DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!

[DrBloodmoney]

8 hours ago, grayhammmer said:

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but is there a reason Rogue Legacy isn't getting analyzed this week despite my request?

 

When someone puts in a request, I add that game to a little secondary list, and highlight it with their name in my master table.

 

When I then go through to pick a batch, I try to make sure I pick at least a couple of the priority ones to include - in particular the ones that have been highlighted longer (ie. requested earlier,) - but I tend to do a maximum of 3 requests in a batch.

That's partly to keep the requests spread out, so there are always some to include, (it's random, but requests tend to come in at about 3 per batch when averaged out,) but also partly because the requests people make tend to be the games that they like, and are therefore likely to be the 'better', meatier games, with more to write about.

I like to keep a steady clip of the less popular / smaller games coming too, so I don't end up in a situation where every 'interesting' game has been done already, and this list becomes just whole batches of smaller games that no one is likely to request, and ends up being less interesting in the back half.

 

When selecting this batch, there were 6 requested games highlighted - including Rogue Legacy - but that one is the most recent request, so i passed over it, in favour of some that have been sitting outstanding for a while. (For what it's worth - there are only 3 on there now, so it is likely to be picked up in the next one!)

 

I do try to get to all requests in a reasonable time, but I never guarantee they will be done immediately, as this is still personal writing. I have to feel I am in the best place to give the game my full attention at the time, so they are still subject to my whims of the time to some extent I'm afraid!

Edited October 4, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Shrooba]

I look forward to your discussion of Kratos' family feud in GoW III! ?
The Sly games have always been something pretty cool; I've never gotten into the series but the character designs are quite iconic. It's also surprising to see Bejeweled on PlayStation, I didn't even know that was a thing! I remember playing it ages ago, it was a neat puzzle game. What a blast from the past to see it came out in 2009 on PS3! That was a good year.

[Slava]

I feel like we're about to embark on a journey with the Sly 2 review, bois ?. 

 

I know you wrote a rant post about it years ago. And I know you said your opinion has changed slightly since then, so I'm interested to read your detailed thoughts now.
 

(I just wrote a lengthy post, then loaded the previous page by mistake, then came back, and only a small part of my text was restored. Fuck my life. ? Going to try to speedrun writing this post again. Here we go.)

 

I haven't been visiting this thread for a while, so I went back to where I last stopped. That was batch 22 with the reviews of R&C3, PoP: The Forgotten Sands, and The Witness.

 

Ratchet 3 is still my favourite game in the series, even after playing A Crack In Time, which is regarded by many as the best one. R&C3 was also my first introduction to Ratchet, so there's some nostalgia involved. Nevertheless, I still think it's the strongest in many ways. Dr Nefarious is the most iconic Ratchet villain, without a doubt. He felt powerful and menacing, but also dorky. The final boss fight against him was more memorable than Chairman Drek and Protopet + Quark. The puzzles were memorable too. The ones with the beam reflecting mechanic were cool. The spherical Moon level was awesome. It wasn't the first time this kind of stage appeared in the series, but this level was the coolest one by far. It was like something out of Super Mario Galaxy before it existed. Who knows, maybe Mario devs were inspired by Ratchet ?. I thought the jokes were very good too. I still remember the Courtney Gears music video and other moments.

 

I also wanted to mention Starship Phoenix. I think it was a cool addition to the series. It's similar to Normandy from Mass Effect. I like these locations in games where you can go back to between your adventures and chill. You come back from the mission, check for new weapons and test them, then go to captain's bridge and listen to your in-game friends' dialogue, then go to your cozy room and play the new vid-comic. Another example of similar locations was Mother Base in MGS: Peace Walker and The Phantom Pain. That place also felt like home in those games.

 

I actually played R&C3's local split-screen multiplayer mode on my friend's PS2 back in the day. It was kind of fun, but... empty, I guess. You'd run around a pretty big map, capture some points, kill some robots, and occasionally confront your friend. It's probably more fun to play in a 4 player group with more controllers or via online connection. But from what I can tell, that multiplayer mode was not very well-realized. The PS1-PS2 era games rarely had any good multiplayer experiences. Halo must've been the exception.

 

Don't have much to say about The Forgotten Sands except that the name is fitting. I didn't care much about that game before, and I care even less after reading that post.

 

The Witness always looked interesting. It was praised across the board when it came out, but many reviewers failed to express what was so special about it. I remember hearing about the "AHA' or "EURECA" moments, and how satisfying they were. But you can say this in regards to almost any good puzzle game. Now I see that The Witness does much more. I also remember seeing some clips from the game (they are probably spoilery in some way) maybe a year ago. They guy was finding all these hidden patterns in the environment itself he previously didn't know about, and they were interactable. Must be cool to experience this first hand.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Slava

[DrBloodmoney]

17 minutes ago, Slava said:

I feel like we're about to embark on a journey with the Sly 2 review, bois . 

 

I know you wrote a rant post about it years ago. And I know you said your opinion has changed slightly since then, so I'm interested to read your detailed thoughts now.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

I just wrote a lengthy post, then loaded the previous page by mistake, then came back, and only a small part of my text was restored. Fuck my life.  Going to try to speedrun writing this post again. Here we go.

 

Haha - damned spoiler tags not working means I can't open this up... but I know exactly which thread you are referring to!

 

To be honest, that was one of those rants that I try to avoid doing now - done in the middle of (or very shortly after finishing) a game, and still full of vitriol, piss and vinegar! I must admit, while my review of Sly II will undoubtedly be less pointed than I was n that rant - I'm not sure it will be much more positive... I still can't really get on with a lot of the changes they made!

 

 

17 minutes ago, Slava said:

I haven't been visiting this thread for a while, so I went back to where I last stopped. That was batch 22 with the reviews of R&C3, PoP: The Forgotten Sands, and The Witness.

 

Ratchet 3 is still my favourite game in the series, even after playing A Crack In Time, which is regarded by many as the best one. R&C3 was also my first introduction to Ratchet, so there's some nostalgia involved. Nevertheless, I still think it's the strongest in many ways. Dr Nefarious is the most iconic Ratchet villain, without a doubt. He felt powerful and menacing, but also dorky. The final boss fight against him was more memorable than Chairman Drek and Protopet + Quark. The puzzles were memorable too. The ones with the beam reflecting mechanic were cool. The spherical Moon level was awesome. It wasn't the first time this kind of stage appeared in the series, but this level was the coolest one by far. It was like something out of Super Mario Galaxy before it existed. Who knows, maybe Mario devs were inspired by Ratchet . I thought the jokes were very good too. I still remember the Courtney Gears music video and other moments.

 

I also wanted to mention Starship Phoenix. I think it was a cool addition to the series. It's similar to Normandy from Mass Effect. I like these locations in games where you can go back to between your adventures and chill. You come back from the mission, check for new weapons and test them, then go to captain's bridge and listen to your in-game friends' dialogue, then go to your cozy room and play the new vid-comic. Another example of similar locations was Mother Base in MGS: Peace Walker and The Phantom Pain. That place also felt like home in those games.

 

I actually played R&C3's local split-screen multiplayer mode on my friend's PS2 back in the day. It was kind of fun, but... empty, I guess. You'd run around a pretty big map, capture some points, kill some robots, and occasionally confront your friend. It's probably more fun to play in a 4 player group with more controllers or via online connection. But from what I can tell, that multiplayer mode was not very well-realized. The PS1-PS2 era games rarely had any good multiplayer experiences. Halo must've been the exception.

 

Absolutely - I was a fan of R&C3 as well - to be honest, the difference between 2 and 3 is fairly slim, but I do tend to still consider 2 to be my favourite of the ones so far, though there is a fairly big gap in my knowledge. I have still not played any of the "future games" - Tools of Destruction, Quest for Booty, A Crack in Time or Into the Nexus - I basically went straight from R&C3 to All 4 One, Full Frontal Assault, and then the latest ones, but of those, I just love Going Commando so much!

 

 

17 minutes ago, Slava said:

Don't have much to say about The Forgotten Sands except that the name is fitting. I didn't care much about that game before, and I care even less after reading that post.

 

? Fair play - to be honest, I might be more inclined than most to dislike it, as I was really happy with the reboot, and wanted more of that, but even for those who didn't care much for the reboot, Forgotten Sands doesn't seem to be anyones favourite really!

 

17 minutes ago, Slava said:

The Witness always looked interesting. It was praised across the board when it came out, but many reviewers failed to express what was so special about it. I remember hearing about the "AHA' or "EURECA" moments, and how satisfying they were. But you can say this in regards to almost any good puzzle game. Now I see that The Witness does much more. I also remember seeing some clips from the game (they are probably spoilery in some way) maybe a year ago. They guy was finding all these hidden patterns in the environment itself he previously didn't know about, and they were interactable. Must be cool to experience this first hand.

 

I do wonder sometimes, if some reviewers were even aware of those secrets at the time of release. 

 

I'm not one of those "Meh, reviewers know nothing" kind of guys - or worse, the conspiracy nuts who think every reviewer is getting paid for their scores (I simply don't believe that they would risk their reputation and jobs for a small payout, given that game devs can get that kind of thing from "YouTube Streamers" for a tenth of the cost, and none of the hassle) and I think most reviewers are doing a good job under difficult circumstances - it's not easy to finish a game on a deadline, before there is any help available in the form of guides etc...

 

...but with a game like The Witness, where you can feel like you "finished" it, without ever realising there are layers of depth beneath the surface, it would be totally understandable if they missed it. I mean, if you don't happen to stumble across those depths, it still feels like a very long and smart game - and without finding those, it would still rate pretty highly.

With those though? It makes it a must in my book!

 

[Slava]

38 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Haha - damned spoiler tags not working means I can't open this up.

 

I just took a moment there to moan about the fact that I reloaded the page by mistake, and it didn't save my text, so I had to write the post twice ?. I'll remove the spoiler box.

 

38 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I do wonder sometimes, if some reviewers were even aware of those secrets at the time of release. 

 

(...) it's not easy to finish a game on a deadline, before there is any help available in the form of guides etc...

 

...but with a game like The Witness, where you can feel like you "finished" it, without ever realising there are layers of depth beneath the surface, it would be totally understandable if they missed it. I mean, if you don't happen to stumble across those depths, it still feels like a very long and smart game - and without finding those, it would still rate pretty highly.

With those though? It makes it a must in my book!

 

 

That might've been the case with the reviews I saw. I might've generalized a little too much, because there are obviously many more reviews out there that I didn't see. They might've done a better job, or had more time with the game.

 

38 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I'm not one of those "Meh, reviewers know nothing" kind of guys - or worse, the conspiracy nuts who think every reviewer is getting paid for their scores (I simply don't believe that they would risk their reputation and jobs for a small payout, given that game devs can get that kind of thing from "YouTube Streamers" for a tenth of the cost, and none of the hassle) and I think most reviewers are doing a good job under difficult circumstances

 

What's interesting about that "paid reviews" argument is the lack of examples. SURELY, if the paid professional reviews were such a common thing, we would hear about them once in a while, right? The Internet would be all over them, just like it was with that IGN plagiarism fiasco. Yet, I've only heard of one such case, and I don't think it was even a big site. The influence from game publishers on reviews comes from the fact that if your reviews are too negative, they might not send you a collector's edition next time, or not invite you to a cool pre-release event. How strong the influence is - that works by case by case basis. But it's certainly not the same thing as paid reviews.

 

I think the critics do their job as well as they can, and share their honest opinions just like any other person would. They just have more experince writing, get the games earlier, and get paid for their work.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Slava

[rjkclarke]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I basically went straight from R&C3 to All 4 One, Full Frontal Assault, and then the latest ones, but of those, I just love Going Commando so much!

 

Wow - that must have been quite the culture shock when you leapt into those two, considering how different they both are to R&C 3.... I like to think of All 4 One and Full Frontal Assault as Ratchet and Clanks glue sniffing phase. ?

 

45 minutes ago, Slava said:

I just took a moment there to moan about the fact that I reloaded the page by mistake, and it didn't save my text, so I had to write the post twice ?. I'll remove the spoiler box.

