Jump to content

DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!


DrBloodmoney

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Good input.

 

The base game for Resogun isn't bad at all. The DLC however is a whole nother beast. I'm going to have to practice a lot for Commando Mode, so I'm hoping Nex Machina won't have anything that difficult.

 

The best advice for Nex is probably to just do the main campaign on lower settings - get a feel for the game - then do some of the single level challenges. That way you can sharpen your reflexes a bit, and pick up some tips and play styles, then start just hammering away at the toughest settings.

 

TBH, as much as I wish there had been DLC for it, the fact that there isn't means the full S-Rank is probably objectively easier than Resoguns - as you're right, the DLC was where the real tough-nuts were added to that game. My guess is Nex would have been the same - if it had sold well enough to get some DLC ?

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

TBH, as much as I wish there had been DLC for it, the fact that there isn't means the full S-Rank is probably objectively easier than Resoguns - as you're right, the DLC was where the real tough-nuts were added to that game. My guess is Nex would have been the same - if it had sold well enough to get some DLC ?

 

Could you imagine a humble :bronze: Complete all feats - being added as DLC? Save all humans on Heroic anyone?

 

What a welcoming 100%-destroying addition that would be... Such an amazing game 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Devils Reaper said:

 

Could you imagine a humble :bronze: Complete all feats - being added as DLC? Save all humans on Heroic anyone?

 

What a welcoming 100%-destroying addition that would be... Such an amazing game 

 

Housemarque are one of the only studios with such a bank of good will and love from their fans, that they probably could do that, and instead of outrage, they'd just inspire a meek "Thank you sir, may I have another" from us, their loyal, fearful, submissive user base ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 8:56 PM, DrBloodmoney said:

L1a73cf.png

Nex Machina

 

Nice, thanks for the in-depth review! 

 

I agree with most of your points except the one that in your case resulted in a lower placement on the list.. its lenght... I haven't played Dead Nation, but I did play Alienation which I guess is pretty similar. And while yes, Alienation had more levels, it is not an Arcade game. I would imagine that if Nex Machina had 2 or 3 more levels to go through in one sitting, it would result in a bit too long (and probably too challenging) runs for the game to remain as fun as it is. 

 

As you mentioned yourself.. the trophy list does not cover everything there is to do in the game. Be honest.. have you defeated Nex Machina itself? Even on experienced? :P Completed a Master run? A Hero run? Got the Gold Medal in more than 9 challenges? Even only doing the plat takes roughly 30 hours, right? Don't think I spent that much time with Alienation ?

 

Personally I would place the game quite a bit higher, at least from a single player standpoint (haven't tried the game in coop). 

 

Still, I understand if you feel that way and appreciate the nice review!!

 

 

11 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

How doable is Nex Machina? It's been on my wishlist for quite some time, once I see it offered at a discount I may pick it up. I hope it's nothing as hard as some of the Resogun, because wow.

 

Dude, just get it. You have been talking about picking it up for over half a year now. ?

 

 

10 hours ago, The Devils Reaper said:

Could you imagine a humble :bronze: Complete all feats - being added as DLC? Save all humans on Heroic anyone?

 

What a welcoming 100%-destroying addition that would be... Such an amazing game 

 

10 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Housemarque are one of the only studios with such a bank of good will and love from their fans, that they probably could do that, and instead of outrage, they'd just inspire a meek "Thank you sir, may I have another" from us, their loyal, fearful, submissive user base ?

 

Honestly? I don't think there would be a single 100% achiever if you needed to complete all feats. "Defeat Nex Machina on Hero difficulty" would be pretty much impossible ??

 

But I really like the trophy list it has attached to it. It is not too challenging, but still forces you to properly learn how to play the game. 

Edited by Arcesius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arcesius said:

 

Nice, thanks for the in-depth review! 

 

I agree with most of your points except the one that in your case resulted in a lower placement on the list.. its lenght... I haven't played Dead Nation, but I did play Alienation which I guess is pretty similar. And while yes, Alienation had more levels, it is not an Arcade game. I would imagine that if Nex Machina had 2 or 3 more levels to go through in one sitting, it would result in a bit too long (and probably too challenging) runs for the game to remain as fun as it is. 

 

That's true - and a fair point about additional level possibly throwing the game off-balance in terms of run-length. I do agree that additional levels might do that if incorporated into the main campaign, but that can't change the fact that I enjoyed the five that were there so much that I would have liked to see more. 

Certainly, if there is any Dev out there that I would trust to figure out a way to add levels without it being a negative impact it is Housemarque - I mean, adding say, 3 new levels, but then randomising them for example - so the campaign is still 5 levels, but which 5 you get changes, or something of that ilk?

