong, distinct narrative and art-style, and its broad reinvention of 3D brawler combat makes it remain, even 13 years later, a powerhouse of a game, and one of the most cited examples of the exception to the rule "tie-in games are never good."

 

The Ranking:

The most obvious comparison points for Arkham Asylum are, in fact, not on the list yet - God of War, and Insomniac's Spiderman. As such, the closest games that are on the list would be open-world character action games, and the ones that come first to mind are Assassin's Creed and Horizon Zero Dawn.

 

While both those games are much more open-world, and lack the metroidvania aspects, they are both big budget 3D games featuring strong characters, 'mob vs. one' combat, and strong art design. 

In terms of Assassin's Creed games, the highest ranked one so far on the list is Assassin's Creed Revelations. While Revelations has a lot going for it, including a lengthly and well done narrative, a strong protagonist, and decent combat, I is not really able to compete with Arkham Asylum. The combat in Arkham blows AC combat out of the water, and while Arkham is much smaller than Constantinople, the level of artistry and detail packed into it is of such quality as to outshine the much larger land-mass. There is more game in Revelations - including a very good multiplayer component, which Arkham lacks - however, I would (and have) returned to Arkham for a full playthrough more than 3 times. I have not done the same for Revelations.

 

On Horizon Zero Dawn, the fight is tougher. Horizon's narrative is incredibly good, and works on a number of different levels. 
Its combat is a different beast entirely, working as both a "David vs. Goliath" style where Aloy is up against a towering single beast, or a 'mob vs. one' where she is taking on a horde of enemies, and on that front, while a little less nuanced, Horizon does have the edge on variety. The graphics are, of course, stronger in Horizon, given the age difference, however, Horizon does stand taller in its era than Arkham did in its, on that front. Art design is strong in both instances too. 

The difference, really, is in terms of origin. While Arkham does a brilliant job in adapting and developing itself within an existing lore, Horizon does a similarly good job developing a brand new one - and while I can recognise that good adaptation is difficult, coming out as strong as Horizon did with a brand new lore does feel more impressive to me. For Arkham Asylum to have an "Oh, cool" moment, all it needs to do is reference an existing character from the vast Batman lore. Horizon has to craft every element from the ground up.
There is also the simple fact that, with Horizon, Guerrilla managed to make a brand new character with no pre-existing love genuinely interesting and likeable. Rocksteady had Batman. We liked him already.

As such, as much as I love Arkham Asylum, I cannot place it higher than Horizon Zero Dawn, but the fight is tough, and so it takes the spot just below it.

 

 

 

 

 

Nightmares from the Deep: The Cursed Heart

 

Summary: 

Another new series to add to the rankings from Artifex Mundi, Nightmare from the Deep: The Cursed Heart takes their signature combination of picture-hunt and puzzle-lite mechanics and gives it a nautical, treasure-hunter / Pirates of the Caribbean flavour.

 

The art is good here - the non-ship sections are a little bland at times (all the museum based sections are quite indistinct,) however, once the game gets going and into the ghostly ship sections, he visuals are strong and quite creepy.
This helps in particular here, as this game, more than most other Artifex Mundi joints, is balanced heavily in favour of picture-hunt sections. There are more of that type of puzzle than any other - and for the most part they are strong ones.

 

The narrative is pretty good as AM games go, though the game is actually, again, rather atypical, in the sense that while fairly long for Artifex Mundi, it has less story beats, and far more puzzling goodness - which is a plus!

 

No silly boss fights here,  and it does have a bonus chapter, though this one is very short and not great - which would be more of a detriment if the main game wasn't pretty long and well done.

 

 

The Ranking:

This is a good entry in the Artifex Mundi stable. Its weaker art and less variety of puzzle mechanics means it isn't in contention to beat out current Artifex Mundi front-runner Enigmatis 3: The Shadow of Karkhala, and means it is not going to beat out the next lower one - Enigmatis 2: The Mists of Ravenwood - however, I do thing Nightmares from the Deep: The Cursed Heart is a better all round experience than Lost Grimoires: Stolen Kingdom.

 

Between those two are two games - Serial Cleaner and Hidden Agenda - and while I think, pound-for-pound, I would still replay Serial Cleaner before replaying Nightmares from the Deep: The Cursed Heart, I can confidently say the same is not the case for Hidden Agenda - and so replayability cinches it, and Nightmares from the Deep: The Cursed Heart finds its spot.

 

 

 

 

 

Persona 5 Royal

 

Summary: 

Persona 4 Golden was my first experience with the series, and it blew me away. I'm not going to dive into discussion that game again (it was, after all, ranked in the previous batch, and one only has to look at it's current placement on the Scientific Ranking (current No.6) to know how I feel about the game!) however, more than most games, I suspect this review of Persona 5 Royal will be referencing its predecessor, and so, I highly recommend that anyone reading this review should first look at that previous one (done in batch 23,) as almost every positive thing mentioned in that review is on show here too - and in almost all cases, those positives are added to and made even better. Almost every negative mentioned in that review, is notably improved, or simply absent here. Trust me - this one is going to be a very positive review!

 

Coming a full 8 years (and 2 console generations) after Persona 4, Persona 5 was a long time coming, but boy, was it worth the wait.

Taking place in Tokyo this time, (in what is, in fact, closer to the true roots of the series - I was surprised to discover at the time, that Persona 4 - by being set in a small town - was actually the outlier in this regard,) our protagonist and his band of friends live a double life, as both high-school students at the local Shujin Academy, and as a band of secret super-heroes, capable of entering the minds of people via a magical smartphone app and purging the toxicity within them, to alter their personalities and fix 'real-world' problems.    

 

That is a massive over-simplification for what is a fascinatingly well crafted, complex and winding narrative of interweaving plot-lines, all feeding a genuinely exciting and compelling overall tale. I am aware. Full disclosure, I have attempted to write a 'brief' summary of the whole plot several times now, before hitting delete. Each time it has run to a couple of thousand words, and only barely scratched the surface, and so I'm electing simply not to bother. Much line with Persona 4, it isn't possible to sum up neatly, as it is simply too long and too winding and nuanced. 
You'll just have to trust me - it is really good, and it really works!

 

Speaking of "Like Persona 4"... that phrase is going to be a running theme throughout this review. 

There are a lot of similarities. So many, in fact, that - particularly in the first 10-15 hours - I will fully admit, I was worried.
Persona 4 is an amazing game. Persona 5 having significant similarities would not necessarily spell problems. If you are going to be cribbing from another game, there are few better ones to crib from, however, it can be a double-edged sword when the previous game was so good. It can make the new interpretation - even if it is on the same high level of quality - feel lesser, as it will always be viewed in the shadow of the previous incarnation. 
In order to be seen as 'as good as', it actually needs to be better. 
In order to seem 'better' it has to be SIGNIFICANTLY better.
Persona 5 is SIGNIFICANTLY better.

 

Persona 5's story is similar to Persona 4's. 
The use of the mysterious smartphone app to alter people's personality traits and fix 'real-world' problems does have a pretty direct lineage to the Midnight Channel's use of magical technology to alter personalities, however, where Persona 5 shines in relation to its predecessor is not in the nuts and bolts beats of the narrative, but in the finesse and the pacing. 
Where, in Persona 4, the mysterious, winding plot was seem entirely from the point of view of the main characters, and the player knew as much of the world around them as the Investigation Team did, Persona 5 plays with much more filmic and theatrical nuance. Here, the player sees far more scenes and interactions to which the Thieves of Heart are unaware, and is often privy to information they don't. As such, there are dramatically ironic levels to the player engagement that were missing from Persona 4's more structurally simple narrative. 
Conversely, however, the actual narrative presentation in Persona 5 is in flashback. The intro to the game sees the player cast into a late-game mission already in progress, and doomed to failure, at the end of which our protagonist (Joker) is captured by government authorities, and is in interrogation the entire time, relaying the plot of the game to his captor. As such, there is a second level of theatrical nuance, in the sense that Joker himself, and his interlocutor, clearly have knowledge of future events of which the player is unaware, and is playing 'catch-up' on, as well as adding an element of the 'unreliable narrator'. It is unclear at some points, if Joker is being truthful, and as such, whether every element of the game we are playing actually happened that way, or if that is the way it is being relayed by him. 