 

That used to happen to me far too often.

 

To the point where if I'm writing anything long anymore like a review or sometimes a really long reply to multiple people. then if I'm near my PC I'll just throw it in a word document and paste it in - I think I lost about an hour and a half's progress on a review of Tomb Raider: Underworld because of reloading the page not saving my text, you live and learn I guess ?.

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, rjkclarke said:

 

Wow - that must have been quite the culture shock when you leapt into those two, considering how different they both are to R&C 3.... I like to think of All 4 One and Full Frontal Assault as Ratchet and Clanks glue sniffing phase.

 

You know - I’m totally aware of how lesser those two entries are… BUT… co-op saves the day on both for me!

 

The only reason I even looked twice at those, was that MsBloodmoney had expressed an interest when I was playing the trilogy, but as with a lot of games, she wasn’t really for just playing the single player ones herself, so when I saw a coop option, I jumped at it!

 

Actually, All-4-One was kinda awesome as a 2player game - yeah, its a million miles from ‘true ratchet’, but not actually bad… though I can imagine it being a hell of a let down as a single player game!

 

Ironically, she ended up loving Full Frontal Assault, even more than All-4-One  as she just dug the combat more than the story (which helped, since it barely had one!) Personally, I wasn’t so hot on that one, but the osmosis of enjoyment did spill over enough to make it a fine experience!

 

 

 

[rjkclarke]

16 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

You know - I’m totally aware of how lesser those two entries are… BUT… co-op saves the day on both for me!

 

The only reason I even looked twice at those, was that MsBloodmoney had expressed an interest when I was playing the trilogy, but as with a lot of games, she wasn’t really for just playing the single player ones herself, so when I saw a coop option, I jumped at it!

 

Actually, All-4-One was kinda awesome as a 2player game - yeah, its a million miles from ‘true ratchet’, but not actually bad… though I can imagine it being a hell of a let down as a single player game!

 

Ironically, she ended up loving Full Frontal Assault, even more than All-4-One  as she just dug the combat more than the story (which helped, since it barely had one!)

 

I still think there's plenty to like in them - I'm definitely not one to trash them that's for sure..... I just think they're quite unusual hence the glue sniffing comment ?

 

They're quite good titles those future trilogy games - the story is,well it's ridiculous to be honest, and it takes itself far too seriously for it's own good. But they are still pretty fun times I'd say, Crack in Time is especially good considering it's a PS3 game. It really wouldn't look or feel out of place on a PS4 in my opinion.

 

I doubt you could say either of All 4 One and Full Frontal Assault  are a true let down as single player experiences, but some folks can go a little overboard when they really don't like something - what little story Full Frontal Assault has - at least does have a pretty funny pay off.

 

I could definitely see why All 4 One and Full Frontal Assault would be a lot of fun in Co-Op. I played All 4 One in co-op a little bit myself and it definitely helped make it a more enjoyable time.... All 4 One especially It's got that relaxing switch off your brain quality to it, that makes it quite easy to just chill and enjoy your time alongside someone doing the same thing. That makes perfect sense why you've got plenty of positives for both of them. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by rjkclarke

[DrBloodmoney]

13 hours ago, rjkclarke said:

 

They're quite good titles those future trilogy games - the story is,well it's ridiculous to be honest, and it takes itself far too seriously for it's own good. But they are still pretty fun times I'd say, Crack in Time is especially good considering it's a PS3 game. It really wouldn't look or feel out of place on a PS4 in my opinion.

 

You know - I really have no excuse at all for not having played those ones - I'm pretty sure I have a digital copy of Into the Nexus on my dusty PS3, and I'm almost certain I've had a disc copy of A Crack in Time lying somewhere in my house since Moses was in short-pants...

....the only thing that has stopped me is the true final boss in life - the limited number of hours in the day!

[rjkclarke]

11 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

You know - I really have no excuse at all for not having played those ones - I'm pretty sure I have a digital copy of Into the Nexus on my dusty PS3, and I'm almost certain I've had a disc copy of A Crack in Time lying somewhere in my house since Moses was in short-pants...

....the only thing that has stopped me is the true final boss in life - the limited number of hours in the day!

 

That is indeed the true final boss..... I'm with you on that one mate!

 

Just a little nudge-nudge though

 

 

Crack in Time has Orange in its thumbnail.

 

Also, this is totally unrelated - but why does Ratchet look like he's wearing his Mum's lipstick in that picture?

 

 

 

Into the Nexus has Pink in its thumbnail too.

 

So if you were stuck for games to play during the Trophies to Fight Cancer Event, then these are two options if you end up scratching around for things to play.

Edited October 5, 2021 by rjkclarke

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

 

That is indeed the true final boss..... I'm with you on that one mate!

 

Just a little nudge-nudge though

 

 

Crack in Time has Orange in its thumbnail.

 

Into the Nexus has Pink in its thumbnail too.

 

So if you were stuck for games to play during the Trophies to Fight Cancer Event, then these are two options if you end up scratching around for things to play.

 

Interesting... that would mean that, aside from Deadlocked, I'd have one of every trophy enabled Ratchet game under my belt...

 

...it's getting tempting... ?

Edited October 5, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[rjkclarke]

5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Interesting... that would mean that, aside from Deadlocked, I'd have one of every trophy enabled Ratchet game under my belt...

 

...it's getting tempting... 

 

Deadlocked or I guess Gladiator as it'd be for us  -  has orange in it's thumbnail too - and I believe it comes free with one of the future trilogy games that doesn't have trophies. I quite enjoyed that one for what it is.

 

I'm not really trying to influence your decision one way or the other, but it's always nice to have every game in a series isn't it... Which reminds me I totally need to get God of War (2018) it's on offer right now for a really decent price too.  That one is a pretty big gaping hole in my own list

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, rjkclarke said:

I'm not really trying to influence your decision one way or the other, but it's always nice to have every game in a series isn't it... Which reminds me I totally need to get God of War (2018) it's on offer right now for a really decent price too.  That one is a pretty big gaping hole in my own list

 

not for nothing - but if you happen to be planning on getting a PS5 anytime soon, God of War (2018) is part of the free games on PS+ that you get access to by simply having a PS5 

[rjkclarke]

52 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

not for nothing - but if you happen to be planning on getting a PS5 anytime soon, God of War (2018) is part of the free games on PS+ that you get access to by simply having a PS5 

 

As tempting as that is - and it is believe me, I also feel like I've got to buy a new TV to really get the most out of a PS5.... It's another reason I've not quite bitten the bullet yet. So I might just jump on the digital edition of God of War for like £6.50-ish which is what it is right now - I think I own most of the PS+ collection that comes with the PS5 already, I'm glad it exists though - it's a great idea for those that wouldn't have owned any previous PS consoles before, or would be switching over from the Xbox or something similar

[YaManSmevz]

15 hours ago, rjkclarke said:

 

 

Crack in Time has Orange in its thumbnail.

 

Also, this is totally unrelated - but why does Ratchet look like he's wearing his Mum's lipstick in that picture?.

 

That is spot on.

 

This is Mrs. Ratchet stopping at the bar for a quick glass of wine before picking up the kids from soccer practice, while baby Clank patiently waits back in the car seat.

17 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

....the only thing that has stopped me is the true final boss in life - the limited number of hours in the day!

 

Obscenely well put, Doc!

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ??

 

 

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

 

 

 

Bejeweled 2

 

Summary: 

There might be someone out there in the world right now who is unfamiliar with Bejeweled. 
I guess it's possible.
This review is not for them, of course.

Not because they would be unfamiliar with the game and lack context, or because there is anything narrative to 'spoil' in the seminal match-3 game. 
Simply because, having clearly just been unfrozen after 20 years of cryostasis, they will be too busy with other things. Trying to work out why everyone has a scale model of a Mass Effect Space Port with the words PS5 etched on it in their entertainment units, for example. Or asking why everyone is wearing surgical masks to go shopping. Or not understanding why their ironic racism isn't funny anymore, querying whatever happened to Nu-Metal, and pondering why people keep making "former President" jokes about that orange man with the hair-hat from The Apprentice.

For the rest of us though, Bejeweled is familiar territory. While it was by no means the first match-3 puzzle game, its sales and credibility have been such that its domination of the genre has been absolute. by 2013, developer PopCap's internal figures showed that Bejeweled and its sequels / offshoots had been downloaded in excess of 500million times, with over 10 billion hours played. Match-3, as a genre, may as well be renamed "Bejeweled-Like".

 

One of the simplest of Match-3 styles, the game is played on an 8x8 randomised, vertically cascading grid, in which gems of different colours and shapes are shifted a single space in any direction to make matching sets of 3 or more. Doing so clears the space, and the board cascades down, with new gems filling from the top. There are some special items with specific effects (bombs / invincible rocks etc,) and in Bejeweled 2, a number of additional modes were added, such as puzzle mode, in which the timed element is removed in favour of more pattern-recognition puzzle mechanics involving clearing entire, specifically structured boards, giving some laudable variety, however, the fundamental basic game is where the action really lies, and that main mode is - it must be stated - fun, simple, effective, and addictive as a motherfucker.

 

That said, there are additional reasons, besides it simply being well-made great fun, that the game is as popular as it is. Actually 3 reasons:

Firstly, on most devices, it is free to play. 
Secondly, on most devices, it is incredibly simply to play.
Thirdly, on most devices, it is bite sized enough to play in short increments, or to play casually, while engaged in other passive activities.

 

This is where the issue with the PS3 version lies. Note the use of the term "on most devices" in all three of those reasons. In all three cases, the PS3 is the exception to the rule.

Essentially, Bejeweled 2 on the PS3 suffers some of the same issues encountered by the Pic-a-Pix games. It is a well made version of a very good game, but one that is rather unsuited to the platform, and is available on better suited devices that virtually everyone has available to them, cheaper, or even free of charge.

 

As a financial proposition, it is difficult to justify Bejeweled 2 on the PS3, given it costs more than it does on virtually any device. 

 

In terms of control, while match-3 games do work on a controller, Bejeweled is clear a game developed for touch-screen, mobile devices. The ability to play the game with quick swipes of the finger, means the timed nature of most of the modes is designed in such a way as to expect the delay between the player identifying a match and making it, to be infinitesimal. When using a controller, this is not the case, and the player has multiple button presses required to select the desired jewel, and then to swap it in the correct direction.

 

Finally, as a game, Bejeweled is really designed for 2 situations - long-form play while vegetating on a couch after a hard day, with a movie or TV show playing, or short form play, while sitting on a train / bus / toilet. The game is tailor made for those situations, however, when the player is required to specifically load up a PS3, launch the game, and play it exclusively - monopolising the television, and devoting more attention to it, it tends to feel slight and bare-bones. As good as Bejeweled 2 is, it is not Tetris. It is not Lumines. It is not even Critter Crunch, in terms of requiring or offering the requisite engagement to merit a players full, undivided attention - it was never designed to be.
As such, when put in a format that unduly encourages just that, it feels a little out of its element... because it is. It's element in the pond of your iPhone - there, it is a notably big fish. In the console ocean, however, it starts to look small.

 

Overall, Bejeweled 2 as a game is excellent - a Match-3 game so simple and effective as to have come (rightly) to define the genre. However, it is very poorly served by the requirement of console controller input, and not well suited to long-form, big-screen play. When those drawbacks are couple with the PS3 version being one of, (if not the) most expensive way to play the game, it becomes a real issue. 

Yo should play Bejeweled 2. You probably have, and for a good reason - it's great!
But do it for free on your phone. Preferably while watching Mad Men for the 10th time, commuting to work, or dropping a deuce.

That's what it's meant for!

 

 

The Ranking:

The obvious comparison points for Bejeweled 2 are threefold - Similarly flat-plane puzzle games, Critter Crunch, Metropolis: Lux Obscura and EA's Tetris.

As compared to Critter Crunch, Bejeweled 2 on console isn't up to the fight. Yes, they have similarities, and Bejeweled 2 is certainly easier to pick up, however, Critter Crunch has more variety of modes, 2-player options, and is - crucially - much more suited to console controller input. Because Critter Crunch moves only on one horizontal axis, D-pad control works about as fast as touch-screen would, and doesn't feel like a hinderance.