 

Quote

As you mentioned yourself.. the trophy list does not cover everything there is to do in the game. Be honest.. have you defeated Nex Machina itself? Even on experienced? :P Completed a Master run? A Hero run? Got the Gold Medal in more than 9 challenges? Even only doing the plat takes roughly 30 hours, right? Don't think I spent that much time with Alienation 1f605.png

 

This is probably as good a place as any to address some of the Scientific Methodology ?

 

In a narrative game, I am considering the 'length' to be one, non-completionist playthrough -  and everything beyond that is covered more in 'repeatability' or 'longevity' rather than length.

So when I say a game is '20 hours-ish' I am meaning that one blind(ish) playthrough from intro to credits was about that.

 

For arcade games such as this one, where high-score chasing and repeat play are a baked-in and expected part of the game, I can't do that obviously, so I really am using one primary factor to determine what I consider to be the 'game length': The trophy list.

Variety of modes, difficulties, additional challenges etc. -beyond what is required in the trophy list - are real more under 'replayability' or 'longevity' - if that makes sense.

 

If the game has fifteen difficulties, but the trophy list only requires the easiest three to be completed, I basically consider the game to be the length of the trophy list - that is, after all, what the Developer set as the 'standard' for the game length for most people (or most folks on this site).

 

 

If what you are saying above is that you don't feel I am qualified to rank the game because I may not have completed all the brutally difficult challenges that even the developer felt were not appropriate to include in the trophy list - that is a position I can respect, (and you know fine well I respect your opinions on this site anyways), but I disagree with.

 

From my point of view, Housemarque are setting the trophy list with what they consider to be an appropriate level of difficulty / rounded gameplay, and so I feel okay rating the game based on having completed those.

 

Quote

Personally I would place the game quite a bit higher, at least from a single player standpoint (haven't tried the game in coop). 

 

It is 23rd out of 123 games - hardly low ranked really, and personally, I would say my "I love this game" line, where everything above it is highly recomended and gets the "DrBloodmoney Seal of Total Approval"is around the 40th-50th or mark ☺️

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

That's true - and a fair point about additional level possibly throwing the game off-balance in terms of run-length. I do agree that additional levels might do that if incorporated into the main campaign, but that can't change the fact that I enjoyed the five that were there so much that I would have liked to see more. 

Certainly, if there is any Dev out there that I would trust to figure out a way to add levels without it being a negative impact it is Housemarque - I mean, adding say, 3 new levels, but then randomising them for example - so the campaign is still 5 levels, but which 5 you get changes, or something of that ilk?

 

Oh yeah I agree! I enjoyed the game as well a lot, so more levels would have been great! But yeah, maybe the randomised level selection would have been a great solution... I just wouldn't want a longer run :)

 

 

23 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

If what you are saying above is that you don't feel I am qualified to rank the game because I may not have completed all the brutally difficult challenges that even the developer felt were not appropriate to include in the trophy list - that is a position I can respect, (and you know fine well I respect your opinions on this site anyways), but I disagree with.

 

I am not! That wasn't my intention or my thought process even for a second! In fact, after reading the review it is very clear that you are more than qualified to rate the game! (You know.. if we even want to go as far as to discuss about qualifications... ?). 

 

The comment was indeed aimed at the trophy list not covering everything there is to do in the game, and your comment that the game was "too short". But you adressed that in your response! I'm also not saying that I did do all the things I mentioned myself, either! I played past the platinum but mostly to get footage for my trophy guide... I didn't finish a Master run or anything like that. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It is 23rd out of 123 games - hardly low ranked really, and personally, I would say my "I love this game" line, where everything above it is highly recomended and gets the "DrBloodmoney Seal of Total Approval"is around the 40th-50th or mark 263a.png

 

Oh yeah, for sure. 23/123 is a good ranking! I meant in comparison to other games that are rated higher. But that, of course, is very subjective. I enjoyed Nex Machina more than, say, Shadow of the Colossus, or Horizon Zero Dawn, or even Transistor... But then, I tend to enjoy the fast-paced, action-packed games, so obviously Nex was the perfect fit for me :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

I am not! That wasn't my intention or my thought process even for a second! In fact, after reading the review it is very clear that you are more than qualified to rate the game! (You know.. if we even want to go as far as to discuss about qualifications... 1f605.png). 

 

The comment was indeed aimed at the trophy list not covering everything there is to do in the game, and your comment that the game was "too short". But you adressed that in your response! I'm also not saying that I did do all the things I mentioned myself, either! I played past the platinum but mostly to get footage for my trophy guide... I didn't finish a Master run or anything like that. 

 

Haha - sorry - rereading what I wrote there, I realise it comes off as way more indignantly defensive that it was intended! ?