 

That all sounds like it should be a recipe for narrative disaster. 
If I tried to write a novel in which both an unreliable narrator component were married with a dramatic irony component, interweaving over the course of an entire plot line, I know I wouldn't be able to do it elegantly. However, all of these components really do work remarkably well in Persona 5. In some cases, yes, the game simply ignores them, and lets the story run like an episodic television show for a while, but without fail, at each major story beat, the interrogation is returned to, or the non-focus character interactions are shown, and the complexities of the narrative are brought once more to the forefront. Each time, it feels clean, well done and smartly executed. That is no small feat. It means that, while similar in length and in complexity to Persona 4, the finesse with which the narrative is executed is markedly more interesting, and the player relationship with that narrative is richer and deeper than it ever was in the game's predecessor.

In terms of individual components, there are a lot of Persona 4 parallels. 

Joker is sent to live with a surly coffee shop owner, as part of his legal rehabilitation after the false accusations and injustice done to him sticks. This is similar in nature to Yu' being sent to Inaba to live with his surly Uncle Dojima, and at first, the relationship seems like it is going to follow a similar path. 

 

Many of the characters he encounters and that become his teammates have roughly similar parallels too - Ryuji is clearly cut from the same cloth as Persona 4's Yosuke, Makoto has quite a bit of Persona 4's Yukiko about her, Anne is an almost perfect amalgam of Persona 4's Rise and Chie - however, this is only how the characters begin their paths through Persona 5. As I said, my worries that Persona 5 felt like it was going to walk the same like as Persona 4, and live eternally in its mighty shadow only lasted for the first 15-odd hours. Once these characters get a chance to breathe, and to stand on their own, they develop into more complex characters, and step out from that shadow quickly, and by the end of the game, the tenor of my conversations about said similarities had flipped in balance - I was no monger referring to Ryuji as being "like Yosuke" or coffee shop owner Sojiro as "like Dojima", but rather, the other way around. The Persona 5 characters had, by the finale, warped to being my 'default' go-to characters for reference. That is, given the indelible impression Persona 4 had burned into me over the past 5 years, a truly remarkable testament to the quality of Persona 5.

 

On the characters specifically - the social link aspects of Persona 4 return in this game, (as do many mechanics,) however, (also like with all these returning mechanics,) they are fleshed out in a way they never were in Persona 4. 
Individual story lines between characters are very detailed and rich, and often as, if not more, compelling than the already absurdly strong main narrative. There is a common element to the character interactions, in the sense that everyone seems, on the surface, to be archetypal high school characters, but each flourishes when fleshed out, and becomes someone you come to love. Two particular examples are art-school student Yusuke (no, not Persona 4's Yosuke, Persona 5's Yusuke - I know, it's confusing) and Student Council president Makoto. 

Both of these characters are instantly dislikable within the narrative structure, not simply by way of being initially antagonistic bocks to the Thieves of Heart, but also by their character traits - Yusuke for being a snobbish, stand-offish, effete and dismissive, and Makoto for being a plot-antagonistic goody-two-shoes. 
However, over the course of the game, they become two of the most compelling characters, not only in this game, but in games I have played generally. Yusuke is the source of some of the best comedy - and best line delivery - in the entire game, and Makoto... well... 
Makoto is simply the best. I love Makoto. 
Spoiler Alert - if you finish this game with anyone but Makoto as Joker's girlfriend - you fucked up. You did Persona 5 wrong!

 

Mechanically, the game runs a similar line to Persona 4, in the cutting between main plot, school-days, evening activities and dungeon crawling sections dividing the plot into its main acts. 

Unlike Persona 4, the dungeons here are not procedurally generated corridor runs but each is distinct, interesting, bespoke and hand-crafted, and each one feels like a brand new challenge, with its own set of intricacies, dungeon-specific puzzles, hidden rooms etc. 

 

Outside of dungeons, the breadth of things to do as side activities is a marked step-up. This could feel overwhelming (I would have sworn up and down that adding more to the mix Persona 4 had would become unwieldy,) but actually, by adding so much, the game goes beyond unwieldy, and actually comes out the other side. 
There is now so many options, that it no longer feels like a time-management nightmare of trying to do everything. You know you can't do everything, and so that burden is lifted. Now, you pick and choose based on personal preference, and simply do what the kids in the game would do for real - have things they like, and things they don't.
It helps that now, more than ever before, there are multiple ways to raise different stats, traits or abilities, and so, instead of feeling like you need to do one specific thing to help the stat you need, you still have a myriad of choices available to you.

 

The Pokemon-esque interactions with the personas, found in battle, bread, combined and strengthened via the 'Velvet Room' and it's cosmically odd inhabitants remains largely unchanged, however, like most "largely unchanged" aspects of the game, the small changes are generally for the better, and positive across the board.

 

Technically, the game runs like a dream. Every location is distinct and interesting, and the graphical prowess is there in spades. Art design is uniformly tip-top quality, and with the 8 year jump in animation quality, the characters are finally at a level where the player is emoting not just with the 'head-shots' on display during dialogue, but with the characters in animation too. 
The UI - a major positive in Persona 4 - remains stylish as fuck, I think it is safe to state that Persona 5 has, categorically, the most stylish menus and UI of any game on the market. Simply moving through menus and looking at character info or personas is given a level of flourish most game fail to meet in their primary gameplay interfaces.

 

I could keep going on about Persona 5 for hours - the curse of games that are both long, narrative-heavy, and content rich, is that no review ever feels like it does justice to the game! - however, there is not much more endorsement that I feel would add much to the overall here. The game is fabulous. It is the best incarnation of on of the best series I have played. (Yes, I am aware of the love that exists for Persona 3, and yes, I will play it eventually, so will eventually review it,) but of all the others, Persona 5 is king for me.

 

Are there some parts I took issue with? - sure. A couple. Mostly story stuff. 
While I love the inclusion of 'Mementos' - a procedurally generated throwback to the Persona 4-style dungeons, allowing for grinding and mini-quests (requests) to play out, most of these little vignette stories are relatively throwaway and insignificant. 
Yes, there are a couple of characters that don't shine the way the majority do - Haru is a bit of a wet fish, and the less said about the Teacher/Maid storyline of Sadayo Kawakami the better... (Yes, I am aware that 'Maid Cafe' culture is a thing in Japan, and no, I don't have to respect it - it's gross)... however, these aspects are small, and only negatives when viewed in the shadow of the overwhelming positives of the game. 

 

Persona 5 is fantastic. 
It should be played by everyone - JRPG fan or not.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

We're breathing rarified air here. Persona 4 Golden is already the current No.6 most awesome game, and Persona 5 outshines that masterpiece in almost every significant arena.

 

Above Persona 4 Golden, we have Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 did manage to beat out Persona 4 Golden, despite a serious fight, primarily in terms of its graphical prowess and its combat. Those aspects are both alleviated here. In terms of graphical prowess and art design, Persona 5, with its unique dungeons and rendering of the key hub areas, is able to outshine Mass Effect 2, on graphics, yes, but even in a lot of cases, on raw art design, and so it takes it.