 

As compared to Tetris, this becomes a weird one, as fundamentally, Tetris is the superior game. It is designed for controller, which is an obvious advantage, and it is a game that has stood the test of time even longer than Bejeweled has. Tetris really doesn't work well on mobile, and so it is far more suited to the console setting. 
However, in the specific case of this Tetris offering, the matchup is skewed, as this version is incredibly lifeless and dull. There is literally nothing interesting done with what is a great fundamental game - and there is no excuse for that really. There have been scores of better Tetris releases, doing interesting takes on the game, and as such, this one from EA feels desperately limp. As such, Bejeweled 2 outpaces it on this ranking.

 

A little further up is Metropolis: Lux Obscura, and therein lies an interesting fight. Lux Obscura adds a motion-comic narrative to the Match-3 gaming, which is interesting and adds variety and a unique hook to each match. Its particular Match-3 mechanics, (not being as time-based, and allowing more movement,) make it a little more suited to controller input. However, the narrative aspects are a double-edged sword, as the actual story is nothing to write home about, and the lack of any non-story mode means replayability is really hampered. The lack of any 'endless' mode is baffling, given the good Match-3 credentials it has, and means that while a player could potentially return to Bejeweled 2 for years, they are likely to be finished with Lux Obscura in a day or two. As such, Bejeweled 2 ends up ranking higher.

 

In between then, the next good point to compare is Plants vs. Zombies. That is also a primarily mobile game (though in that case most suited to tablets rather than phones.) It is also a game to be found cheaper on mobile versions, though, crucially, not free. It is also significantly better suited to controller input than Bejeweled is. While PvZ is not quite as simple and addictive as Bejeweled 2, it does have the benefit of asking a little more input form the player. While I can imagine playing PvZ casually with one eye on the TV, it feels a little less feasible than doing so with Bejeweled 2. Sooner or later, each match requires full attention, and as such, PvZ is more suited to full-screen, TV-monopolising status. 

 

That puts Bejeweled 2 somewhere between Plants vs. Zombies and Metropolis: Lux Obscura. Of the few games in that gap, it comes down to feel, and while I believe it deserves a spot above interesting but flawed Knee Deep and uninteresting and more flawed Dragon's Crown, I believe that - on console, for money - Twin Mirror still has what it takes to retain its spot above Bejeweled 2, despite its drawbacks. 

As such, Bejeweled 2 finds its spot.

 

 

 

 

Final Fantasy VII

 

Summary: 

In attempting to review Final Fantasy VII objectively, I am fighting two different spectres, of equally towering, yet opposing force.
 
Firstly, the spectre of my childhood. Final Fantasy VII was a seminal game in my younger life - the catalyst for my switching from Nintendo to Sony consoles (with a legacy that, obviously, still holds today!) and the first game to do certain aspect of storytelling that had a lasting impact on my appreciation, and expectations for videogame narrative going forward. (More on those specifics later!)

Secondly - the spectre of the Remake. I'm not going to go into detail on the Remake here (I have the S-Rank on the PS4 version, but have decided to hold off on my review/ranking, until completing the PS5 version, with the exclusive DLC included,) however, I will say - I absolutely adore it. While it isn't terribly fair to use FFVIIRemake as a big factor in reviewing FFVII, in some ways it is unavoidable. When it comes to aspects that have not aged well, the mere existence of the Remake does cast them in a different light than if they were in a vacuum. These rankings are, after all, from the point of view of a player in 2021. There are looking back at games too, rather than exclusively treating each one as it came out in its respective era.

Having said all that, where to begin with a game like FFVII? One as indelibly etched into my brain, (and the brains of scores of other early PSOne gamers,) as virtually any RPG, and almost certainly the most broadly well known of the entire Final Fantasy series?

 

Well, coming out in 1997, the first Final Fantasy game not to reside on a Nintendo branded console, Final Fantasy VII is probably the game most notably wrapped up in the Nintendo/Sony debacle that birthed the console it was exclusive to. It is widely know that this point that Nintendo had partnered with consumer electronics giant Sony to develop the prototype "Nintendo Playstation" - a new console, using CD technology rather than Nintendo's traditional cartridge hardware, but had pulled the plug at the eleventh hour. Sony, either to salvage some commercial benefit from their work, or in retaliation, depending on the rumours one chooses to believe, took that technology, and repurposed it, going from one-time Nintendo partner to their biggest competitor, releasing the Sony Playstation as a rival to Nintendo's domination, and the rest was history.

 

Final Fantasy VII appearing on Playstation, as opposed to the newer Nintendo 64 console, was both a massive coup for Sony, and served to highlight the differences in the consoles designs. Were the game on Nintendo hardware, most likely, we would have seen the game be somewhat smaller, but feature full 3D graphics and backgrounds. (Probably viewed through a thick mist of anti-aliasing fog!) It would have played to the strengths of the cartridge format. Instead, being a disc game, what we got instead was a curious amalgam of lavish, still-image backdrops with less detailed, simpler 3D graphics laid on top, and - owing to the multi-disc functionality the Playstation afforded - a game the length of which dwarfed most previous entires in the franchise.

 

Let's address the visuals of Final Fantasy VII first, as there is a lot to say. 
There are two primary factors at play in the aesthetics of any game, which I often discuss in these reviews: artistic design, and graphical/technical prowess. Certainly in some games (indies most often) strong art-style and design can go significantly further than raw graphical or technical prowess, however, it is fair to say that, while the two factors can be stronger or weaker than each other, they are, almost unanimously, pulling in the same direction. 
Final Fantasy VII is the exception to this rule. 

 

I think, in terms of artistic design, the game is a triumph. From the slums of Midgar to the brutalist, militaristic glory of Junon, from the Tudor-esque mining town of Nibelheim, to the dusty wastelands of Coral or the garish, plastic-reality of the Golden Saucer theme-park above it, from the tribal, red-rock majesty of Cosmo Canyon, to the Japanese dojo town of Wutai, the artistic design of the world of Final Fantasy VII is marvellously well realised. The game manages to have a cohesive overall flavour to its design, to the extent that every location feels a part of a well defined, fleshed-out whole, yet retains the variety and wonder that each separate area is required to have to hold the player's engagement over what is a very long journey through a very long game. Each of the pre-rendered backgrounds is filled with detail, and goes a tremendous way to making the game feel real, epic, majestic and grand, and 'grown-up' in a way even the best of the 8-bit and 16-bit era pixel art games that came before it managed.

 

All that sounds fantastic - and it is - but there is a second shoe ready to drop. For all that I stand by every word of what I've just said, and feel FFVII is one of the most memorable and distinctive worlds to ever grace the series, I have to state this:

I think, overall, and certainly from the standpoint of 2021, FFVII is the worst looking game in the entire series.

 

The graphical overlay that forms the actual interactable components of the game - the character models, the interactable objects (chests / switches etc) are, frankly, sub-par. I do not even mean sub-par in comparison to future games, but were sub-par even in 1997. 
Looking back from 2021, even the earliest of the Final Fantasy games, in all their pixel-art glory, have aged significantly better than the early 3D / pre-rendered mishmash of FFVII. The two subsequent games to use the same 3D / pre-rendered amalgam - FFVIII and FFIX, both suffer something of the same fate, but not to even close to the same level. 
In Final Fantasy VIII, the character models at least resemble human form, and are approximately on the level of other 3D games of the era. 
In FFIX, Square did go back to a more cartoonish, less realistic art-style, did so at the end of the PSOne's life, making sue of years of institutional knowledge and graphical expertise, to create an art-style that feels genuinely cohesive, if still limited by the console. Both games have some uncanny valley to their combination of fine-detail in backdrop, and brad-stroke in interactable object, but they feel confident in their respective styles.

 

With FFVII, however, not so. There is a very obvious "learning as they go" aspect to the technical side of the art.
There are no less than 5 contrary art-styles on show for the characters: 

 

1.The standard, 'cheebie' characters controllable in the world map and in exploration of the pre-rendered environments.

2. the slightly more proportioned, if still graphically weak, versions in the fully 3D battle environments.

 

Those are the primary two, however, when it comes to cut-scenes, it gets even muddier, and it becomes clear that the developers were trying different, contrary ideas with different scenes, with none seeming to win outright.

 

3. Some cut-scenes feature nicely rendered, humanoid proportioned versions of the characters. (The intro cutscene, for example, which is as beautiful as it is iconic.)

4. Some feature well rendered, equally detailed versions of the 'cheebie', disproportionate character models. (The 'escape from Shinra Tower scene, for example, wherein Barrett, in particular, looks like a child's toy, and moves in the same fashion as the army men in Toy Story with their un-posable legs connected together.)

5. Some cut-scenes simply retain the standard, block models, but animate only the background image. (The explosion of Mako in Mideel, for example.)

It is, frankly, a bit of a pick-n-mix mishmash. It is a very strange decision to have so many varying art-styles from one cut-scene to another, and does tends to work against the cohesiveness of a game that, in many other ways, excels at just that.

 

The main part of the game, with the 3D overlay on the 2D rendered backgrounds, remains probably the most visually negative aspect of the game.
The difference between the look of a pre-rendered, non-interactable chest, for example, rendered in fine detail as visual flavour, and the blocky, garish, yellow cube that makes up a gameplay-critical chest in the game is borderline laughable - and is not simply a problem in terms of aesthetic. It bleeds into gameplay. Hunting around the environments looking for interactable objects is a staple part of most RPGs, but here is rendered virtually moot, as every one sticks out like a sore thumb.There is no 'exploration' it's simple looking at a screen, seeing where the 1-poly blob is, and heading straight there. 

Character models are blocky and 'cheebie' in a way that is completely at odds with the fine detail and careful rendition of the backdrops - and actively undercuts the serious nature of the narrative being told. Indeed, it is a testament to the strength of that narrative that it is able to overcome the significant barriers the visuals of the game put in place. That characters like Cloud Strife, or Sephiroth have become such icons is double impressive, when you consider that, 90% of the time, those characters, on screen, amount to low-poly Funco-Pops, with painted on eyes and breeze-blocks for hands and feet.  

Speaking of that narrative though, thankfully, we are back on solid footing.
While I will most likely go to my grave fighting for FFVI to hold the crown as the greatest Final Fantasy game of all time, I cannot deny that the impact of the narrative from Final Fantasy VII is such that it is easily the most burned into my memory. 

 

Continuing in the thematic path that FFVI arguably began for the series, the game is rooted in the combination of magic, technology and cyberpunk-lite themes. 
It functions both a high-concept analogy for environmentalism and the schism between technological advancement and the preservation of the natural world, as well as a deeply personal journey of a set of very strong, distinct and memorable characters battling for both survival and good, in the face of overwhelming odds. They face an almost omnipotent corporate entity, a chaos inducing environmental calamity, and a doom-mongering, megalomaniacal foe, in the form of experiment gone rogue, Sephiroth. Each force facing our band of heroes is distinct, yet intertwined in a way that never feels forced or unreal, and each is used in distinct ways, to test the mettle of the characters, and call into question the motives of the player themselves, as they progress through the long and winding tale.

 

As with many JRPGs, I am going to avoid getting into specifics of plot, as we would be here all day. Suffice to say, I believe that FFVII represents one of the best paced, best plotted, (if occasionally ham-fistedly written, or to be more fair, ham-fistedly translated,) and most successfully allegorical narratives in the series. That makes it a hot contender for best in the genre writ-large, given the towering place Final Fantasy as a series takes within the JRP genre, particularly in the West.

While I do not think it is appropriate to dwell on the minutia of all the narrative elements, (this is likely to be a long review, even without doing so!) there are two specific concepts that I think really do want to look at in some detail. I see them as being not only highlights of the game in a broad sense, but also as singular moments in videogame narratives generally, and necessary when considering the merits of the game as a whole.

 

Everyone avoiding spoilers checked out now? 
Okay good.