Really, I am arguing with myself more than you there - this is the first game to come up that really put the whole 'arcade games length vs quality' argument to the test. It is applicable to stuff like Shatter, Pac Man Championship Edition DX and most of the Hamster Arcade games as well, but really Nex Machina is the first one where it has been a material factor in the ranking, so my defensive tone is probably more about my internal argument than anything else ?

 

Quote

Oh yeah, for sure. 23/123 is a good ranking! I meant in comparison to other games that are rated higher. But that, of course, is very subjective. I enjoyed Nex Machina more than, say, Shadow of the Colossus, or Horizon Zero Dawn, or even Transistor... But then, I tend to enjoy the fast-paced, action-packed games, so obviously Nex was the perfect fit for me :) 

 

I can't deny that I have a serious soft spot for the quick-fire action games too - I'm currently playing through Mass Effect (and loving it), but I keep getting distracted by playing runs of Curse of the Dead Gods - a game I have already pretty much finished, and know I likely won't get the platinum on anyways (the game is amazing, but one trophy is HORRIFIC,) - just because the quick in and out loop of the game is so satisfying!

 

 

In the end, there are always going to be situations where people feel my list is bullshit with regards to their personal preferred genres - I freely admit that it makes for a strange time trying to rank something like Nex against something like Horizon or Shadow of the Colossus - but that's kind of the fun of it for me. I'm trying to be as fair as I can, but there will always be ones where you look at the list and go "What!?? This above THIS?!?!"

From me as much as anyone when I look at the list holistically!

 

Just the nature of the beast, I guess :dunno:?

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good update, I've only played 2 of the reviewed games (Dishonored 2 and GTA 4) and I agree fully with everything you say about both.

 

I think the point that yourself and Arcesius are discussing is interesting, as trophy hunters can we seperate a game from its trophy list and when you carry out a review is your opinion swayed by how easy or difficult a trophy list is.

I haven't played Nex Machina but it looks like it could be S ranked without playing some of the harder difficulties or more challenging content which looks to me like it made the trophies more fun to get.

I asked you to review 2 games, Void Bastards and Dead Cells both of which you did very well but my opinion of each is clouded by their trophy list one is easy and fun, the other is tough and frustrating but if they had different trophy lists my thoughts would be very different even though the games would be the same.

 

Also I've recently started Prey on your advice but I'm back in work so it'll take about 6 months.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, elpoko said:

I think the point that yourself and Arcesius are discussing is interesting, as trophy hunters can we seperate a game from its trophy list and when you carry out a review is your opinion swayed by how easy or difficult a trophy list is.

I haven't played Nex Machina but it looks like it could be S ranked without playing some of the harder difficulties or more challenging content which looks to me like it made the trophies more fun to get.

I asked you to review 2 games, Void Bastards and Dead Cells both of which you did very well but my opinion of each is clouded by their trophy list one is easy and fun, the other is tough and frustrating but if they had different trophy lists my thoughts would be very different even though the games would be the same.

 

That's true, and a very good point.

 

It's a little hard for me to properly quantify  how much I am taking the actual trophy lists into account in the ranking of these games, as it varies wildly from game to game - but there is some method to that.

It isn't just random, I promise ?

 

Basically, for your average trophy list - like in say, an Assassin's Creed / Uncharted / God of War type game, it basically is ignored. The trophy list is totally adequate, and really doesn't affect the game one way or the other.

 

For some games, where the game is about repetition and honing skills, and the 'length' of the game is less defined, I will use the trophy list as a rough guide to the length of the game - and the difficulty, but even that is not always the case.

For example, most of the Hamster Arcade Archives games have incredibly simple, easy trophy lists - for those games, each can usually be S-Ranked in a half hour or so, but I don't actually hold that against the games, for a couple of reasons:

  1. The purpose of those game releases is not really to challenge new players, it is to introduce players to old, sometimes less well known games. It isn't about beating the games necessarily - they are mostly too old and dated for that to be much fun nowadays for a new generation - they are more about nostalgia for the old-guard, and an education antiquity for the newer gamers.
  2. Those games are very difficult to add trophies to - It is my understanding that adding trophies to games that were not built for them is actually pretty difficult, as a trophy pop has to be tired to specific information being spit out of the game code. If the game was never designed to spit out those code 'signifiers' adding them is not an easy task. For those really old retro games, the only real info the code will be spitting out is a high-score at the end, so really, that's all the trophies can ever be tied to. That's why you see silly trophies in those games for things like 'access the settings'. They are tying the trophies to the parts they can control the code for, as they don't want to affect the original game code by tinkering with it, given that those games are primarily released as preservationist archives.