In terms of minute-to-minute excitement in combat, I do think Mass Effect 2 probably still manages to hold the line, however, the balance is swayed too much by the strength of other factors. Yes, Mass Effect's story is more variable than Persona 5's (there is not a huge amount of choice-dependent aspects to Persona 5's narrative, beyond the choice of who to spend time with, or woo, however, the actual beat-to-beat story is more complex and interesting here.)  Commander Shepherd finally takes a knee to the Thieves of Heart. (I guess they managed to pass the baton one too many times!)

 

The next up the list is my personal favourite of the Souls games - Dark Souls II. While it absolutely pains me to say it, the strength of my affection for the characters of Persona 5, coupled with the remarkable variety of both mechanical gameplay, but of narrative hooks - means Persona 5 is able to stir a passion in me that a game based on pure exploration, esoteric lore and mechanical variation just isn't quite able to parry and riposte (even with an ADP stat of 99!) and it simple cannot hold the line against Persona 5 either.

 

The next up, is one time top-dog, Prey. Prey is, I believe, the first game that can genuinely hold out against Persona 5 Royal. 
Yes, the narrative is not as long or winding, however, it does have a variable quality that makes repeat play not simply a mechanical toy-box, but also a narrative one. The ways in which the story changes based on actions is fascinating, and when coupled with the astounding level of mechanical variation, the resulting effect is to create a game that can be, quite literally, a different game entirely, depending on the powers used. 
That lends Prey a repeatability that is unrivalled by Persona 5 (and most other games,) and as such, when coupled with all Prey's other (significant) strengths (art / sound / lore etc), it just manages to hold onto its spot. 

 

As such, Persona 5 Royal finds its place as the new No.4 most awesome game on the rankings!

 

 

 

 

Rainswept

 

Summary: 

Rainswept is a game that gets in its own way.
This review is likely to take on a very familiar structure as it goes on. "This is good, but this hurt it." That is virtually unavoidable here, as Rainswept has a lot of good points in its favour, but virtually every one is tempered by something specific, and in some cases, dramatic.

 

A point and click-lite, narrative-focussed game, Rainswept is set in the small town of Pineview. A young couple (Chris and Diane) who had move to the town fairly recently are found dead, in an apparent murder-suicide, and an out-of-towner detective, Michael, is brought in to investigate the case, with the help of a young, fairly green local cop, Amy.

 

The set-up, and the tone of the game feels very much influenced by Twin Peaks (this is not a coincidence - the prevalence of conversations in a local coffee-and-pie type diner isn't, I don't think, an accident) - and when it is at its best, the game does evoke the same eerie sadness that that show revelled so masterfully in.

 

The narrative here is the strongest play by a long way. Its pretty good - the mystery and crime solving aspect is not the strongest, but is used more as a broad framework over which the real meat of the game is draped - the story of two dysfunctional people in a loving, yet destructive relationship, who's problems are magnified by the uncaring and insular two they moved to. 
The entire game is, really, structured around one particular angle - the exploration of grief, and how grief over loss affects different people and can poison the well of a person's life - and that is handled well. There is enough grief to go around here, from the deaths of the two victims, to their own grief over prior incidents - shown here is some pretty poignant flashbacks to their early relationship - to Detective Michael's own grief over his lost wife. 

Many of the tertiary characters around the town have their own senses of grief play out too, and while few of the individual storylines, aside from the two main ones of Chris and Diana's doomed relationship and Michael's own tale, are fleshed out particularly broadly, the net effect of all of them is to create a pastiche of loss - a patchwork of the ways people deal with such life changing events.

 

The narrative is fairly well written - dialogue exceptionally so - however, the actual through-line mystery of solving the case is a little awkwardly done. It is (deliberately, I think,) pushed fairly far into the background in favour of the exploration of the game's themes, and while that is a conscious choice, it does make the resolution of the game feel a little immaterial, which is a shame.

Mechanically the game is towing a strange line. It presents itself as an adventure game, with customary nods to the genre, in the form of interactions with the environment, an inventory etc., however, it does not control well AT ALL, and a lot of these aspects are simply dressing. Movement is clunky, lining up the character in the right spot for environmental or character interaction is finicky, and the animations simply don't fit the tone of the game one bit. 

 

In fact, the true 'game' of Rainswept is as a visual novel, and as such the awkward implementation of the controls and mechanics stick out like a sore thumb. 
I can't help but feel the game would actually benefit by having no direct control of the characters, and simply having the story play out, with some dialogue choices - a la something like Virginia - than trying to feel morel like a style interactive drama, as the act of playing it is such a chore. there are games that do similar genre tropes - Oxenfree for example - but those manage to have good, or at least, passable mechanical interaction, so it doesn't hamper the strongest suit - the narrative. Here, it does.

 

The game is clearly low-budget, and as such, art-style and art design takes precedence over technical graphics. The game has a flat-plane, simple aesthetic which actually looks great for environments and backgrounds, and still shots of characters look pretty cool and certainly unique. However, the blocky art-style of the characters in motion does feel at odds with the sombre, serious tone of the narrative. While things like camera pans, still shots, etc. look great, (there is some real flair in the visual storytelling in cut scenes for example,) the character movements look - there is no other way to say this - South Park-esque. Specifically, Terrence and Phillip-esque. 

It means that, while a still shot of the characters evokes a great tone, in line with the mood of the game, as soon as the characters move, they look comical, and as such, break the tone completely. If you, reader, look up some still shots of the game, I'd bet your first thoughts will be positive. If you then look up a video, and see the characters moving, I suspect that positivity will discharge quickly.

 

The town looks great - the limited art style is no barrier to the mood of the place, and Pineview has a distinct personality, and the various characters Michael meets are made interesting by the very well written dialogue, however, actually moving around is a chore, and makes the game feel awkward n a way that hurts the player desire to explore. 

 

It's also worth noting something here, that I rarely touch on - the trophies. 
For some reason, the developer took the baffling decision to award the player all the trophies, including the platinum, around a third of the way into the game. The narrative is, at this point, only just coming into its own. It is... simply ridiculous.
Why they did this, I will never know, but I suspect it will have the effect, (certainly among the trophy-thirsty denizens of this site in particular,)  of having some portion of the audience check out of the game without seeing the best it has to offer. 
It's really silly - and a shame - as the game has some poignant things to say, and it says them well in a medium unaccustomed to seeing such points being even touched on, and so seeing the game through to its conclusion is worthwhile. If you are going to play Rainswept, please don't stop at the Platinum!

 

Overall, Rainswept is a game that has a lot of good stuff, wrapped in a cosy blanket patchwork of problems and odd decisions. 
Am I happy I played it? Yes, certainly - I appreciated the deft hand it had in addressing complex relationship issues, and I thought the writing was well above average (even great in some spots) - however, the actual playing of the game was more a burdensome necessity to seeing the story play out, than a functionally additive experience.

It is worth playing for the story, definitely - but the mechanical experience is trying as hard as it can to put you off doing so. 
Imagine watching a great, interesting, complex movie, but every 10 minutes, it stutters, and you have to use a semi-broken remote control to get it going again. 
Yes, that movie might be great, and you might remember it fondly, but you will also remember the poor experience you had watching it.

 

 

The Ranking:

So, finding comparison points is interesting here. 
The first one to pop out is recently ranked Knee Deep. That is a game that also involves a murder mystery in a small town, and relies heavily on narrative, but with clunky controls at times. While Knee Deep's dialogue and narrative are not as good, complex or interesting as Rainswept's, and it loses to it in that regard, in virtually all other aspects, it surpasses it. Knee Deep is a little clunky mechanically, but not anywhere close to how clunky Rainswept is. The art design of the two games, while very different, is admirable in similar ways, however, Knee Deep looks fine in motion, whereas Rainswept looks silly. Both have good directional stuff - Rainswept has the good camera movements and framing, whereas Knee Deep has it's peculiar 'play-within-a-game' aspect, but Knee Deep just doesn't fall over itself to the same extent. As Such, Rainswept falls below it.