 

Firstly, Cloud's amnesia. 
Now, amnesiac protagonists in JRPs are a trope. They are, at this point, practically a meme. It feels rote to include one, despite the obvious benefits of it as a narrative device. Amnesia is a good 'catch-all' get-out for game writers - it allows the player character to have things explained to him/her without the narrative dissonance of clunkily expositional dialogue - however, it is often used as a crutch in this regard. It is also the easiest, (read laziest,) way to afford the writers a free 'late-game-reveal' twist - and frankly, players are pretty numb to it by this point. 
Having said that, there is a reason that such devices become tropes, and it isn't always cynical - it's because it is a device that can, in the right circumstances, work very well.

Cloud Strife is a good example of the trope being used both effectively, and interestingly. Cloud is not, in fact, truly amnesiac. He does remember things, both from his childhood, and his life after leaving his home town and his family, and joining the ranks of the Shinra corporations private army. However, his memories are unreliable, and mis-aligned with reality. He remembers true events, but his perspective is askew. Whether owing to his shame at not measuring up to the ideal he had in mind when he set out on his journey, or by over-exposure to Mako Energy (the life blood of the planet, which Shinra mine and harvest to power the technological advancements of the world, and to fuel their research into creating super-soldiers,) or some version of mental illness, (most likely, a combination of all of these,) there is a schism in his identity. 
He recalls events, but not from his own perspective. Rather, he sees himself through the actions of his friend and idol, Zack. 
Cloud wanted to become a 'Soldier First Class' - one of Shinra's elite band of fighters, but did not measure up. He became merely a grunt, following the legendary Sephiroth, and Zack around as their backup/ lackey. In doing so, he bore witness to the events that turned Sephiroth from a legendary, powerful, loyal Shinra soldier into the monster he is in the game, but was powerless to do anything about them, or stop the destruction of his hometown they precipitated. Zack and Cloud escaped, and attempted to return to Midgar, but ultimately, they failed, costing Zack his life. The experience broke Cloud, fracturing his sense of self and splintering his mind, which then re-coalesced around a new personality - half himself, and half his dead friend, Zack.

That may seem overly complicated - and indeed, much of this is unknown at the outset, and only becomes apparent over the course of the game, however, the amnesiac element of Final Fantasy VII works in a way that tends to eclipse its use in other games, specifically because it is complicated. 
Where other games tend to use amnesia as black and white - a character knows nothing of his past, until they need to, and then know everything (say, when an Iron Mask is shattered, for example... looking at you, Tales of Arise!) - here, it paints Cloud, (ands the entire narrative,) in shades of grey. The player comes to know the past events, but their understanding of them is being slowly and continually rewritten, and so it never feels like either an obvious info-dump, or a narrative convenience. Other characters who knew Zack, but not Cloud, treat him is an odd, standoffish way, as they are, realistically, as confused as both Cloud and the player are. They recognise the sword, and the outfit, but not the man. Is this a simple process of time and circumstance changing him? Is this Zack? Did he know Zack? Is this pure coincidence?

It's a further testament to the strength of the narrative here, that those encounters feel drastically different depending on the level of player knowledge. In early game, the first time through, this can feel simply a response to Cloud's abrasive, mercenary attitude, or a character trait of the interlocutor themselves, and they work as such. However, upon replaying the game with full knowledge of the true nature of the story, they take on a wholly different angle, but, crucially, still work in that context. 
In a way, it reminds me of watching the film The Usual Suspects. The first time you watch, Kevin Spacey is sitting in a police office glancing around the room and the evidence board nervously, without purpose. The second time you watch though, he is clearly scanning the room in a calculated, methodical and deliberate way, picking up every detail. The film hasn't changed, but the viewer has, and the film is crafted in such a way as to make both viewings feel completely plausible and deliberate, and makes sense.

Secondly, the death of Aireth.

Now, killing off a character in a game as a catalyst for narrative is hardly new, or particularly interesting - but killing off a player character is. It was even more so at the time of FFVII's release. 
The problem with games using death as a plot point, is that it is generally just that. A plot point. It is difficult to make death have real impact. In order for the death of an NPC, or even a temporarily playable character, to land heavily with the player, requires a huge amount of emotional investment to be built up first - and that is difficult. 
In Final Fantasy VII, however, by killing off a character not only central to the narrative, but central to most player's basic line-up (Aireth is the natural 'healer' for the entire game up to that point,) they manage to do something few games can - they make the player mourn.

At the point it happens, we have not only followed Aireth in a narrative sense, we have also invested in her, and come to rely on her. We have bought her weapons, we have levelled her up, and assigned her new limit breaks. We have given her materia, and we have weaved her into our experience in a gameplay sense. We have watched her grow. 

Even if the narrative elements of Aireth's character were weaker (and here, they are strong anyway,) by having such a core part of every player's fighting and gameplay set-up die, they manage to do the gameplay equivalent - the compartmentalised version - of experiencing a real-life loss. 
It isn't simply a narrative element in a story, to be experienced and then moved on from. There is a gap left. There is a hole. We not only witness the devastation on the remaining characters in a narrative sense, we experience it along with them in a gameplay sense. We are forced to adjust our party, just as they are forced to adjust their lives. 
There is no natural successor to the skill-set Aireth had in battle, and this is clearly by design. Having lost our core healer, we are forced to pick up the pieces and move on. We can find ways to compensate for the loss through other characters picking up different elements of the slack, but it isn't the same. The entire dynamic of our fighting style changes, and we have to adjust to that. Every time we fail to do so in a fight, it reminds us of the gap Aireth's death left.

It is an incredibly clever and astute way for a game to analogise real-life death, grief and loss - but that isn't even the end of what the game does with the concept.The game actually feeds into more than simple loss and grief... it also, in a specific spot, goes some way to approximating the hopelessness of feeling unable to let go. 
In a late game section, where the player is granted renewed access to Midgar - the early game setting, and location of Aireth's home - the game teases with occasional hints that there might be some way to revive her. A ghostly apparition of her in her favourite church, an odd comment by her adoptive mother... these are not actually hints at the genuine possibility of revival - that isn't possible in the game - but they do serve a purpose. They give the player some inkling of false hope - both keeping the grief alive, and giving them a sense of the hopelessness the characters themselves feel. They would like to revive her as much as we would, but it isn't possible. All we can do is remember, and move on.
It's a remarkably smart - and confident - move to play. Square, knowing the player would want more than anything to revive Aireth, elect not only not to allow it, as that would cheapen and undercut the message, but to twist the knife too. In real life, a loss doesn't end at a funeral - you feel the pangs long after - and at moments you least expect them. Final Fantasy VII knows that - and it's going to make you feel them too.

In terms of gameplay, I think Final Fantasy VII is stellar. The materia system - in which weapons contain varying numbers and combinations of 'slots' into which ability / spell containing materia orbs can be affixed, granting the wielder specific powers - is simultaneously one of the simplest core game designs the series has had, and one of the most effective. It allows a huge amount of variety in character builds, but does so without having the anxiety-inducing or dizzyingly-complicated elements than something like a Sphere Grid offers. Actually levelling of characters is non-customisable, and happens in the background, so the player has a simpler responsibility- in assigning weapons, armour and materia among the characters.

The battle system is of the old-school variety, menu selection of attacks/spells/items playing out in a turn-based rotation, just as in the 16-bit era. While the rudimentary graphics of the battles do pale in comparison to future games, and even in comparison to the pixel-art of the earlier ones in terms of enemy design - it is still fun to see some of the more spectacular effects of summons or Limit Breaks take place.

There is a certain simplicity to the game, in the sense that FFVII is probably the last Final Fantasy game not to feature something like a card-based side game, or really deep crafting, cooking, or other side gambits, but it really doesn't need them. I don't believe it would particularly benefit from them, given the driving focus on narrative. Yes, there is some rudimentary breeding of chocobos, or mini-games in the Golden Saucer, or a (not great) tower defence game in Fort Condor, but not of these elements are strong, and all are optional.

 

As said, the narrative is great, with enough optional content (including 2 completely optional characters, both of whom have lengthly narrative content associated with them,) and the pacing of the game works really well. The initial 30-40 hours of the game are a globe-trotting affair, with virtually all of the games locations visited one after another, with the back half granting access to the entire map and narratively zig-zagging back and forth. 

Are there some gameplay elements I dislike? Yes, a few - I  could do without the absurd amount of chocobo breeding and racing required to gain access to the 'golden Chocobo, (and the final Summon materia,) and the less said about the Golden Saucer's battle arena the better (again, requiring an absurd amount of play if the player wants the final Limit Break for Cloud,) however, as said above, all the elements of the game that are on the weaker side, are relegated to optional, side-content. The driving narrative really has no weak points, and even some of the optional stuff - Yuffie and Vincent's stories in particular - are of excellent quality, and more than worth the effort.

 

Audio in the game is nothing short of phenomenal. There is no spoken dialogue - that didn't enter the Final Fantasy series until FFX on the PS2 - however, the music in FFVII remains some of the most iconic in videogame history. I'm not sure which videogame would be considered to have the 'best' soundtrack, but any list of the top would have to include FFVII, as it has more memorable tunes than almost any other I can think of. This a good thing too, as the strong thematic and emotional wight the music carries goes a long way to compensating for the rudimentary art design of the character. When, for example, a wistful and melancholic scene from Cloud and Tifa's childhood is playing out, while the narrative and background visuals are storing, the characters themselves are blocky lumps of Lego. It's the musical theme that carries the scene, granting the needed poignancy that the character visuals can't. I'd wager that the strong thematic use of character specific musical themes is as much responsible for each Final Fantasy character being engrained in the memories of an entire generation as the narrative itself.

 

Overall, Final Fantasy VII is a game that well deserves it's spot in the pantheon of classics. Is it without flaws? Certainly not. The biggest drawback - the visuals - were not particularly impressive outside of a few select cutscenes, even in 1997, and the visual style has aged like a fine milk on a hot day.
However, the game shines through even despite that. There is no question as to why FFVII is the game chosen to receive the lavish, multi-part remake treatment over other games in the Final Fantasy series - its characters are indelible, its themes universal, its plot outstanding, its risks worth taking and well paid off, and the impression left, even by way of an uneven art-style, is one of a wholly cohesive and believable world and history, which could - and did - support numerous offshoots, movies, character cameos in other games. 

 

The only real, anchoring drawback is the visuals - that that's exactly the thing a ground-up Remake can improve most of all.

And it did.

 

 

The Ranking:

In terms of comparison, the most appropriate on a surface level is, of course, the only other Final Fantasy game ranked - Final Fantasy XIII.

It interesting that the areas dragging FFVII down with the most force - its technical art and graphical prowess - are the area that most buoy in FFXIII. Say what one might about FFXIII - and I have - the game is utterly, undeniably beautiful, and a graphical marvel of a game, that can stand toe-to-toe with games many years younger than it. While it excelled on that front in its era and stood the test of time, FFVII was lacking even in its time, and has aged poorly since.
However, on virtually all other fronts, FFVII not only outpaces FFXIII - it leaves it in the dust. The narrative is complex, yet universally accessible and relatable in a way FFXIII's is not. Its cast of playable characters and locations are distinct and memorable in a was FFXIII's were not, its music is catchy in a way FFXIII's is not, and its villains are gloriously, devilishly despicable in a way FFXIII's are not. Most of all - FFVII is iconic in a way that FFXIII is not.
FFVII is simply the better game, and destined to fall significantly higher on the rankings.

 

It's an enormous jump up the rankings to get to the next JRPG on the list that feels like an appropriate comparison point - though a jump I feel is warranted - to get to Persona 4 Golden.

Now, Persona 4 is, of course, also a recognised titan of the genre, and here, I feel there is more of a genuine competition. Persona 4 is newer, and so of course, has significantly better graphics, and so in an apples-to-apples matchup, it loses on the technical front, but I would argue that - even accounting for the different eras of release, Persona 4 still takes the upper hand on the graphical side.
On the art design though, Final Fantasy VII has to take the edge. Yes, things like UI, enemy design and battle menus etc. are stylish in Persona 4 in a way FFVII does not compete with, however, in terms of world design, and character design - of both player party and antagonists - I think FFVII takes it.