 

Nex is actually an interesting example of another instance though. Games like that one are, in essence, the natural evolution of the old arcade games, but with all the bells and whistles of modern game design. Like those old games, Nex, (and others like it), are designed with a skill ceiling that is incredibly high - specifically to ape the kind of old arcade fare, where the game would never actually end until you died, they just repeated and got faster and faster (until you saw a kill-screen of course - if you were a gaming God!)

For these games, the trophy list is arguably the only place where the dev has the opportunity to decide what level to which they consider the 'regular player' skill ceiling actually is.

The game offers a near infinite level of increasing difficulty, but the dev is saying - with the platinum - "This is the player mastering the game to a level we expect". Everything beyond that is for the true elite - the people who eschew playing other games, to focus on being the best of the best in this one game.

 

Does Nex Machina offer an incredible amount of challenges above and beyond the Platinum requirements?

You bet it does.

Do I consider someone who only gets the plat, and nothing more, to be missing out?

No, not really. I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at anyone who 'only' gets the platinum and stops. That still takes a hell of a lot of skill, and is tougher than many games out there. It's a very respectable achievement - there just happens to be even more challenge there for those who choose to approach it.

 

 

There are some games out there where the platinum being too easy - or not including some large part of the game - does negatively affect the game (or will) on the rankings.

Call of Duty is arguably in this camp - all the ones I played are primarily multiplayer games, with a short campaign, but all the trophies are for the campaign exclusively - but a better example is a game I played recently, called Rainswept.

It is an easy game anyways - not challenging as it is narrative-focussed - but it is a narrative I actually found very affecting. It made me really think, I was emotionally invested in the characters, and I really liked seeing the game through.

The dev, however, took the baffling decision to award the platinum about a third of the way into the game. That is so dumb! The story has barely got started, and the Plat pops - and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there are plenty of folks who stopped there, missing a great, sad, well told story about two dysfunctional people in love, because the game gave them no more 'incentive', trophy-wise, to continue. 

 

Will that first third be considered the 'length' of the game?

Certainly not, but that silly decision will certainly be mentioned in my review when it comes, as it is the trophy list working materially against the game.

 

 

I'm probably getting too much into the weeds on this - but basically it boils down to this:

The trophy list doesn't matter usually, but matters when it matters - and when it matters, it can matter a lot.

 

You can usually see when I've considered it to be a factor, as I generally only mention the trophies at all if they are of particular note - and try to say why.

 

I agree that in your example, Dead Cells and Void Bastards, the differing levels of challenges in the trophy lists did make a difference to the experiences, (and granted, I do agree that of all the genres out there, Rogue-Like is one of the most impacted by its trophy list - for good or for bad), but in both those cases, I generally avoided bringing them up, because the effect was minimal to me.

Of the two, I think Void Bastards' list was worse - the requirement for the 'limited' runs not stacking was, in my opinion, a mistake - I would have made the 'No Weapons of any kind' trophy also pop the 'No secondary weapons', 'no guns' & 'no tools' ones at the same time, as those runs are very similar in challenge.

Overall though, both games would likely have ranked where they did with or without a trophy list - neither was particularly helped or hindered by the presence of one.

 

 

...sorry I just went on a bit there ??

 

Quote

Also I've recently started Prey on your advice but I'm back in work so it'll take about 6 months.

 

Haha! Yes!

 

Always love to see someone giving Prey a shot - hope you enjoy it my friend! ☺️

 

 if you like it half as much as I did, it will all be worth it!

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Ok, I think I understand your point and I must agree with you. 

A bad trophy list can't make a good game bad but it can make a bad game worse, also a good trophy list can't make a bad game good but it can make a good game better so ultimately it doesn't really matter.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arcesius said:

Dude, just get it. You have been talking about picking it up for over half a year now. ?

 

In time, in time. Not paying full price for it, and PS Now isn't an option for me. I did however just pick up Dead Nation: Apocalypse Edition. I never played it before so it'll be interesting to see how this game fares.

 

While I can say to you is, get Resogun. Don't even think about getting or not getting it, just get the game. It's an awesome shmup. Nothing is hard at all in the base game. As far as the DLC is concerned, I still got two trophies keeping me away from the 100 percent. If you decide to buy this game and cover all of it, I'll be real interested to hear your input. Especially on Commando Mode.

 

It's a fantastic Housemarque title, that nobody should miss.

 

7 hours ago, Arcesius said:

Honestly? I don't think there would be a single 100% achiever if you needed to complete all feats. "Defeat Nex Machina on Hero difficulty" would be pretty much impossible 1f605.png1f602.png

 

But I really like the trophy list it has attached to it. It is not too challenging, but still forces you to properly learn how to play the game. 