Rainswept does, however, beat out something like much lower ranked Claire. While Claire is mechanically sound, its narrative is a non-starter, and poorly implemented. Narrative is the strongest aspect of Claire, and that really isn't saying much, as I never once felt invested. In Rainswept, the dialogue and narrative were good enough for me to put up with the dire controls. In Claire, the controls were fine, but I just never cared, period. 

In the gulf in between, the one that pops out is White Night. White Night is a visually magnificent game - the art style is fabulous, and it looks great both still, and in motion, however, the mechanical gameplay is pretty bare-bones, and sometimes out-right bad. The narrative is also, pretty lacking. Yes, I was interested, but I was never invested. In Rainswept, the well written dialogue and the tone really does elevate it past the point that White Night's mechanical acceptability and great art can carry it, and as such, Rainswept climbs higher.

 

Above that though, is Proteus. Proteus is a very different game, but I don't see Rainswept being able to beat it for one simple reason - the narrative of Rainswept gave me an emotional investment - enough to carry the game playing experience. In Proteus, the game playing experience was the SOURCE of my emotional investment. I felt a part of Proteus, rather than a viewer of it. Couple that with Proteus' great art style, its uniqueness and its unusual tone, and it combines to outdo Rainswept's good aspects. 
As such, Rainswept finds its spot on the ranking.

 

 

 

 

Superhot

 

Summary: 

Superhot is one of those game that comes along every now and then that is centred around a mechanic so cool, you wonder why it hadn't been done before. 

 

A low-poly, intensely well-executed action puzzler, Superhot has two things going for it - its intensely good, singular mechanic, and it's top-to-bottom ultra-stylish flair.

Superhot is, essentially, Bullet-time, the game.

Remember when we all saw The Matrix in theatres? Those heady, halcyon days, before pale sequels had dulled its blade, and the myriad also-ran's had taken the edge off the bullet-time effects with their imitations (Swordfish, anyone?... no?...  thought not...)
Back then, when undisputed World's Best Human(TM) Keanu Reeves as the titular Neo, dodged those agent's bullets atop the roof of that building, our collective jaws dropped. I, for one, though that shit was the coolest thing I'd ever seen - and I'm not even a big Action Movie guy.
You did too - admit it. 
Most everyone in videogames took notice of that moment, and started trying to capture its essence.

 

We had Max Payne John-Woo-diving his way through bullet-time in his two games, we had Enter The Matrix trying (and failing) to capture that magic in videogame form, FEAR, Call of Juarez, even Tomb Raider Legend got in on the action in some form. For several years, it felt like every third game was trying, in some way, to capture the feeling of that moment - and they uniformly failed. 
It never felt cool or particularly fun, it just felt limp by comparison.
Eventually, the impetus seemed to just go away.
Then, a decade later, came Superhot.

 

In Superhot, the developer finally cracked the Bullet-time problem by figuring out what should have been the obvious method to making it feel as cool as it should - the player experiences the bullet-time slowdown as the in-game character would, rather than as the audience would. 
The player, when controlling the lightning-fast character, sees their movement as 'normal' speed and everyone around him/her as being ultra slow. The speed of the action is dependent on his/her inputs. When the primary character is motionless, so too is the world around them. When the character moves, the world moves with them, allowing them to strategise on the fly, without requiring the player themselves to have the kind of uncanny reflexes their character does.

 

It is a brilliant mechanic. Since at any point, simply staying still means the action on screen is paused, allowing the player to evaluate the situation as they want, and solve the puzzle of what to do next, I would struggle to technically define Superhot as an 'action game' per se, however, because the situations presented across its 30-odd discrete levels are so specifically designed to play with Superhot's singular mechanic, and would be - in any other action game - impossibly difficult - and because the price of error is absolute (the player dies in a single hit, just like the enemy combatants,) even the stop-start, puzzle-heavy combat is lent a high-stake, high-tension, sweaty anxiety that makes the game feel as tense as any full-speed action game. 

 

The strength of Superhot is that the developer absolutely understands how to best make use of its mechanic. In a game without such a mechanic, starting a level with the player, unarmed, standing in the middle of a room with 10 enemies already surrounding them and firing guns at them would be impossible. Here, the player's massive over-empowerment as compared to the enemies serves to simply level the playing field, and allows them to meticulously step, dodge, duck and shuck out of the path of each individual bullet, while making their way towards the nearest object, grab it, throw it into the head of the closest combatant, grab their weapon out of the air with precision, then take out the entire room. Doing so flawlessly does exactly what you would think it would do too: It makes you feel cool as shit!

 

"Cool as shit" is more than a mere phrase here - it is practically the design document of the game. Every part of Superhot is designed with one thing in mind - make this feel cool. 
The visuals are a low-poly red-and-black-on-white aesthetic that looks cool as hell. The world is a pure, VR Mission-looking white environment, with all enemies being faceless, glowing, crystalline red automatons, and all weaponry in stark black.

Every enemy, when killed, shatters apart like fragmenting glass (made all the more appreciable when seen in the ultra-slow-motion,) and every impact, whether bullet-on-environment, bullet-on-enemy, gun pick-up, melee smash etc. sounds crisp and impactful and brutal. 

As each level is completed, and the final enemy destroyed, the game doesn't simply show its scorecard, it begins playing the entire replay of the level in full speed, allowing the player to admire the impossible escapades they just did as the enemies might, all the while, flashing bold, screen-height text and booming AI voiceover "SUPER-HOT-SUPER-HOT-SUPER-HOT..."

...it's a bizarre choice, and one that is utterly fantastic. It feels cool as all hell, and only adds further character to a game already fit to burst with it.

 

It is impossible to deny that at the end of a level, with the announcer blaring SUPER-HOT over and over and your actions being seen in real-time, you feel like a bad-ass.

Having given all this praise, however, there are some problem areas with the game. 
It is short. Comprising around 30 levels, each of which takes maybe 15 minutes of play to master, the game is unlikely to hold the players attention for longer than an evening or two. Yes, the game is repeatable, but only in so far as its style and character can carry it - the levels are static and unchanging, and so, once mastered, there is little left to do in each.

 

There is also something of an issue with flow. While Superhot's single mechanic is amazing to experience, and extremely well implemented, it doesn't change over the course of the game. Most puzzle games - even those predicated on a 'singular' or primary mechanic (say, Portal with it's portal-gun) will still add new mechanical wrinkles to its puzzles as the player progresses. In Superhot, the single mechanic is never added to, and so, by the time the player has become adept at using it, there is little in the way of additional challenge in later levels. Yes, the actual scenarios become more intense, and feature more enemies, but given that, by the time the player has played the first 10 levels, and is very familiar with the limited mechanics, adding more enemies doesn't really increase the challenge to any great extent. The player is, by that point, able to deal with anything the game can throw at him/her, and so the additional challenge becomes more about simply making the levels longer, and therefore asking the player to make 'perfect' runs that last longer, and with increased scope for error.

That is not really a satisfying difficulty arc - it would be the equivalent of a game like Portal simply increasing each puzzle in length, rather than in complexity - and that would be less satisfying. In a game as short as Superhot, it is less of a glaring issue, but I cant help but feel like adding a few additional mechanics over the course of the game would have helped with the overall game curve.

 

The narrative elements of the game are pretty slight - and entirely done using text - the gist of which concerns Superhot being some kind of possible supernatural/ possible governmental or industrial experiment being released to underground gaming circles as some kind of test / experiment, but little is done of particular note with this. That's no huge loss - Superhot is not a game about narrative, but one about mechanics - however, what narrative there is is notable only for its slightness. 

 

I do also think that, for as cool as it is seeing the action play in a loop in real-time at the end of the level, the developer missed a trick here. Yes, it is cool to see, however, I think it would add even more edge if the camera, during these replays, were detached from the player. If you were able to free-move the camera around, and watch the action as a spectator, rather than in first-person, seeing the impossible antics you just pulled off would be lent and even more impressive edge.