Persona 4 also has more fleshed out dialogue, and benefits enormously from full voice work, which adds a lot to the characters - though that is potentially a testament to FFVII as much as to Persona 4. That FFVII's characters feel distinct and interesting even without the benefit of a gameplay 'voice' means they could be argued to be the more expertly drawn. 

 

In terms of narrative, both are powerhouses in very different ways, but I do feel that some of the aspects of FFVII's story do risky and interesting things (Aireth's death for example) that are more impactful than any Persona 4 does. There is also, for all Persona 4's social choices and link bonuses, no real 'optional' characters, or paths of narrative that can be 'discovered'. There is no Yuffie or Vincent type storylines in Persona 4 - all players have pretty much the same experience on that front.

 

There is also the matter of the actual gameplay - and here, I think FFVII wins out too. Yes, I adore playing Persona 4, but the best parts of it are always the social sim side of the game. The actual dungeon crawling in Persona 4 is pretty basic, and the 'endless corridors' of the small number of dungeons does get repetitive in a way that FFVII avoids, simply by having a more 'road-trip' narrative, and a multitude more diverse areas to fight it.

 

I dwelled on this one for a long time, and I genuinely believe this is a razor-thin matchup, but in the end, I think FFVII has to take its place above Persona 4. It is such a marginal call though, with both games excelling in different areas (and in a lot of overlapping ones too!,) that I think FFVII has to take its place directly above.

As such, FFVII finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

God of War III

 

Summary: 

Releasing in 2010, on the PS3 this time, God of War III can be summed up entirely with one word: Excess.

 

Excess is not necessarily a good or bad word - indeed, a little excess is exactly what we often want when it comes to big, blockbuster games, and God of War III' like most of its series counterparts, is nothing if not a massive, action-blockbuster. 
After the rampant success of God of War II, and with the story of iconically bald, perpetually snarling and professionally angry-pants protagonist Kratos left on a high-octane cliffhanger, as he - having altered time using Pandora's Box and saved the Titans' from their mythological defeat - rides the good-ship Gaia up Mount Olympus, with Zeus and the Gods in his crosshairs, expectations were, it is safe to say, sky high. 

God of War, as a series, had everything to lose, and needed to do something pretty special to outdo the unrelenting, Grecian, blood-splattered carnage that Kratos had left in his wake up to this point. When expectations are at that kind of high, you have to do one of two things - either subvert them with a change in tone or direction, or meet them, with a balls-to-the-wall upping of the ante. 
Santa Monica Studios, for better - and for worse - chose the latter.

 

In every way that God of War as a series was admirable, God of War III turns up the dial to 11, and in every way in which it was deficient, God of War III ups it to 12.

 

The plot, this time picking up exactly where God of War II left off, sees Kratos finally doing what he always dreamed of doing in his most glorious masturbatory fantasies - killing the Gods. After an early game slaughtering of ocean-God Poseidon, being rapidly betrayed by Gaia, who fails to help Kratos when he falls from Mount Olympus (in a combination of the most understandable, yet least forward-thinking move any character in a game has ever made - do you really want to betray the one person who literally only lives for revenge?) Kratos plunges - once again - into Hades. Landing in the River Styx, wherein his powers are rapidly drained, he picks himself up, gets the his angry blood pumping, and sets to work on the mother of all rampages. 

Like most previous entries in the series, Kratos in on the war-path, but unlike those previous entries, this time around, its a pretty simple, not-too-convoluted affair. Find God, rip apart, rinse, repeat. Tear apart anything that gets in the way, ignore any fallout left in the wake, and do it all while shrieking, grunting, snarling, bellowing without stopping for a breath. Well... maybe for a quick shag of his Auntie Aphrodite. But that's it.

 

The visuals of the game are, it must be said, uniformly gorgeous. The scale of the the game - always a strong suit - is borderline dumbfounding here - Kratos's fights against Poseidon and Hades do justice to the scale set by the previous games, but in his destruction of the Titan Cronos, the game does things with size and scope that not only outdo the previous games, but outdo even games like Shadow of the Colossus that traffic exclusively in scale. 
The smoothness and crispness of the graphics are in a really rarified territory for the PS3, putting GoWIII in the same sphere as games like Final Fantasy XIII and Uncharted 3 - games where the distinction between PS3 and PS4 graphics is blurred.

Art design is still on par with the previous games, and the huge increase in visual fidelity adds to this significantly, particularly in character design, though it mast be said - there is a slight lack of variety in terms of environmental design, as compared with that that God of War II displayed. It might be argued this is due to the console step-up, (by being on the new platform, less is required on the design side to compensate for technical limitations,) though I suspect this is more a limitation of the narrative than the console. The fact that God of War III's narrative is a little more 'contained' geographically than Kratos' previous rampages, means there is naturally a little less variety. However, what is there looks fantastic, and where the environments might lack a broad variety, the characters - the Gods in particular - sure don't.

 

Audio remains great, the musical themes of the series are present, and reworked as required, with a reinvigoration of a thumping, rhythmic, dynamic quality befitting the driving pace of the gameplay. Sound design in general has always been tip-top in God of War games, and here, that streak does not falter one bit.

 

This being the third entry in the series (or fourth, if the PSP entry Chains of Olympus is included,) does make its combination exploration brawler/ puzzle-lite gameplay potentially an area in which the 'upping the ante' mentality is left a little to one side, however. 
The lack of changes in the mechanical gameplay in God of War II were, I believe, a good thing, given that the series was still staking its claim, it did open the series up to some potential complaints of a lack of evolution. Personally, this aspect never bothered me in God of War II, primarily because all other aspects of the game were finessed and improved - in particular, the narrative. With God of War III though, the spectre of gameplay inertia does begin to rear its head a little. The jump from GoW to GoWII was on the same console, and so simple finessing of the mechanics, along with increased scope, scale and narrative complexity was enough to more than satisfy those looking for more. GoWIII, however, is on a new console. There is a certain graphical and technical bump that is baked into that, and therefore inherently less of a back-of-the-box bullet-point. We expect a big technical leap when moving to the next generation. Yes, we got one here that was massive - far outstripping the baseline of expectation or the bare-minimum - however, God of War III is the point in the franchise where the almost total lack of any new or extended mechanics does begin to become conspicuous. 
GoW as a series was always mechanically simple. That's fine early on, but to be in the third entry in a series with still so little mechanical evolution from the original game is unusual. Technical and graphical bumps can paper over some of that, but it does begin to risk feeling, at best over-familiar and, at worst, a bit stale.
Avoiding the lethargy that an evolutionary torpor can instil requires one thing to really take the legs out from under any criticism: exemplary narrative. As long as the narrative remains top-quality and fresh, then gameplay can remain the same... but in God of War III, I don't think that mark is quite reached. It does its best, and it has specific sections and areas in which the plot of GoWIII really does excel, but it is uneven and inconsistent, primarily due to one aspect - player engagement.

 

Yes, the narrative of God of War III is exciting - tremendously so at times. However, its place as the finale of a trilogy does mean it, to some extents, boxed in. Where God of War II was able to take its story in wild directions, God of War II has to be the payoff to an already established set-up. It does this fairly well, but there is little that happens that is truly interesting in a narrative sense - its flair has to be in terms of execution, and on that front, the real flaw of the entire trilogy comes to the forefront - Kratos himself.

 

Now... Kratos was never likeable. He was never relatable. However, he was at least broadly understandable, and his actions were, at least in some sense, justifiable - at least within the context of the fiction. In God of War III, however, that fraying thread still attaching Kratos to any kind of relatability snaps entirely.
With each God Kratos murders in GoWIII, the world is plunged further and further into ruin. With his defeat of Poseidon, comes a flood, drowning half of Greece. When he continues and rips Helios' head off, the whole world is plunged into darkness. When he catches ad kills Hermes, a plague is released. Crucially, Kratos is aware of these things. 

I have never been on Kratos' side. I have always considered him to be one of the best examples of the unlikable villain as anti-hero, but his vengeance, however excessive, was always somewhat justifiable (at least to himself, within the fiction,) based on his past betrayals by the Gods and the loss of his family. However, here, that justification becomes literally impossible. When faced with the knowledge that his quest is killing millions of other families, he steadfastly refuses to care or to stop, in a way that while fascinating in a car-crash sort of way, has a very alienating effect on the (already strained) player-to-protagonist relationship.

God of War II's Kratos was willing to sacrifice other soldiers and villains and Gods and Titans for his bloodlust - characters who might be sympathetic, but who were never innocent. 
God of War III's Kratos, on the other hand, is willing to sacrifice everyone for it - innocent or not. 

This concept is built to its bloody, festering culmination, in the interactions with one npc character in particular - Poseidon's Concubine. After finding - and seemingly rescuing - a semi-naked slave of Poseidon's, Kratos brings her with him as he seeks a way out of a temple. After, as the player, we play a good long section of gameplay with her in tow, begging Kratos not to harm her the whole time, and even going so far as to save her from traps as we go, the final (and only) solution to a puzzle door is made clear. Kratos must force her to hold it open for him, giving him the few seconds he needs to continue, before the crushing weight of the lever gears rip her to pieces, as she screams and begs him not to. Despite the obvious revulsion the player will have to this action, Kratos has none, showing no remorse. While that is an interesting schism between the player and the character - and one that could be handled by a more narratively interesting game, here it has only one real effect: It turns what could, up to this point, still be viewed as a brutal anti-hero by some, into what has to be seen as a vicious, irredeemable monster by all. 

 

Now  - this could be argued to be exactly the point, and entirely deliberate. Certainly games have used moments of player interaction to show the grotesquery of what obsessive revenge can do to people, and what it turns them into - The Last of Us series does it on a seemingly hourly basis! - however, I have a hard time buying that argument here. 
For one thing, as stated above, Kratos never appears to feel in any way conflicted about any of his actions (we have to wait for the reboot for that,) but more than that - neither does the game. Despite how utterly despicable Kratos has become in God of War III, and how far he has strayed from his original goal of vengeance for his loved ones, at no point does the game ever treat him as anything but a 'bad-ass hero'. The game still deify's him - in the framing, the music, the action shots, the vocals etc. If the abhorrent behaviour the narrative gives him is supposed to show him in a negative light, no one told the rest of the development team. 

There is also the issue of the ending, in which Kratos chooses self-sacrifice, so that the people (you know, the ones he is responsible for killing more of than Mosquitos, the Holocaust, and obesity combined,) can have 'hope'. (The hope that he carried unwittingly, released accidentally from Pandora's Box, and apparently so powerful that it can serve the whole world, yet managed to be disguised under the cloud of bloody mist he generally walks in...)
That ending, while both ridiculous and asinine on a plot level, is also an indicator of the developer's intentions. Despite everything, they see Kratos as the hero. They see him as being ultimately a gruff, misunderstood 'good guy'. In the plot of God of War III though, they so thoroughly overshoot the edge-lord nastiness of the character, that they make this eleventh-hour head-fake towards redemption utterly laughable. That, in turn, makes the overall ending weak, and undercuts the culmination of the entire trilogy to some degree. Then, of course, they do it again - the very, very final ending shows a shot of a blood trail - indicating Kratos did, in fact, survive - bizarrely. Perhaps the writers were under the mistaken delusion that two undercuts cancel each other out... but they don't. What happens at the end is simply a bad man is given a goofy attempt at a redemption ending, and then the writers can't even follow through with that. It's a sad way for the trilogy to go out.

 

Is the narrative of GoWIII bad overall? No, it's pretty good. 
Is it exciting? You bet your ass it is! 
Does it make narrative sense? Sort of, yes.
Does it make emotional sense at the end? Fuck no.

 

A poor ending to a narrative is not the worst crime a game can commit, of course. Just ask Mass Effect. It's a little different here, because the narrative of the game not only fumbles the story, but also the character himself, but still. Lord knows, a good, smart story with a weaker ending is better than a lot of games manage - and most of them do it in a way that doesn't have close to the same level of great gameplay, awesome spectacle, great design, visceral action and relentless pacing that God of War III has. 
It does, however, mean the game leaves something of a sour taste at the end - and means that, despite everything going for it, by selling Kratos so completely down the river, this third entry does lack something. 
Heart, I suppose.