 

Resogun has a feat just like that one. "Defeat Resogun on Hero difficulty". There's a challenge for it, and it's single player. It's absolutely bonkers, and one where I don't have the skill to pull it off.

 

Yeah that's what Housemarque games are great for.

Edited by AJ_Radio
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

newtestsubjects.jpg

 

⚛️!!SCIENCE UPDATE!!⚛️

 

 

The next 10 (somewhat) randomly selected games to be submitted for scientific analysis shall be:

 

 

Assassin's Creed III
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Dark Souls III
Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number
Invector 
Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
Observation
Pic-a-Pix Color
Welcome Park
White Night

 

 

 

Subjects in RED marked for ❎PRIORITY ASSIGNEMENT

[Care of @Copanele ]

 

 

 

Can 'Current Most Awesome' game, Prey, cling to its title once again?

 

Is new last-in-show Kick-Ass: The Game going to have any competition for 'Least Awesome Game' ?

 

Let's find out!

 

 

 

1f6a8.png1f6a8.png!CLEAR PRIORITY RANKING LIST ALERT!1f6a8.png1f6a8.png

 

With @Copanele's only remaining 'PRIORITY RANKING' game, Dark Souls III, being done in this next round, the Priority list is clear for the moment! ??

 

Obviously, I'm happy to just randomise the games entirely - but if there is an eligible game you would like to see get it's time in the hot-seat sooner than later, drop a comment -

with a clear deck right now, you are virtually guaranteed a quick turnaround! ?

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Obviously, I'm happy to just randomise the games entirely - but if there is an eligible game you would like to see get it's time in the hot-seat sooner than later, drop a comment -

with a clear deck right now, you are virtually guaranteed a quick turnaround! ?


Since the list is clear I’d like to add another one, Battlefield Bad Company 2. It’s the only one in the series you have added to your profile (same as myself) so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the game and (maybe) why you haven’t delved further into the series! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GraniteSnake said:


Since the list is clear I’d like to add another one, Battlefield Bad Company 2. It’s the only one in the series you have added to your profile (same as myself) so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the game and (maybe) why you haven’t delved further into the series! 


oh - good choice, I shall tag it with your name post-haste!

 

Might actually be a good idea for me to also flag CoD: MW2 (the only CoD game I have the S-Rank for - damned DLC’s!), as its probably worth reviewing them in the same batch for comparison purposes :hmm:

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:


oh - good choice, I shall tag it with your name post-haste!

 

Might actually be a good idea for me to also flag CoD: MW2 (the only CoD game I have the S-Rank for - damned DLC’s!), as its probably worth reviewing them in the same batch for comparison purposes :hmm:

Yeah that’s a good idea. MW2 also happens to be my favourite in the series so that’s another review I’d look forward to ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not going to turn this thread into a sales alert or anything like that, but it’s worth noting - for anyone following along with the Scientific Endeavours -

The Arkane Pack (featuring current #1, #4 & #11 most awesome games on the list, along with Dishonoured: Death of the Outsider... which - not to prejudge the science, but - is no slouch either...) is currently 50% off in the UK & EU stores.

Not sure about other regions, but worth a check.

 

For those looking for the maths:

That is approximately

 

{[(Awesome^(123/1)+(Awesome^(123/4)+(Awesome^(123/11)+(Awesome^(123/X)] x 50%} ?Lots and Lots of Awesome for not much money?

 

 

 

Science Yo.?

Edited by DrBloodmoney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:


I’ve been waiting for 9 pages of comments for someone to use that gif! 1f602.png

? Yano what's very funny about that doc, I have just been patiently waiting over here for the right moment to throw that bad boy out there!! I am shocked that no one else has done so yet, Jessie and Walter would be sorely disappointed to hear this ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

results.jpg

 

 1f4c9.png1f913.png NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! 1f913.png1f4c8.png

 

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

 

 

 

Lf43226.png

Assassin's Creed III

 

Summary: 

So far, being ranked in order, the Assassin's Creed games have been on a hot streak - each new entry placing higher than its predecessor on the list. That streak, unfortunately, is destined to come to a screeching halt with Assassin's Creed III.

 

The game was extremely ambitious for the time - long and convoluted, and the map enormous by comparison to previous entries, but never has a game so crystallised the notion that bigger is not always better.

 

Most of the technological and mechanical properties, that were on a continual path of improvement across the Ezio Trilogy, continue to evolve and improve here. Graphically, ACIII is as much of an iterative improvement over Revelations as that game was over Brotherhood, and in terms of mechanics - controls, smoothness of animations, robustness of free-running mechanics etc. - the game is a minor, but clear, step up. 

However, for every minor mechanical and technical step forward, ACIII takes 3 or 4 major gameplay or narrative steps back. 