Overall, Superhot is a remarkable achievement - its unique mechanic is borderline genius, and the implementation and presentation of it within the game world is excellent. The game suffers a little for the lack of compounding mechanics though, and its short length is virtually guaranteed to leave the player wanting more (spoiler alert, Superhot: Mind Control Delete would come a year or two later...)

 

 

The Ranking:

Superhot is a difficult one to rank, as it is a toss-up whether the direct comparisons are action games or puzzlers, but I tend to fall on the puzzle comparison first. The highest ranked Puzzler is currently The Witness - but let's not get silly here.

 

The highest ranked comparable 3D puzzle game currently below that is probably Superliminal. Superliminal has a great unique mechanic, and does do more variation and compounding mechanics using its size-scaling/ reality bending mechanic than Superhot does with its bullet-time one, however, it is undeniable that Superhot's one mechanic is more satisfying to engage with than any of Superliminal's individual ones. While Superliminal has some style to it, Superhot is one of the most stylish puzzlers I've ever seen, and so it can comfortably move up past Superliminal, despite its drawbacks. 

 

 he next somewhat comparable game (at least in terms of style) is Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number. While that game is, in some ways, the exact opposite of Superhot - it relies on twitch reactions rather than careful puzzle-solving, the two have some clear points of similarity. Both feature levels that are 'puzzles' in nature, both have brutal, one-hit punishments for failure, both traffic in style over graphical prowess, and both work on a similar reward factor of making the player feel cool-as-hell for having finished a level. 
In this match-up though, Superhot has to take the victory. While Hotline Miami 2 has lots of style, it is not original - it is milking a style its (superior) predecessor laid out. Superhot is doing something wholly new. Hotline Miami 2 is also playing in a less original mechanical formula. Yes, both Hotline games have refined a formula that existed before to fine point, and make it feel fresh, however, Superhot is working with a brand new one, and it feels more singular as a result. Hotline Miami 2 also has problems with its difficulty curve, but its are more egregious than Superhot's. Where Superhot has a tendency to feel a little easy in the back half, Hotline Miami 2 feels far too hard, right from the very outset, in a way its predecessor never did, and so Superhot lands higher than it.

Those points, however, are not valid for a comparison to the original Hotline Miami. That game was original, and its difficulty curve was nigh-on perfect. It's superior style and soundtrack (over Hotline Miami 2) mean it still sits proud of Superhot on the style front, and remains vastly ahead of Superhot on the rankings.

Working up then, from Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, it comes down to feel, originality and style. I think Superhot does enough to outdo bigger, narrative games like The Saboteur and Darksiders, given that while both those games are very good, neither has any single element close to as original or well implemented as Superhot's mechanics. (That also neatly skips it over Void Bastards which, while very good, suffers a little of the same - it's style is awesome and it's aesthetic wonderful, but it's basic mechanics are fairly rudimentary, and more a vessel for its style, rather than additive to it.)

 

The next game up, however, is Beyond Good and Evil. BG&E is an older game, of course, and visually less stylish, however, its oddly political narrative and its willingness to touch on dangerous issues, coupled with solid gameplay and smart level design and its incredible soundtrack have an additive, cumulative effect that become difficult to beat for a suer-stylish but relatively short and complexity-lite game like Superhot.

 

As such Superhot finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

⚛️⚛️BONUS GAMES⚛️⚛️

2 Additional eligible S-Ranks earned this round!:

 

 

Operation Tango

 

Summary: 

An asymmetrical, exclusively 2-player co-op game, Operation Tango is a game designed to only work with a friend. And when I say a 'friend', I mean an actual friend. Having completed the game with one of my best mates (whom I have known since I was 4 years old,) I had a great time, but I can comfortably state that doing the same with someone I didn't know well, and have the kind of short-hand conversational style with that only comes from long-standing friendship, would have been either a miserable experience, or down-right impossible.

 

The game is, narratively and stylistically, a fun, fairly light-hearted take on espionage. Two spies, a 'Hacker' and an 'Agent' work together as a team to infiltrate and complete 6 unique stages in pursuit of stopping a cyber-criminal from wreaking havoc on the near-future cyberpunk-lite world they inhabit.

 

Each level is unique, and uses almost exclusively unique mechanics in its puzzles. in terms of actual input to the game, it is a fairly even split between players, though there are broad differences in the types of information presented. 
While both players are required to do equal, similar levels of input for small puzzle sections (for example, combination hacking of doors, or of systems,) the basic breakdown is that the Agent is physically 'on-site', and the hacker 'remote'. This means that while the Agent is more obviously in danger in terms of discovery or attack, and has more information at their disposal about the specific part of the level they are in, the Hacker generally has a more broad overview of the level itself, and more information in terms of things like objectives, and maps etc.

 

It is pretty impressive how many different ways the game finds to require the players to work together. 
In some cases, simple hacking puzzles will require both players to control different parts, working in tandem - whether moving an on-screen 'blip through a moving maze, in which one player controls the X-axis and the other the Y-axis, or moving block puzzles in which each player has different coloured blocks they can move.
In others, the Hacker has the full view of a map, but no indicator of where the agent is, aside from what they vocalise, but the Agent has to rely on the Hacker telling them where - and when - to run to avoid detection. 
In some cases, (some of the best ones, IMO,) the game takes on a pretty overt reference to recent indie hit Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, where one player has only the visuals of a device, but the other only has sets of instructions for what to do in different cases, and so a tense back and forth is required to establish what the Agent must do to avoid disaster.

 

That is simply a small selection of the puzzle types, but what is notable in Operation Tango is how much the game relies on communication - not simply to solve the puzzles, but, in fact, to actually discern what the objective of the puzzle is. The best part of the game, and its strongest aspect, is that very little of the actual objective of any given puzzle is presented to either player. Instead, the game relies on the players constantly telling one another what they are seeing, what information they have available, what they see as being the information they need, and what they think the actual objective is.
This is where I believe the case for an actual 'real-life' friend as a co-op partner becomes paramount.

Firstly, feeling lost and not quite understanding what the objective in a specific puzzle IS part of the puzzle. If the players were (for example) using a guide to discern what the objective is, the game would feel incredibly short and uninspired. The fact that figuring out what the puzzle is is half the puzzle itself, means having a natural level of understanding and short-hand communication is key, as well as the ability to have fun without getting frustrated. 
Secondly, there is the simple fact of how some puzzles work. For example, one puzzle required explaining to the other player a series of discrete, pictorial symbols, under a pretty strict time-requirement. These symbols are hard to describe, however, the fact that I was able to say things like "It looks like Homer's Ear on it's side" or "Like a birds-eye view of Madonna's 80's Bra" and have my mate know what I meant was paramount to completing them. I'm confident that without the collective personal experience of our friendship, such puzzles would be immeasurably harder.

 

Visually, the game looks pretty nice - its a heavily stylised aesthetic, high-poly but low-fidelity in game, with cutscenes in a style similar to Samurai Jack, Sly Cooper-style motion comics, or Klei games - in particular Shank or Invisible Inc.

Some props have to go the ways in which the developer manages to give visual flair to the hacker's component of the game in particular. Because the majority of the hacker's portion of the game takes place in 'cyber-space' i.e. their part of the game is predominantly within visual displays of computer readouts and information, it is notable how well they keep this interesting. This is not a realistic depiction of hacking, but rather an over-the-top, Hollywood version of it, (think Lawnmower Man, rather than The Matrix), but having played the full game as the 'Agent' first, I was not disappointed when playing the second time, as the less acton-focussed hacker, and still found the game to be visually appealing. 