Thank goodness for the Reboot...

 

 

The Ranking:

God of War III looks better than both previous God of War games, of course, even going console-for-console, however, God of War II still has the slight edge when it comes to variety of art design. GoWII also has the better puzzles, the better narrative, and the less detestable Kratos (though that is a rough thing to use as a compliment!)

God of War II is comfortably above GoWIII, for a lot of reasons, so it really comes down to whether God of War III beat the original. 

In the end, I believe it has to. Yes, there is an originality and purity to God of War, and the fact that it came from nothing does mean something, but these are harder games to use that argument on, as they are so very similar in terms of gameplay. Really, these are games of spectacle and narrative, and while the narrative is more uneven in God of War III, the highs are higher than in the original. In terms of spectacle, though, it is impossible to deny that - even across a 5 year gap - God of War III does things that the original game could barely dream of.
As such, God of War III simply has to rank higher than its originator.

 

In the space in between, there are quite a few character-focussed 3D action games, Tomb Raider: Legend, various Princes of Persia, a Ratchet... but there is one spot that feels right for our bald, angry douche-bag to rest his weary, blood-soaked hands (and charred, broken conscience,) and that is just above the PS3 version of Shadow of the Colossus, but just below Prince of Persia(2008). 

The reason? Shadow of the Colossus is a game working on scale, as God of War III does, but God of War III does it in addition to everything else. There are a host of things that Shadow of the Colossus does better, however, it does have PS3 specific issues that hold it back, all of which were eliminated in the much better PS4 remake, and as such, I'm comfortable with it losing to God of War III. 

 

Prince of Persia(2008), however, while never reaching the technical heights of God of War III, does have a great art style, a lot of really good level design, a tone that is likeable and some great characters, including Elika - one of the most likeable and endearing female characters to grace PS3 3D action games. (After how Kratos treated Poseidon's Concubine, it's only fitting that he be bested by a strong female!) 

But seriously, there is too much narratively dour, edge-lord, and mean-spirited in God of War III - that is it's abiding failure. Its predecessors avoided that issue for the most part, despite Kratos, but God of War falls right in it. When stacked against a technically lesser game, but one brimming with ideas, likeable characters, good puzzles, and fun, God of War III's good points begin to be overwhelmed by its negatives, and it becomes untenable to rank it higher.

As such, God of War III finds its spot.

 

 

 

 

 

Grim Legends 3: The Dark City

 

Summary: 

A slightly strange entry in the Artifex Mundi stable this one, as it is an entry that excels in a lot of areas, but is significantly hamstrung by one.

In terms of story, Grim Legends 3: The Dark City actually has one of the most fun and interesting, involving a woman joining with an ancient society of Van Helsing-type monster-hunters and unravelling their secrets.

 

The puzzles are good and varied, as most of the best Artifex Mundi games are - there are decent-to-good versions of a lot of the best staple puzzle types, and this being a later entry, quite a few of the newer styles are represented. There are some 'boss' type encounters, but crucially, are actually done fairly well here, unlike so other games in the stable, and things like character models are markedly more solid than in a lot of earlier entries.

 

What lets it down, though, is the art. While it looks good - individual scenes are nicely creepy and evocative, the overall game is unusually one-note, and remarkably dull. I don't mean dull, as in uninteresting (though the similarity throughout the entire game does get a little tiresome,) but dull in the literal sense - as in the opposite of bright. The entire game takes place at night, in the same gothic architecture, and is rendered in a virtually unbroken colour palate - dull green, dull blue, and dull grey. 
While this does fit the narrative tonally, it is quite a surprise for Artifex Mundi, who's games, while varying in quality, almost always have gorgeous still-screen painted scenes, and often have both a wide variety of both style and palate. Even other entries taking place in predominantly single locations - the Nightmares from the Deep games for example - still generally find ways to inject some bright, splashy colour here and there. 

 

The lack of variety in the art and the dullness of the colour palate does also have a gameplay implication - the hidden object puzzles are pretty dull here too - and surprisingly marginalised in a game ostensibly marketed as such.

 

Overall, the game is still on the better end of Artifex Mundi output in terms of puzzles, but would not be my choice as a recommendation for a first-time toe-dipper, simply because I think the game does little to show off what is often one of the highlights of the simple, puzzler fare AM produce.

 

 

The Ranking:

Due to the drawback of the artwork, Grim Legends 3: The Dark City ends up falling short of either of its predecessors - Grim Legends 2: Song of the Dark Swan, and even Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride - despite its good puzzle variety.

 

It does not, however, fall further than Abyss: The Wraiths of Eden, whose art is more varied, but who's puzzle variety and story are not enough to outmatch this game.

 

 

 

 

 

Sly 2: Band of Thieves

 

Summary: 

So, I have to address something of an elephant in the room with this one - my past self!
I have been on this site for a long-ass time, and when one is on any forum like this for a long time, inevitably, there will be skeletons in the closet. One of mine is in relation to this game - There is a semi-well-trafficked thread I myself started some 7 years ago, in which I asked the snarky, and rhetorical question "Is Sly 2 the most aggressively terrible sequel ever?"

 

I don't love those kind of threads. The 2021 DrBloodmoney has very little time for that kind of hyperbolic, negative ranting. (Indeed, even the 2018 DrBloodmoney didn't, as he posted something of a mea-culpa on that thread, disowning it to some extent!) However, I guess the true proof will be in the pudding now, as science must have its day!

 

To address the rather childish and angry 2014 DrBloodmoney's question, I will state two things up front:
1. No, this is not the most aggressively terrible sequel ever.
2. Yes, it is a bad game, and a bad sequel.

 

Coming out in 2004, two years after the original Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus, Sly 2 picks up the story of good-natured, anthropomorphic raccoon super-thief Sly Cooper and his childhood friends and accomplices - turtle Bentley and hippo Murray - rather appropriately, 2 years after their defeat of original game boss Clockwerk. 
Sly and his gang are in the process of trying to steal the remaining part of Clockwerk from a museum, in order to destroy them once and for all and eliminate any future threat to the Cooper family, with flirtatious antagonist Inspector Carmelita Fox hot on their trail. Finding that the parts have already been stolen, however, Sly discovers they are already in the hands of a nefarious cabal of evil-doers (read: less charming thieves) - the Klaww Gang. Thus begins a fun, fairly kid-friendly romp across the anthropomorphic-animal populated world, recovering the parts of Clockwerk from the various members of the nefarious Klaww Gang, with Carmelita in hot pursuit, and the Cooper family legacy on the line.

 

Narrative-wise, Sly 2 is perfectly fine. While the overall narrative does suffer a little, in the sense that its best moments are much more spread out than in the original - Sly 2 is a much, much longer, far less tightly-paced game - the individual parts of it are still, for the most part, fine. What hurts the game significantly in comparison to its predecessor though, is the game structure. 

Where Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus was an entirely linear, level-based affair, Sly 2 works using a hub, from which the individual areas spider-web. This serves to make a linear game feel less linear, but it doesn't really go all the way. Individual Clockwerk parts still have their own mostly linear paths to success, but the hub area does add side missions and allow aspects such as money collection for upgrades etc to fit more in a GTA-adjacent game model. 

 

Speaking of GTA and the era it had its effect on, Sly 2 does seem to have been tainted by some of the same tiresome problems that the powerhouse success of the 3D GTA games had on another character action franchise sequel - Jak II. It is fairly obvious that Sucker Punch, like Naughty Dog, wanted a piece of that success, and felt the need to bolt on significant open-world GTA-style favour to their existing formula. Sly 2 doesn't suffer for it to quite the extreme that Jak II did - Sly 2 is still recognisably a Sly Cooper game, whereas Jak II completely turned itself inside out in pursuing that GTA money - however, GTA's influence is still as detrimental as it is undeniable.
 
To be fair to Sly 2, it did not have the additional issue of completely changing tone - a huge part of the reason Jak II was so woeful, was that, in addition to a complete change in gameplay, it also gave itself the most attitude era, "Monster Energy and Nu-Metal" makeover the world has ever seen, and thus causing itself to age like milk. Sly 2 still feels appropriately child-friendly (aside from one particularly egregious plot point - more later,) however, it does fall into the trap almost all non-GTA style games did when trying to ape that style: pacing.

Sly 2 is a long game already, having 8 major areas plus a hub, in comparison to Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus' 5, but it feels achingly long, due to the trappings added by way of the hub. Backtracking in order to change characters, for example, (in this game, both Bentley and Murray are fully playable characters, with their own skill trees and move-sets,) can often result in long, boring, multi-loading screen treks that are unskippable. The addition of a huge number of mini-game style mechanics, (from dancing, to turret sections, to chopper sections, to escort missions etc,) might add variety, but when they are all less fun than the primary game mechanics, it just feels like the player is constantly being pulled away from what is fun, in favour of what isn't.

While the addition of Bentley and Murray as fully fleshed out characters from a gameplay point of view is laudable, and in some cases - Bentley mostly - can actually add good, interesting variety to the gameplay style, the fact of the matter is that technically, the game is designed for Sly. The pace, and the camera, are designed with his agility, speed and control in mind. There are significant issues with camera control that are frustrating - even with Sly - but particularly when controlling Bentley or Murray, and suggest the game was never properly finessed for those characters. I suspect that the gameplay model originally designed for a linear level is retained, but simply isn't up to the task of dealing with a more open-world environment, and so the camera has a tendency to get 'caught' on environmental detail, or to aim itself at a wall, rather than the action.

 

Visually, the game still looks great, and has stepped up in terms of technical art. The cell-shaded look is still striking here, and characters move smoothly and satisfyingly. In terms of art design, I don't think there is much elevating Sly 2 above the original game, however, that isn't to say it is bad - that original game was very strong on that front. 
Audio is still fairly pedestrian in terms of sound design - fine, but not stand out - and music remains good, if forgettable. Where the audio does suffer a bit, is in the voice acting. Now, in Sly 2, the voices are no worse or better than in Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus, however, there is so much more dialogue in this one, that the cutesy-poo voice work does become more grating. Dialogue scenes are not skippable, and, frankly, both Bentley and Murray are extremely grating to listen to for long stretches. I have to admit - I muted the sound quite often, sticking to reading subtitles. That's a personal thing of course - and these games are aimed at a younger audience, and I am cognisant of that, however, I could count on one hand the number of games I have elected to do that in, and Sly 2 is one of them. Take from that what you will!

 

Speaking of the younger audience that this game is aimed at, while I am not going to dwell too long on the narrative, there is one tonal thing I really do want to address - and it has some spoilers. Ready? Okay - Bentleys fate. At the end of the game, Bentley, our sweet, nerdy turtle friend - gentlest and meekest of out trio of good-hearted thieves, has his legs crushed. Permanently. I guess that isn't a massive spoiler, as he is probably more famous, now, as being in a wheelchair (as he is in Sly 3 and 4) than not. It is a remarkably heavy and dark aspect to what is almost unrelentingly child-friendly game. I really cannot fathom what the writers were thinking, given that at no point in either Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus, nor elsewhere in Sly 2: Band of Thieves, does anything remotely as 'adult' get even close to approached. It is a bizarrely ill-fitting moment in what is ostensibly a game for the 10-12 age group, and one that I suspect would scare the gentler members of that audience. Tonally, it just seems daft, and wildly out of character for the rest of the game.

Overall, Sly 2 is, and was, a massive disappointment. It suffers for a lot of the same reasons Jak II suffered, though not in quite the same way. Jak II was virtually unrecognisable as a sequel to Jak and Daxter, so completely had the original deign document been burned, and that was anger inducing. Sly 2 is still recognisably Sly, beneath the surface, but that flavour has just been warped, diluting the good aspects in favour of misguided ones, and that is less angering, and more saddening. Whether sadness is preferable to anger is debatable, but in a purely objective context, it can't be denied that completely throwing the baby out with the bathwater is worse than just dropping the baby on the floor as you empty the tub out the window.