 

The majority of the game is played as Conner, (or Ratonhnhaké:ton, to give him his Kanien'kehá:ka name, which I won't, as typing that just about gave me both carpal-tunnel syndrome and a stroke,) - a half First Nation, half English man, raised in his First Nation tribe by his mother. After his tribe and lands are decimated by Templar activities, he joins the Assassin's via an old, ex-Assassin, Achilles Davenport, and in doing so becomes entwined in the activities of the Patriot Movement and the American Revolution.

 

The absence of Ezio was always going to be difficult. There was a reason that Ubisoft chose to dwell in the same era, with the same character for 3 full-sized entries in the franchise - Ezio's charisma and charm were a welcome crutch to carry some of the less interesting story aspects of his games, and a boon to further buoy the good stuff. 
It would be forgivable if Ubisoft just had a new character that didn't quite measure up - frankly, that was expected - but in Assassin's Creed III, they appear to have walked into an ambush. 
By having, in Connor, arguably the weakest, least charismatic and least interesting lead the series had yet seen, (and has seen since,) directly after their most beloved, it only serves to make a weak lead seem even weaker by comparison. 

This error is only further compounded by having the opening hours of ACIII played from the point of view of Conner's father, Haytham Kenway - a much more charismatic and fun character. That decision simply serves to remind the player, for the subsequent 50-odd hours, that Ubisoft is perfectly capable of crafting a new, good lead for a game post-Ezio... they just chose not to for some reason. 

 

Story-wise, the game is playing in interesting - and dangerous - territory. While bastardisation and warping of history has always been Assassin's Creed's wheelhouse, (and I'd argue the historical manipulation is, if anything, less egregious here,) there is an inherent problem with the time period it is set in, in that it is far more recent than the previous games - and much more well known. 
While I don't believe ACIII actually deviates from 'real' history any more than previous entries, the mere fact that the history it is playing with is much more common-knowledge, means the flights of fancy it takes stand out much more to the lay-player.

The average person does not know a huge amount about the history of the Borgia's in 16th century Rome.

They, for the most part, do know about George Washington though, and so historical inaccuracy here is more of a powder-keg. 

 

There is also the inherent problems that come with Connor himself being so dull and unengaging. The story is fairly well plotted - if side stuff is ignored, and the main narrative focussed on - however, a protagonist who seems to be actively trying not to emote or engage with the history he is swept up in makes for limited interest from the player. 
There is a clear attempt to make Connor appear - as he is - an outsider in both the First Nation, and the Colonial worlds, which makes sense. That is an avenue that can be done effectively (see John Marston in Red Dead Redemption,) but here, it grates. It effectively renders him a lifeless piece of narrative driftwood, lacking agency in his own journey, floating here and there at the whims of historical and narrative tides.

 

In terms of the world and the map, the game is clearly taking cues from Red Dead Redemption (released 2 years prior.) The inclusion of a vast area of non-urban wilderness, and the inclusion of all the aspects that come with that - hunting, wild animals, frontier living etc. - is admirable, but not terribly well implemented. The game has an incredible amount of activities in addition to the main story - including everything from era-appropriate board games, hunting, an awkwardly implemented trading system, some pretty fun Naval missions, (hinting at the direction that would be leaned into full-throatedly with the next entry, Black Flag,) and an entire 'homestead' town building mechanic in which Connor 'recruits' people to live on his land and form a township, but none are particularly interesting or fun to engage with.

For the most part, they simply pad the game out to the extent that often the main narrative thread is lost in a sea of side-quests.

 

This all brings us to the biggest issue with the game: The map.

Assassin's Creed's entire milieu - and the raison d'etre for it's mechanical style - is verticality. 
There is a reason that virtually every marketing screenshot for all the previous games was Ezio (or Altair) standing on a high tower, surveying a city - it's because climbing a grand tower in an architecturally epic, historical city is the signature of the series. Here, we have none of that.

Both Boston and New York, at this time, were relatively flat, un-interesting places - new cities lacking history, architectural interest and - most importantly - height.
The idea of taking a game known for its cloud-scratching 'synchronisation point' towers, and eagle dives from their architectural splendour into hay-bales hundreds of feet below, and set it in a an era of flat cities without any history yet is conceptually baffling.


Every AC game up to this point had, to some extent, been a joy simply to walk around and watch the clockwork world happen in a living historical world. Here, it could not be less interesting.

I could go on and on about the many flaws in the game - the dullness of the Homestead building, the lacklustre narrative hooks, the sometimes painfully unforgiving stealth sections, the lack of meaningful additions to the multiplayer, the appalling 'fast-travel unlocking' underground sections, Connor's wet-fish personality and permanent 'I just smelled a small fart and can't remember if it was me or you' expression, but really it feels like a pile-on at this point.