 

The game is fairly short, though not quite as short as it might appear. Yes, there are only 6 levels, however, as each level is unique from each spy's point of view, those really amount to 12 levels, as playing the game as the Hacker is quite a different experience to playing as the Agent. That is admirable - and has a cool feel when you play a level from 'the other side' and realise why the thing you though was taking your partner too long to do was taking them so long, as you have a whole separate level of puzzle input you never knew about! - however, the second playthrough is notably faster, as it is impossible to completely forget what you did as the other spy the first time. 

It is also notable, upon the second playthrough, how much of the first playthrough's time was spent simply discerning the actual objectives. The second time, these are known, and so the game is simply about enacting the puzzle solutions, rather than discerning them, and the game can fly by quickly as a result. 

The way the game is structured, it would easily accommodate additional levels as DLC, and I hope they do some, as the experience did not get old over the course of what is in there currently.

The levels are, as said, unique, and that means some are better than others. The games nadir comes in the form of its 4th level, 'Digital Dive', which suffers a little for a lack of 'real world' sections from the Agent point of view, and feels more like a discrete, abstracted puzzle game, however, the best levels (one on a train stands out, as well as a bomb-disposal one at the end of the game) really work well, and manage to capture the excitement of "remote spy guiding a player under pressure" that films have captured (think Morpheus guiding Neo out of his office, or Simon Pegg guiding Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible movies.) 

 

There is also a glaring flaw in the game - not important to everyone, but one that really did hamper a couple of puzzles for me and my partner - there are quite a few puzzles that rely on identifying colours, and a fair few use green and red as colours...
Yes, you guessed it...
my buddy has deuteranopia. He can't always tell red from green. 
I realise that isn't a majority issue, however, it is the most common form of colourblindness, and colourblindness is not entirely uncommon, so it feels strange to have a game which is so reliant on communication and colour identification that doesn't feature a 'colourblind mode'. (At least, we couldn't find one. If there is, it's so well hidden we couldn't get to it!)

 

Overall, there is a lot to like here. Co-op only games are few and far between. This game, while already in a fairly small category as a co-op only game, is even more specific, in that it is really 'remote co-op only'. The game would completely break down if either player were able to see the other's screen at any point, so couch co-op is not an option. 
While that may make finding the wherewithal to actually play Operation Tango might be more difficult, if you do get the chance, you should take it, as it is a great time with a friend, and the uniqueness of each situation means it is a short game that never gets a chance to feel boring or stale. The narrative is fairly silly and throwaway, and the visuals are fine - functional and fun, though never stand-out, but mechanically, the game works very well, and is great with a friend. 

 

 

 

The Ranking:

In terms of Co-op experiences, the first obvious comparison is A Way Out, given that it is - I believe - the only other game currently ranked that is co-op required, and not simply co-op optional. While A Way Out does more narratively, what it does i that regard isn't particularly good, and the actual puzzle elements, while broadly as unique in each instance as Operation Tango, the actual meat-and-potatoes play of the game is vastly inferior.

At it's best, A Way Out offers a chance for two players to co-operatively play a middling-to-bad action game, and both get roughly the same experience. Certainly, nothing about playing A Way Out as either character feels particularly distinct form playing it as the other.  In Operation Tango, both players are have a good time almost the whole game, and, crucially, both players are having a markedly different experience. Playing A Way Out again as the other character is a curious novelty. Playing Operation Tango from the 'other-side-of-the-fence' is downright mandatory, and a totally different beast than the first time around. It's no contest, and Operation Tango takes it by a landslide.

 

Much, much further up, is another co-op game (this time optionally) - Cuphead. Cuphead is an interesting comparison, because while it is co-op, I think the co-op is actually by far its weakest component. As I said in that review - I believe the co-op in that game to be borderline broken, as the difficulty spike when playing it 2-player is much too steep to allow for fun partner-play. However, if both players are skilled at the single-player, it is feasible, and Cuphead, in all other aspects, outshines Operation Tango. Its visuals are stunning, its style and audio and mechanics are on another level, and it is longer and repeatable in a way Operation Tango fails at after playing the game fully as both characters.

In the (sizeable) gulf between Cuphead and A Way Out, comparison gets more nebulous.

One game, sitting almost squat in-between, is Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing - a game that is great in single player, but also has a robust suite of fun multi-player modes. While each individual mission of Operation Tango is more unique, fun and interesting than any single race of tournament in Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing, it cannot be overlooked how few there are, and that begins to make Operation Tango shrink by comparison. 

 

Slipping down a little from there, we have the original Ratchet and Clank, which remains a more rounded, better overall game, and a few puzzle games (so some comparison to Operation Tango there too,) in The Last Campfire and Critter Crunch, both of which are single-player games primarily, but both manage to stand above Operation Tango on their own merits, however, below them is Concrete Genie.
Concrete Genie is a game with it's heart in the right place, however, aside from some nice visuals, it is a mechanically burdensome game, and while it has more fleshed out narrative, the actual content of it's narrative - and it's message - is pretty questionable.

As such, I think Operation Tango's co-op puzzling fun outshines it, and it finds its spot on the rankings!

 

 

 

 

Hades

 

Summary: 

A rogue-like combat dungeon crawler, weaving a broad narrative, exceptional Supergiant-wheelhouse art and design, fantastic music, incredibly endearing and likeable characters drawn from Greek Mythological texts, Hades is a wonderful addition to a great genre.

 

Now - here's the thing - Supergiant make astoundingly good games.
That is, at this point, indisputable. 
They have 4 games out now, (Level-based Brawler Bastion, Cyberpunk Action Strategy game Transistor, Sports-sim/ Visual Novel hybrid Pyre, and now Rogue-like Hades.) Each one is both a crowning achievement in their respective genre (or genres!), while also being a part of an aesthetically-aligned, qualitatively-parallel, developer-specific pastiche on a level that few developers can boast. Having one powerhouse game is hard enough. Having four - without any detrimentally inferior games to drag down the average is practically unheard of, and puts Supergiant on a pedestal that towers over most other developers.

 

"Uh-huh, yeah, we know..." I hear you say... "Why are you rambling on about that?"
I get that sentiment, believe me. 
You aren't wrong for thinking it. 
However, the reason I want to make crystal clear my feelings on the supreme quality of Supergiant's output across the board, is to give context to the following statement:
I think Hades is the weakest Supergiant game to date.

 

Do I think Hades is a bad game? - Fuck no. I loved Hades. Across my 60-odd hours with the game, comprising 100-odd runs through the layers of Hell that protagonist Zagreus (Son of Hades, Lord of the Underworld,) fights his way through in pursuit of furthering his conversations with his errant mother Persephone, I had a fantastic time. 
However, I cannot deny that, having completed the game, I do think it falls short of meeting the, (admittedly, absurdly high,) bar set by their previous 3 games.

 

Hades is, as stated, a Rogue-like. That is a genre that, while I would not consider myself an expert in the nuances of, I do enjoy immensely, and have experienced a fair number of iterations of. It could be argued - in fact, it should be argued - that Hades had, by rights, the best chance of being my favourite Supergiant game, in the sense that it falls in a genre I like more than the genres of their previous games - however, my love of the genre is, I think, a double-edged sword. 
On the one hand, it certainly guaranteed that I had a broad love of the game right from the very beginning. The gameplay loop of 'attempt a run, fail, upgrade, attempt again, get a little further, fail, upgrade, attempt again...' is one I enjoy, and one Hades does very well - however, it also means that I am comparing it more readily to a wider swathe of games I also loved. For all that I love Supergiant's style - and it is here in full force, I don't necessarily think it is best suited to the rogue-like genre.

 

Hades feels a lot like Supergiant did what they do best - they approached a genre by looking at what the perceived failings of the genre are, and worked to systematically, and comprehensively, alleviate each one.