There is still good stuff in here, but the mountain of drudgery the additional length, characters and mechanics add do nothing to help - and everything to hurt - a previously working formula. It adds up to an overall product that feels flabby where the original felt tight, scattershot where the original felt focussed, and inept where the original felt keen. 
Playing directly after the original, light, well-paced, breezy fun of Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus, Sly 2: Band of Thieves feels incredibly turgid, languid and awkward. 
The first game left me wanting more. This game left me wanting a lot less... and that feeling began to set in about a third of the way through the game.

 

 

The Ranking:

Okay - let's just do this: No, Sly 2 is not as bad as Jak II. Not even close. Shut up 2014 DrBloodmoney, you just need to calm down. The game is poor, but it didn't piss in your chips the way Jak II did, so just zip it!

 

Working up from that point on the ranking though, it is pretty quick that we come to some 3D platforming type games that I think are comparable - those of the LEGO games. They are also aimed primarily at a younger audience, and while they are often less ambitious than Sly 2, they also tend to lack a lot of the most egregious faults Sly 2 has in spades. 

The first one is LEGO Legends of Chima, and while that game's biggest flaw was that it was not at all memorable, Sly 2's faults are more glaring, as it was memorable - memorably long, flaw-riddled and poor. It also has the issue of Sly Cooer and the Thievius Raccoonus' existence. A sequel being so much worse than its predecessor makes its failings all the more glaring. While Sly 2 looks far better, and has higher highs, the lows are much, much lower, and much less forgivable. The overall, therefore, tends towards losing to Legend of Chima - competent mediocrity beats incompetent flair. As such, Sly 2 loses that matchup.

 

However, the next game down, The Bradwell Conspiracy, for all its decent story, just falls flatter. Its gameplay has too many flaws undercutting its narrative and puzzle elements, and it is an ugly game, where Sly 2 still looks great... when the camera chooses to focus on the actual game!

As such, Sly 2 has to fall above it, and so, finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

⚛️⚛️BONUS GAMES⚛️⚛️

1 Additional eligible S-Ranks earned this round!:

 

 

Raji: An Ancient Epic

 

Summary: 

Raji: An Ancient Epic is a game  I wish I liked more than I did.

It's a game with a ton of good, interesting and laudable aspects. The only downside is, in order to see all those aspects... you have to play it.

 

The first game developed by small developer Nodding Heads Games, Raji: An Ancient Epic takes a familiar indie genre - the 3D action exploration game - but uses it to delve into a far less familiar - at least, to videogames - lore: That of Hindu and Balinese mythology.
It's notable how much the simple change in the cultural mythos being mined for narrative makes Raji: An Ancient Epic stand out. While much videogame hay has been cultivated from many of the more favoured European cultural mythologies - Norse, Greek, Roman, Arthurian - as well as the more 'Western-understood' world mythologies - Egyptian, Japanese - the India mythological cannon, aside from a few very select instances, has remained largely untapped.

 

The narrative of Raji: An Ancient Epic follows the eponymous Raji, a young, female circus performer, whose younger brother Golu is abducted by demons under the command of the demon lord Mahabalasura. Guided by two deities - The God Vishnu and the Goddess Durga, whose conversation provides the player both guidance and narration - Raji embarks on a quest across 5 relatively lengthly levels, each themed to different temples of the Hindu Gods, to save her brother, before Mahabalasura can use Golu's pure spirit to open the gates of Heaven, allowing his army of demons to attack the Gods.
It's a simple story from a pure through-line point of view, simply A-to-B-to-C as Raji works her way through the areas, collecting more and more powerful weapons of the Gods to progress, however, this is a good thing, as the lore aspects of the game are both well told, and fairly complicated for someone unfamiliar - as I was, an I would imagine many game players will be. While the actual game is fairly linear in structure, the lore elements are deep, and done pretty well. Throughout the game, murals are peppered at regular intervals, giving insight into the pertinent areas of mythology, narrated from the standpoint of either Vishnu, Durga or both, and they serve both as interesting tales, and a cultural window.

 

Visually, the game plays its strongest card. From a technical standpoint, the game is small budget and indie, so not competing with anything approximating 'Triple A', however, within the indie sphere, the level of scale, breadth, and scope of art design is impressive. The fact that there is a Middle-Eastern cultural slant to the art-design helps in this regard - while we have seen some surface-level lip service paid to Middle-Eastern design in westernised games like Prince of Persia for example, Raji: An Ancient Epic is delving much further into this cultural art-style, and it makes the game stand out significantly in a crowded field. Each are is distinct in its visuals and design, and each impressive in slightly different ways. Design is not the only impressive element here though - the technical art has some moments of real flourish too.A particular mention has to be given to the late game area of the Thar Desert, in which the artistic flair of the light and sand is absolutely gorgeous, giving the other great sand-themed artistic triumph - Journey - a genuine run for its money.

 

Cut scenes within the game are highly stylised, using a stick-figure, silhouette puppetry style, lending flavour to the mythological elements of the game - the whole thing looks as if it is being acted out as a play for a younger audience, and really works.

Unfortunately, in order to see all this good art and interesting lore though, the player has to play the game, and here is where Raji: An Ancient Epic really does stumble. The actual player input to the game consists of two elements - traversal, and combat. Both are... not good. Actually, pretty bad - and for very similar reasons. 

The controls, and them movement of Raji are very, VERY soupy, loose and achingly slow. The game simply does not feel good to control.  

 

In terms of traversal, the game designers seem to realise this, and as a result, the actual controller inputs are limited significantly, to the extent that they genuinely undercut the traversal-puzzle aspects of the game. Jumping, for example, is swimmy and imprecise, and so to alleviate this, the jump button is made case-sensitive. If near a jumpable gap, the X-button jumps. If used elsewhere, however, X is the 'roll' button, and so Raji cannot really 'explore' - she will only jump if at the 'correct' spot. Otherwise, she simply rolls against an invisible wall at the edge of a platform. This contextual aspect is applied to almost all traversal aspects of the game, and makes it feel a lot more 'on-rails' than it first appears to be. There are moves such as wall-runs, ledge-grabs, climbable poles etc, however, because the controls only work where they are 'correct,' and don't elsewhere, the game feels less like an exploration of an environment, and more simply a movement through a set path, pressing contextual quick-time event buttons as you go.

 

This aspect would be less of a problem, or at least more forgivable, if the (frequent) combat encounters worked better. However, this is the area that the slow, heavy controls have their most negative impact. 
The camera is pulled quite high above Raji and her enemies, and those enemies are not very bright or distinct, and so despite a surprising variety of moves and weapons in such a small game, (including a few really interesting moves, such as a 360 degree pole-swing move, or wall-jump somersaults etc,) really, each encounter tends to boil down to simple mashing of the same heavy moves over and over, as these can stun-lock enemies, and are much more effective than any of the fancier ones. Because the movement is so slow and plodding, and lends itself to 'locking' the player into an animation, the combat feels both dull and lifeless, yet remarkably prone to frustration. Raji's moves have to be activated well in advance of her actions, and because enemies can swarm and stun-lock her, variety of input is not rewarded. By the end of the game, each time enemies spawned (locking Raji into a small area before she can progress,) I simply uttered a sigh of dismay, hit the same roll-to-heavy-attack move over and over until they disappeared, and moved on.

 

Bosses are marginally more interesting - there is at least some rudimentary tactics involved, however, they are all both simple to learn, yet frustrating due to the cloying controls and movement. No boss ever defeats you due to you not knowing what to do, but they will often defeat you due to the movements being unnaturally slow, meaning getting out of the way of an attack can be hard to gauge effectively.

 

Audio, in terms of music, is pretty good, though a little slight in terms of variety. It is certainly culturally appropriate, but there is a limited amount of it, and the same themes tend to be a little over used throughout the course of the game. That's not a massive issue - the game is quite short - and the music, being of Indian origin, remains still quite unusual for the medium, and does benefit from that.

Voice work though, is very uneven. While starting strong, shows its cracks quickly, and gets grating by the end. Raji herself is defiant, strong and earnest, and her voice work is good, but never really changes, despite her journey. 
The Gods could certainly use some modulation or some effects. They have a lot of lines, and tend to sound less like Gods should, and more like someone doing a whispery, fairytale-mystery voice. It tends towards that of a parent, doing the voices as they read a fairytale to their young child. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't - generally, a few lines at a time are fine, but when accessing the murals, with long monologues or conversations explaining the mythological tales, the whispering tones falter, and sound more and more like an amateur production. 
Towards the end of the game, the worst of the voice work kicks in, with bosses. One in particular - The Rangda - has a lot of lines during the fight, and is particularly silly sounding, undercutting the threat of the boss immensely. (This will no doubt be an incredibly niche reference, and I'll be lucky if anyone reading this has the context, but I'll state it anyway: Rangda's voice is virtually identical to that done by Jamie for 'Herr Bisch' in the podcast "My Dad Wrote a Porno." That is great as a deliberately ridiculous sounding 'evil-guy' caricature, but not so much as a menacing Balinese Demon-Queen! As a result, virtually every line the Rangda delivered that was supposed to be menacing, raised a chuckle in Casa-De-Bloodmoney!)

 

Overall, it's difficult not to admire the good and interesting things Raji: An Ancient Epic does - and I certainly appreciate that a virtually untapped lore is being given the videogame treatment here... I just wish it was in a more effective and competent overall game. 
There are a lot of good ideas in Raji: An Ancient Epic - certainly enough that I will be noting whatever Nodding Heads Games does next - but I can't deny being relatively disappointed with this one.

There are good aspects here, but fundamentally, Raji: An Ancient Epic is a better game to watch than to play, and a better game to read about than to listen to.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

The most obvious comparisons for a game like Raji: An Ancient Epic should, by rights, be something like recently ranked Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. Both games are isometric 3D action exploration / puzzle games, with a focus on graphics and a female protagonist, however, the astoundingly good controls and action of Lara Croft would absolutely annihilate Raji: An Ancient Epic. In fact, the mere fact that I played Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light recently, is likely colouring just how bad Raji: An Ancient Epic's controls felt by comparison - the the same way that Dokuro suffered, by having been played so soon after Guacamelee.

 

Really, is was difficult to come up with appropriate comparison points to use as a baseline, but the first that did come to mind, was Mortal Shell. 
Mortal Shell is a larger game, and playing in a different genre, however, it does have some similarities. Both are from small development teams, both concentrate on their artistic merits in a limited number of 'biomes', and both - unfortunately - are let down by their 'game-feel' with both suffering from awkward or unwieldy controls in combat.

While Raji: An Ancient Epic certainly outdoes Mortal Shell on design, (certainly nothing in Mortal Shell looks as impressive as Raji: An Ancient Epic routinely does,) and on originality, (where Mortal Shell's weakness is it's derivative design document, cribbing from other, better games, the more unique cultural standpoint of Raji: An Ancient Epic's lore stands out,) the fact remains that as a final product, Mortal Shell is still the more impressive project to come from their small developer. 

 

Speaking of Dokuro, that is another game that should be considered for a matchup. While Dokuro is a puzzle game primarily, and operates on a 2D plane, it also comes to mind as a game with cool art, (in that case, its sketchbook art-style,) and good ideas (it's puzzles are often clever and sound,) but hampered by poor controls. 

In the case of Dokuro, I think the matchup is actually pretty close - Raji wins on art and on originality of lore, however, Dokuro wins on overall game design, and replayability. In the end, it comes down to how much the game is hampered by the control failings, and while Dokuro suffered quite a bit on this front, I don't think it had quite the impact on the final product that Raji's control had on its.

As such, Raji: An Ancient Epic has to fall below it, however, the fight is close, and so Raji: An Ancient Epic takes its spot just below Dokuro.

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

 

Thanks to @The_Kopite, @Eagle / @Shrooba & @Slava for putting in requests!

 

 

 

Hitman 3 remains the 'Current Most Awesome Game'!

Space Overlords stays as the worst-of-the-worst, with the title of  'Least Awesome Game'

 

 

What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the top spot... or the bottom rung?

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! ☮️

[Arcesius]

So, I will try to read the batch over the weekend, because my good sir, this is again a lot to take in   

 

But obviously, I had to jump straight into the FF7 review and, as usual, you delivered one hell of a write-up!