 

There are some aspects ACIII does well - horse riding and combat are markedly improved, the size of the map is admirable, and the Naval stuff is a welcome addition, but really, there has rarely been so violent a mis-step in a series on a conceptual level than this one - and even more rarely one that a series has recovered from so quickly. (Spoiler - Black Flag is much better - a clear testament to the idea that Ubisoft knew they had fucked up with ACIII, and knew how, so were able to course-correct to some extent relatively quickly.)

 

The game is not outright bad - it had plenty to still enjoy, and anyone playing the full series should at least play the story of ACIII, but there are few - if any - games in the series worse than this one.

 

The Ranking:

Markedly worse than even lowest currently ranked ACII, we need to refer to other flawed open-world games for comparison.

GTAIV, while less mechanically engaging to me, still had more in the way of good story-telling, better plotting and pacing, and better integration of its side content than ACIII, and a main character that I found much easier to like and empathise with. It also has a more interesting map, and so clears ACIII easily, despite my personal issues with it.

 

Frankly, to a somewhat lesser extent, all the same arguments also apply to Mafia II, with the exception of the side content. Mafia II has too little, and ACII has way too much, but the main narrative of Mafia II and the map is still markedly better. 

 

In the end, ACIII keeps sliding down past other games I would rather play, until it finally finds a footing above admirable, but too short and narratively muddled Twin Mirror. For all the bad aspects of ACIII, I still think there is enough good time hidden among the chaff to create an experience that beats DotNod's flawed game, and so it finds its spot.

 

 

La742cc.png

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

 

Summary: 

A textbook example of 'prestige indie', Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is a small, more sentimental and artful experience crafted in the vein of an indie game, but comes from a studio with significant chops, and a skillset honed on much larger titles. Starbreeze - creators of such bigger fare as the Riddick FPS games (Escape from Butcher Bay and Assault on Dark Athena), the outrageously good (and tragically overlooked) rebooted Syndicate FPS, and the original The Darkness game, were known for their excellent, violent shooters, so when they released Brothers - a small, personal, whimsical and deeply affecting game about loss, sibling rivalry and family bonds - it really was out of left field. 

 

Brothers is a remarkable game on a number of fronts. It looks great - the world is an enchanting one, rooted in a pseudo-Scandinavian aesthetic and while graphically simplistic and relatively low-polygon, its art-style is a joy to behold. The game sounds great - a serviceable musical score is present sporadically, though most of the sound design is in ambient sounds and environmental auditory details, and these are extremely well done, and give the world an evocative and varying quality.

 

The story is a simple one - two brothers go on a quest to find medicine to aid their ailing father - their only remaining parent - but is told remarkably well, and with stylistic flair. There is no dialogue (at least no intelligible dialogue - the characters speak in a simplistic 'simlish') and no subtitles.  All of the player's understanding of the dynamic between characters is based on tone and gesture, and it works incredibly well. What begins as a fun novelty, very quickly becomes instinctual and second-nature - it almost begins to feel like you can understand the language, so good is the non-verbal communication of mood and tone.


A variety of non-story critical moments spread across the games 3-4 hour length, each unique, lend the word some level of life, but do far more than that - they allow the relationship between the two brothers to be reflected off the world they encounter in different ways, and give the player a chance to both discover, and shape, their interactions an a subtle level. A 'highlight' (if that can be the correct phrasing) is when they come across a mourning, suicidal man about to hang himself. There is no penalty to simply walking away, but interacting and saving the man allows the player to see how each brother views the situation, and how they differ in their approach to him, and where they align. 

 

The game is a relatively simple puzzle-solving affair - all the puzzles are unique and lovingly designed, though never particularly hard on a conceptual level, however, the game complicates matters with a neat hook - both brothers are controlled with a single analogue stick each, and a single 'action' button with varying contextual applications on the shoulder buttons. 

This may seem an awkward controls scheme - and it can be at times, particularly when the brothers are on the 'wrong' sides of one another, where the younger brother, who is controlled with the right stick is to the left of the older brother, meaning the natural instinct to control what is on the left with the left hand needs to be overridden - but generally it works well and becomes fairly natural by the games mid-point. 
Occasionally old habits can creep back, particularly in high-stress situations where the game demands quick reflexes, but that is a necessary annoyance in some ways.

 

The unique control scheme gives way to one of the best "oh my God" moments towards the end of the game, which is not only a great payoff to a puzzle and a story, but also an emotional gut-punch and very affecting. I won't spoil that moment here, as the kind of moment where the interaction with a game gives rise to an incredible eureka moment is rare enough in games already - but one where said moment also elicits a genuine emotional reaction is incredibly difficult to pull off, and very, very seldom seen. Brother: A Tale of Two Sons has arguably one of the best implementations of this I have ever encountered - right up there with Braid, or The Witness in that regards.