 

Where many rogue-likes, due to the higher bar of difficulty, feel like they can lack narrative progression from run to run, Hades fixes the problem entirely.  The main hub area - Hades' realm, has a huge cast of characters from Greek mythology, each of which is given a distinct character, through the almost absurd levels of flavour dialogue. Enough cannot be said to do justice to the level of craftsmanship in these dialogue sections. Each character is voiced, to a pitch-perfect level, the amount of writing is absolutely astounding (I was still hearing unique interchanges after 100 runs,) and not once was a line ever delivered with anything but tip-top perfection by the excellent voice cast. 
The writing is excellent across the board, befitting the absurdist tone the game strikes - these are Gods, to whom death is both impermanent, and a mere annoyance, and so the tone of the game is pitched in such a way as to account for that. The game is far, far funnier than I expected, and elicited genuine laughs many times. For the most part, these came from interactions with the less overtly comedic characters - some, such as Hypnos (greeter of the newly dead) and Dusa (the gorgon-head maid) who are direct comic relief are a little on-the-nose with their comedy - however, characters like Nix (the surrogate mother to Zagreus and embodiment of the Night,) and Magaera (the combination fist world boss, and love interest) have a deadpan quality that makes their comedic input all the sweeter.

 

Where in some Rogue-likes, progression can stagnate, in Hades, even an abortive run still results in something - a small amount of unlockable consumables, or some narrative progression, so the player never feels wholly at a loss. Specific 'missions' (set up as prophetic scrolls from the fates) mean progress is not simply about the hub, or the individual runs, but also about doing specific things within them.

 

Where in some rogue-likes, the actual cyclical component of the genre feels tacked-on, and requires hefty narrative explanation, in Hades, the Greek deity aspects of the game feel tailor made to support the genre.

 

In some rogue-likes, once the player finds a specific weapon or play-style that suits them, they tend to stick with it, however, Hades does a great job of encouraging experimentation with separate progressions for the different weapons, and random bonuses assigned to different ones for each run. That coupled with the random nature of the 'boons' offered by various Olympic Gods aiding Zagreus in his quest to escape Hell, (and show up his father) means each run can vary significantly.

 

These are all immensely smart and clever additions, each of which does exactly what their respective intentions are - indeed, Hades does systematically solve a huge number of the issues inherent to other rogue-likes. However - there is one sizeable flaw present in Hades: The actual rogue-like game around which all these aspects are built, and upon which all these positives are hung, isn't actually particularly strong.

 

Hades' combat, action and in-dungeon mechanics are not really interesting or unique enough to support the huge number of runs that all the other, stronger parts of the game require. 
The combat is fine - but not more than that. there is some variety to the enemies encountered, but not anywhere close to the amount of variety that should be required for 100 runs. 

 

There is also something of an issue with regards to how successful a run can be being more overtly tied to RNG 'boon' drops than to raw skill. While I do not fancy myself any kind of expert in the game (or, lets face it, in any game!), it did become quickly (and permanently) apparent, that if the right combination of 'boons' dropped during a run, it would trivialise later levels and bosses. If the wrong ones dropped, then even skilled play would not be enough to save me, or at a minimum, would make later bosses absurdly long, difficult fights. 

If this were always the case, it could simply be chalked up to Hades simply being difficult, but I don't think that is the case. Because some runs will become absurdly easy, and because there is no real 'threat' to death in a game where a single run is not much more than 20 minutes, it does have the effect, over time, of feeling like you are simply waiting for a 'good' run full of powerful drops, rather than encouraging more skilful play of the game.

 

There is, it should be noted, a setting called 'God Mode' in the game. This is not a God Mode in the traditional sense - the player does not become invulnerable - but rather, it grants a 20% damage reduction initially, increasing by 2% for every failure, up to a maximum of 80%.
This is a fairly smart addition to the game, as it offers a 'sliding scale' of aid to the player, without immediately trivialising it, and can be turned on or off at will, without penalty. 
Personally, I did not use it until past the natural 'end-game' point - having escaped 10 times, however, I did use it subsequent to that, as by that point, a failure felt less like a fun challenge, and morel like an irritation, with so much RNG elements in play - and by that point in the game, my focus was on the stronger elements - seeing the individual stories progress.

 

The God Mode does serve to actually highlight the problem with RNG outlined above - even with God Mode on, the wrong drops still meant a failed run, and the right ones meant breezing through the run, and so, it really highlighted just how much the RNG elements are the crux of the game. A simple 20-40% damage reduction is nothing in comparison to the right/wrong boons dropping, in terms of making a material difference to the chance for success. In comparison to something like Transistor, where there are less potential variations, but those variations are at the players discretion, and not the RNG Gods, it begins to make Hades feel morel like playing a slot machine, and less like feeling like you are beating the game at it's own rules by coming up with a perfect strategy.

 

I do think that, while Hades is absurdly well crafted, and solves so many issues inherent to the genre in which it plays, the RNG aspect, and the outrageous number of runs required to achieve the platinum do hurt it. 

On the amount of runs required to see all the game has to offer, there feels like there is - and I hesitate to use this word, but I think it is apt - a certain arrogance on the part of Supergiant. 
In much the same way as Rockstar games can feel arrogant in the absurd amount of time they ask the player to play the same game, without really changing up the things it asks them to actively do, Hades does feel, at times, like its tertiary trappings - its dialogue and writing and aesthetic - while magnificent, ask the player to engage with a set of core mechanics that, while fun, aren't complex or deep enough to support the amount of play being asked. 

That was not an issue with Bastion, Transistor, or Pyre. In each of those instances, after achieving the platinum, I was hungry for more. With Hades, when I achieved the platinum, I was done, and I have not loaded the game since.

Of course, if saying "60-hours was enough" is the worst thing one can say about a game, that, does not make it a bad game - Hades is still a great one - however, it is of note, given that each of their previous games had me ravenous for more.

Overall, Hades is still an incredibly addictive, fun, engaging and competent rogue-like. It's mechanics, while simple, are notably enjoyable to engage with, and the compulsive "just one more run" aspect of the game is extremely strong - though I'd be lying if I said the actual mechanics were the strongest force driving that. In reality, where the mechanics weaken, the narrative and style pick up the slack, and those are the elements most likely to see a player through to the platinum...
...but in a genre where narrative and writing is rarely a strong suit, that is hardly the worst thing in the world.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

The only other Supergiant game currently ranked is my personal favourite of their output - Transistor - and based on the above, it will surprise no one that Hades falls short of that high-watermark.

 

Looking at rogue-likes on the list, there are a fair few ranked now-  Dead Cells is highest, then recently ranked Returnal, then below those, Double-fine's RAD, with Void Bastards close behind.

 

In terms of Dead Cells, Hades is, in some ways, the inverse. Dead Cells is 2D and pixel-art, Hades is 3D and hand rendered beautifully. Hades has a narrative and dialogue that Dead Cells never attempts (and could never compete with,) however, Dead Cells absolutely stomps on Hades in terms of controls and mechanics. Dead Cells is also far more varied, both in terms of level layout, progression through it's dungeon (it offers multiple paths, where Hades doesn't) and it has far more variety in terms of weaponry and play-style. 
While most of the elements I loved about Hades are elements Dead Cells has no answer to, the fact of the matter is, Dead Cells is a better game to play. It moves better, feels better, and the actual game part - the rogue-like dungeon is more interesting and mechanically varied, and so it ensures it's place above Hades.

 

Returnal is an interesting comparison. It is mechanically quite distinct for a rogue-like, it is fully 3D, artistically and graphically grander, and has a much more cinematic approach to it's (much more marginal) narrative and dialogue. 