 

The contrast in the visuals in the game are indeed striking, but I had never thought about Cloud and Sephiroth being as iconic as they are DESPITE them only being agglomerations of colorful (in Cloud's case, at least) pixels. 

In my own review of FF7R I actually mentioned how Barret had always been a "meh" character for me... some brown-green shapeless cube that I didn't particularly care about, but how he quickly  became my favorite character due to how he was portrayed in the Remake. But somehow, Cloud and Sephiroth didn't require awesome voice-acting and stylish, faithful visuals to have a lasting impact not only on me, but on thousands of gamers back then. Interesting point! 

 

Otherwise, I really enjoyed your take on the Amnesia-topic and how FF7 handles this compared to other games. Indeed, it is a very interesting, very confusing (at first) approach. It seems like the Remake is about to complicate things even further ?

 

I'll get to the rest of the batch soon I'm parcitularly interested in GoW III... It was my first platinum ever! (Came with the PS4 in a Bundle )

[DrBloodmoney]

21 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

The contrast in the visuals in the game are indeed striking, but I had never thought about Cloud and Sephiroth being as iconic as they are DESPITE them only being agglomerations of colorful (in Cloud's case, at least) pixels. 

In my own review of FF7R I actually mentioned how Barret had always been a "meh" character for me... some brown-green shapeless cube that I didn't particularly care about, but how he quickly  became my favorite character due to how he was portrayed in the Remake.

 

Hey - me too! 
 

It’s actually funny how the remake shifted my favourite characters around - I’m absolutely in the same boat with Barrett! I thought he was a bit of a lesser character in the original too - the muscle and not much more, but really got a chance to shine in the new one. The voice actor does a hell of a job helping with that in the Remake too!

 

Actually, it did more than that for me - I was always a Tifa guy in the Aireth/Tifa debate, but the remake actually made me switch sides on that too - Tifa is just as awesome as ever, but Aireth gets to be more than pure and good in the remake, she also gets to be funny, and a litte sarcastic, which really humanises her - and makes her a lot more fun to have around, as opposed to just a ‘symbol of goodness’ to be protected.

 

 

 

 

[YaManSmevz]

1 hour ago, Arcesius said:

In my own review of FF7R I actually mentioned how Barret had always been a "meh" character for me... some brown-green shapeless cube that I didn't particularly care about, but how he quickly  became my favorite character due to how he was portrayed in the Remake.

 

Shi't!

 

I'm probably alone on this, but I always liked Barret. I liked having such a wild, profane hothead to contrast with the rest, but agreed that his character was developed tenfold for the remake.

 

10 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

  NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! 

 

I don't know how you keep getting better at this, dude.

 

Spectacular write-up on VII - I have a very similar experience with it. I remember seeing it and thinking "wow, this whole Playstation thing is takin off, huh? Look at that game, it looks great... wait, that's Final Fantasy??"

"Yeah bro. You need a memory card to play it, though."

"....I don't understand what you're saying."

 

The ONLY blemish to my experience with VII is that some dickhead motherfucker told me all about Aeris before I got there, and it was utterly ruined for me.

 

Still though, phenomenal game, and one that has stuck like glue with me (hell, a lot of us) through the years. Though I do agree that VI is the goat... a remake of that feels even more necessary now! Kefka makes Sephiroth look like a sissy momma's boy!

 

Also, props to your Usual Suspects reference, that was a perfect analogy. A great example of a film with a huge twist but isn't overly reliant on it (yeah you, Sixth Sense!)!

 

I actually missed the third God of War, but I might pick that up now before hitting up the new(er) one. Your reviews made me a bit reminiscent of playing the first two back in the day!

[Copanele]

Hah that Bejeweled 2  review was so awesome it really ain't a game for Playstation though!

That one reminds me of a game that I've played, Puzzle Quest Challenge of the Warlords. It is basically Bejeweled in the Warlords setting (just imagine high fantasy if you never played the strategy games). It has story, RPG elements and...well...3 of a kind jewels to mix and mash. For the fans of the genre I can't recommend that game enough!

 

Also, also, ALSO (and sorry if I will underline a few paragraphs)

On 10/8/2021 at 0:49 PM, DrBloodmoney said:

Art design is still on par with the previous games...

Audio remains great, the musical themes of the series are present, and reworked as required, with a reinvigoration of a thumping, rhythmic, dynamic quality befitting the driving pace of the gameplay. Sound design in general has always been tip-top in God of War games, and here, that streak does not falter one bit.

 

Yes, the narrative of God of War III is exciting - tremendously so at times. However, its place as the finale of a trilogy does mean it, to some extents, boxed in. Where God of War II was able to take its story in wild directions, God of War II has to be the payoff to an already established set-up. It does this fairly well, but there is little that happens that is truly interesting in a narrative sense - its flair has to be in terms of execution, and on that front, the real flaw of the entire trilogy comes to the forefront - Kratos himself.

 

---

 

Thank goodness for the Reboot...

 

 

You can't imagine how happy I am that I am not the only one who feels this way. Gameplay wise, yes, GoW 3 is a technical masterpiece, even by today's standards, holy damn only games like DMC5 kicks God of War 3 back. But my god Kratos is such an insufferable piece of shit that I legit did not enjoy the final part. Plus...the Pandora insert (the girl, not the stupid box)...am I supposed to believe that Kratos, after murdering every last Greek breathing and using that Poseidon's maiden as a literal door stopper, would suddenly CARE about some random ass girl? Really? Kratos? My man has turned 98% of the Greek world into tzatziki sauce by now, what the actual hell was that

Like my god it was such a BAD write-up I didn't even feel the energy to play the remastered GoW III on PS4 anymore.

 

Thank goodness for the Reboot indeed. God of War 4 with the old Kratos would have been too much for me. But like this, we got quite the good character development!

 

Also yeah my exact experience with Raji. Amazing scenery, flawed combat. I actually ended up doing the most OP Prince of Persia Sands of Time wall bounce combos in order to quickly clean the rooms. At least the studio shows promise, waiting for their next projects!

[DrBloodmoney]

On 09/10/2021 at 9:07 PM, Copanele said:

Hah that Bejeweled 2  review was so awesome it really ain't a game for Playstation though!

That one reminds me of a game that I've played, Puzzle Quest Challenge of the Warlords. It is basically Bejeweled in the Warlords setting (just imagine high fantasy if you never played the strategy games). It has story, RPG elements and...well...3 of a kind jewels to mix and mash. For the fans of the genre I can't recommend that game enough!

 

That's interesting - I have never even heard of Puzzle Quest Challenge of the Warlords,  but looked it up, and it looks cool as hell!

 I wondered why I couldn't recall it, but sure enough -  it looks like it was a 2007 release, which makes sense (I got sober in 2008, so that was right in the thick of me having checked out of games, (and most of life in general) ?

 

Quote

Also, also, ALSO (and sorry if I will underline a few paragraphs)

You can't imagine how happy I am that I am not the only one who feels this way. Gameplay wise, yes, GoW 3 is a technical masterpiece, even by today's standards, holy damn only games like DMC5 kicks God of War 3 back. But my god Kratos is such an insufferable piece of shit that I legit did not enjoy the final part. Plus...the Pandora insert (the girl, not the stupid box)...am I supposed to believe that Kratos, after murdering every last Greek breathing and using that Poseidon's maiden as a literal door stopper, would suddenly CARE about some random ass girl? Really? Kratos? My man has turned 98% of the Greek world into tzatziki sauce by now, what the actual hell was that

Like my god it was such a BAD write-up I didn't even feel the energy to play the remastered GoW III on PS4 anymore.

 

Thank goodness for the Reboot indeed. God of War 4 with the old Kratos would have been too much for me. But like this, we got quite the good character development!

 

You're not wrong there - I can't imagine how the OG Kratos would possibly have worked in 2018 - my guess is any God of War game trying to just drag the old angry douche-Kratos out of retirement for one last shouty hurrah would probably have ended up getting Duke Nukem Forever type reviews and falling over itself. That kind of Edge-Lord Kratos was fine in it's day, but really, it is such a relic of an era at this point, that the only way they could bring that back, would be to do some kind of "Attitude Era Gaming Expendables" - have a team-up game with old Kratos, Duke Nukem, PoP:WW Emo-Prince, Jak II Jak etc. and have them invade modern games, shouting about how everyone has gone soft... as all the NPCs roll their eyes and laugh at them. ?

They could be driven around by Sweet Tooth in his Ice Cream truck!

 

 

Quote

Also yeah my exact experience with Raji. Amazing scenery, flawed combat. I actually ended up doing the most OP Prince of Persia Sands of Time wall bounce combos in order to quickly clean the rooms. At least the studio shows promise, waiting for their next projects!

 

Oh yeah - for sure, more Indian Mythology in games please - it's super cool and interesting to see - just with a bit more finesse on the controls, if possible!

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Platinum_Vice]

42 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

You're not wrong there - I can't imagine how the OG Kratos would possibly have worked in 2018 - my guess is any God of War game trying to just drag the old angry douche-Kratos out of retirement for one last shouty hurrah would probably have ended up getting Duke Nukem Forever type reviews and falling over itself. That kind of Edge-Lord Kratos was fine in it's day, but really, it is such a relic of an era at this point, that the only way they could bring that back, would be to do some kind of "Attitude Era Gaming Expendables" - have a team-up game with old Kratos, Duke Nukem, PoP:WW Emo-Prince, Jak II Jak etc. and have them invade modern games, shouting about how everyone has gone soft... as all the NPCs roll their eyes and laugh at them.

They could be driven around by Sweet Tooth in his Ice Cream truck!

 

Will be interesting to see in 20 years what about the current gaming landscape will be the cringe relic of the past. 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, GonzoWARgasm said:

Will be interesting to see in 20 years what about the current gaming landscape will be the cringe relic of the past. 

 

It's a good question!

 

I'd bet that back in the Monster-Energy and Jackass era, we would never have predicted that it was the edge-lord stuff that would age the poorest - at the time, that just felt like "videogames are for grown ups now, y'all!" and revelling in the fact that Joe Lieberman had failed.

 

It could end up wrapping around and coming back to the same of course - I mean, to some extent, that's what happened with movies. The 80s action stuff went out of vogue, when everything went full irony, but I think nowadays, stuff like John Wick/ Atomic Blonde/ Nobody is basically the revival of that unironic, pure action stuff again - it's just readapted to the current mood, and made itself successful and awesome again!

[Eagle]

4 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I'd bet that back in the Monster Energy and Jackass era, we would never have predicted that it was the edgelord stuff that would age the poorest - at the time, that just felt like "videogames are for grown ups now, y'all!" and revelling in the fact that Joe Lieberman had failed.

 

It could end up wrapping around and coming back to the same thing, of course - I mean, to some extent, that's what happened with movies. The 80s action stuff went out of vogue when everything went full irony, but I think, nowadays, stuff like John Wick/Atomic Blonde/Nobody is basically the revival of that unironic, pure action stuff - it's just readapted to the current mood, and made itself successful and awesome again!

 

Hey, don't diss Jackass. That was an awesome game - basically Mario Party, but on steroids (and copious amounts of poop).

 

Jokes aside, we're nearly reaching the reboot... really curious to see how science will judge the game. ? I like the old games, but this revival just brought such a level of mechanical and story depth to the series that makes them pale in hindsight... at least, in my humble opinion. Let's see if science agrees (although I'd say it's basically guaranteed, from what I've gathered thus far).

[The_Kopite]

@DrBloodmoneyJust wanted to say that was a really interesting and detailed review of FFVII. Certainly agreed with a lot of it, including the graphics of the characters etc lol Definitely well worth waiting for, and nice to see it nestled in the top 10! Hoping it'll stay that way! lol

 

Also I think for most fans of Final Fantasy, there are 3 games that seem to come up as being regarded as the best in the franchise - VI, VII and X. If they ever released the new Pixel Remasters of FF I-VI on Playstation with platinums for them all, then I'd be intrigued to see how high up VI went in your list.