While Returnal is a little less varied in terms of drops within any single run (there aren't boons, for example, or any real equivalent,) it is more varied in terms of play-style and weaponry, and while random drops do make a big difference, it is not on the level of Hades in that regard. The longer, more difficult runs of Returnal mean getting bad drops is a challenge, but the player never feels like a run is a lost cause. In Hades, the swings of difficulty based on random drops are so severe, that it can feel like a slot machine spin. 
Returnal also, despite having far less narrative, did hook me in a way Hades didn't. Hades isn't trying to be serious - it is comical by design - however, the stakes are an issue. In Returnal, I desperately wanted to see the story through to find out what was going on. In Hades, I didn't really care about the stakes of the narrative - I just wanted to see it because it was so well written and produced. That might win against Returnal in a world where Returnal's story was good, but poorly implemented, but that isn't this world. Returnal's cut-scenes are both fascinating and beautiful to look at, and thoroughly well done, and so Returnal manages to add up to a game that (just) beats out Hades.

It is, however, a tough fight, and as such, Hades takes the spot just below Returnal.

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

 

Thanks to @Copanele , @GonzoWARgasm & @grayhammmer for putting in requests!

 

 

 

 Invisible Inc stays on top for now as  'Current Most Awesome Game' - but only just this time!

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 shining gold... or the aged turd?

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! ☮️

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Eagle]

Good read as always. Might I ask for God of War, considering the sequel is bound to have some more information on PlayStation Showcase and you were just mentioning how it's not on the list yet?

 

[DrBloodmoney]

14 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Good read as always. Might I ask for God of War, considering the sequel is bound to have some more information on PlayStation Showcase and you were just mentioning how it's not on the list yet?

 

Absolutely mate - I do try and get series like that one done roughly in release order when I can, just to give proper context to them, so I should really try and get at least the three mainline releases in the original series done before tackling the reboot - but I'll flag them all with your name for priority so I remember to at least get the ball rolling sometime soon - you're right, it's weird that there's over 200 games on the ranking now, and no Kratos to show for it!

[Copanele]

Awesome reviews! One game mention stood out in that Arkham Asylum review though...

7 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

For every Arkham Asylum, there is a Catwoman...
...and therein lies the rub. 

Catwoman is part of the reason I was, personally, very sceptical about Arkham Asylum. 
I was, it seemed, one of about 7 people to have actually played Catwoman.

 

Catwoman - the lacklustre 2004 Gamecube tie-in to the dire Halle Berry movie - was the final game crafted by (and final nail in the coffin of) Argonaut Studios. (It wasn't actually the last Argonaut game released, as they created Starfox 2 for Nintendo in 1996, the release of which was delayed until 2017, but I digress.)

Rocksteady, to all intents and purposes, is Argonaut. Both Jamie Walker and Sefton Hill (Rocksteady's founders) were major players in Argonaut (Creative Director and Head of Production respectively) and in building the studio, a large swathe of their early hires were former colleagues.
In some ways, that may make some of the more surface level elements of the Arkham Asylum tale make a little more sense - it is less surprising that an IP as valuable as the Batman licence would be given to a relatively young, 'unproven' studio when one considers that there will have been some previous relationships already in existence between the parties - however, while there are some visible areas of direct lineage between Catwoman and Arkham Asylum in terms of game design, there is nothing obvious in that 2004 game that hints at the level of quality Rocksteady would manage to pack into their next comic-book related character action game.

Having played Catwoman (to completion, I might add - God help me!,) I expected a middling-to-bad 3D platforming, linear-narrative game with some very ropey combat. 
What I got, was one of the most lavishly produced, intimately detailed, lovingly crafted and stridently confident 3D Metroidvania games I had played up to that point.

Holy damn you played Catwoman the 2004 AND completed it (something that I never managed to do since the game was...the way it was). WOWZIE! That deserves lots of respect and a big F from the gaming community ? just how could you manage to get through that heap of trash?

 

I can't believe someone else remembered that nightmare of a "superhero" game. Terribly sorry for Halle Berry since she is amazing but man, both the movie AND the game were subpar. Thanks again Rocksteady for saving the superhero games genre with Batman Arkham Asylum.

They should have done Watchmen too instead of...whoever that development team was.

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, Copanele said:

Awesome reviews! One game mention stood out in that Arkham Asylum review though...

Holy damn you played Catwoman the 2004 AND completed it (something that I never managed to do since the game was...the way it was). WOWZIE! That deserves lots of respect and a big F from the gaming community  just how could you manage to get through that heap of trash?

 

I can't believe someone else remembered that nightmare of a "superhero" game. Terribly sorry for Halle Berry since she is amazing but man, both the movie AND the game were subpar. Thanks again Rocksteady for saving the superhero games genre with Batman Arkham Asylum.

They should have done Watchmen too instead of...whoever that development team was.

 

? You know what the most ridiculous irony is? I played that game to completion - yet I have never made it all the way through the film it's based on! Despite Sharon Stone's best efforts (seriously, she seems to be the only person in the movie who knows exactly what kind of movie she is in, and actually goes a marginal way towards saving it... but no one could save that movie ?)

 

God  - a Rocksteady Watchmen - that's a genuinely interesting proposition!

 

I must admit, I do like the Snyder movie - and Rocksteady could have done a hell of a job doing a game in the tone of the film, but as a massive fan of the novel, I do kind of think that the second you start doing an 'action' game with Watchmen, you may win the battle, but you've lost the war.

Really, if Watchmen were to be made, and be true to the comic, it would really need to be like Telltale or Supermassive or DotNod or someone like them who did it, I think... someone who could make it entirely dialogue and choice / detective story based - given that really, there was very little violence in it before Snyder got his Snyder-juice all over it ?

[Copanele]

3 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

 You know what the most ridiculous irony is? I played that game to completion - yet I have never made it all the way through the film it's based on! Despite Sharon Stone's best efforts (seriously, she seems to be the only person in the movie who knows exactly what kind of movie she is in, and actually goes a marginal way towards saving it... but no one could save that movie )

 

God  - a Rocksteady Watchmen - that's a genuinely interesting proposition!

 

I must admit, I do like the Snyder movie - and Rocksteady could have done a hell of a job doing a game in the tone of the film, but as a massive fan of the novel, I do kind of think that the second you start doing an 'action' game with Watchmen, you may win the battle, but you've lost the war.

Really, if Watchmen were to be made, and be true to the comic, it would really need to be like Telltale or Supermassive or DotNod or someone like them who did it, I think... someone who could make it entirely dialogue and choice / detective story based - given that really, there was very little violence in it before Snyder got his Snyder-juice all over it 

Lol I saw the entire movie. So that's the saving grace. Not really, the movie was a complete pain. Sharon Stone tried her best, but having an evildoer whose superpower is cement face cream...ok no, I just remembered the movie, let's dial that back  

 

You got a good point there! I also read the novel and watched the movie (didn't think the movie was that bad either, the Comedian was the highlight for me), but yes, the whole story is more of a meta-commentary and less of a bone cracking experience with Nite Owl and Rorschach. If it focused on the fights, it defeats the entire purpose of the novel...

...but with Rocksteady you at least win a battle. With Deadline Games(googled them) they lost the battle, the war and the brawl behind the pub.

[Orenn16]

On 9/4/2021 at 2:05 AM, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Thank you very much! 

 

Coming from someone with a profile of your calibre, that's one of the best compliments I've ever received, I really appreciate it

 

Hope I can continue to satisfy, and thank you for the view 

Thanks! I really have played a little of everything huh?! I’m pretty proud of the profile too

 

Thank YOU for the view ?

On 9/4/2021 at 2:26 AM, AihaLoveleaf said:

Far better than your terrible manners.

It was clearly, (or rather I assumed clearly) a joke using the same assured language OP used in his post. Like “scientifically your taste is terrible!” Just like he said “scientifically these games are rated as such!” Both are meant to be playful and sarcastic.

Sorry it didn’t come across that way!