Bothers: A Tale of Two Sons is a brilliant indie game - a genuine emotional journey (which is rare,) and with an incredible emotional payoff,  (even rarer,) and one that allows the player to be the one to 'discover' that payoff themselves, rather than simply watching it (even rarer still.)

An absolutely textbook example of the validity, and at times superiority, of the indie genre in approaching more nuanced, emotional games, and a marked example of the power of interactive media in engaging with a player on a level that is not simply practical or mechanical, but intellectual, emotional and empathetic.

 

The Ranking:

In terms of shorted indie games that play on an emotional level, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons stands markedly above most on the current list, such as Beyond Eyes and Rain, for two reasons. Firstly, the emotional content is sharper and more affecting, and also, the mechanical game is markedly better. Even without the story, Brothers would still be worth playing, but with it, it elevates from a nice game, to a must-play.

 

Dear Esther: Landmark Edition has a similar level of emotional content, but never has that single moment of emotional punch and catharsis, and is operating more on an intellectual level, and its gameplay is much more limited, reducing the potential for repeat play, and so Brothers moves up past it.

 

SOMA has a similarly gut-punching finale, but it's is lessened drastically by the fact that it is simple watched, rather than payed, and it's 'twist' is broadcast well in advance, playing more in dramatic irony than epiphanic interactivity. It also, as good as it is, bogs itself down on occasion with overly complex or under-explained puzzles, whereas Brothers never feels too difficult or too hard - it is consistent in a way SOMA isn't.

 

In the end, it find's a very high place on the list, just below Dead Nation, but above Rayman Origins. While Brothers is a much smaller game than many of those great games below it,  what it is trying to achieve, it achieves near flawlessly.

 

 

 

 

Lb6ba20.png

Dark Souls III

 

Summary: 

The final (for now) entry in the Dark Souls trilogy, Dark Souls III benefits from the ability to draw influence not only from both its namesake predecessors, but also from tangential PS4 exclusive Bloodborne, and it wears every influence on its sleeve.

 

In much the same manner as my Dark Souls II review, this write up will primarily be concerned with the differences and similarities Dark Souls III has to its predecessors, since from a mechanical, graphical, technical and artistic stand-point, the game stands mightily among its peers. 
All technical aspects remain at a high - and with the jump to a new generation, graphically the game is a cut above both previous entries, and is even out-does Bloodborne in that regard. 
Art design remains  FROM Software's strongest card in a very strong hand, and exploring their designs in the more polished engine is an unparalleled joy from one monstrous, grotesque, terrifying and beautiful biome to the next.
It's also worth noting the music and the sound design of Dark Souls III in particular, which I would argue are at an all-time high for the series in this game, with the possible exception of the truly bizarre, and unsettlingly eerie, score on show in the original Demon's Souls.

 

Conceptually most similar to Dark Souls, there is a very clear element of 'splitting the differences' on show in Dark Souls III.

 

Invoking a much faster, more aggressive combat model than both previous Dark Souls games (very clearly drawing from Bloodborne's "the best defence is offence" mentality,) combat is quick, punishing and much less 'cheesable'. 
Bosses are back to their less frequent, more uniformly difficult incarnation a-la Dark Souls, though with that mentality, I think comes a slight, (though only slight,) reduction in variety and interesting boss-fight design. 
The technical side of combat is also improved from previous games, with hit-boxes being markedly more defined and readable, and much less scope for a seemingly good hit missing or whiffing. On the flip side though, far more enemies have 'interrupt' abilities, and are able to dismantle the player's combat style to devastating effect, requiring even more reliance on learning specific enemy patterns to survive. I would argue the combat model of this game, more than Bloodborne even, is the genesis for what would become Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice's extreme, frame-dependant sand skill-dependent signature style.

 

Gone is the grind-reliant healing mechanics of Demon's Souls - questionably re-introduced in Bloodborne - in favour of Dark Souls and Dark Souls II's much more favourable estus flask mechanic.

 

The Low-Fantasy-Gothic setting of Dark Souls is back, eschewing the Eldritch Victoriana of Bloodborne, and the more High-Fantasy elements of Dark Souls II.

 

On a structural level, the world of Dark Souls III bears a closer resemblance to Dark Souls also - the 'ant-hill' structure, with biomes existing 'on-top' of the others and inter-connected together in a byzantine manner is back (if, arguable, a little less labyrinthine this time around,) as opposed to Dark Souls II's more flat, larger world, or Bloodborne's distinct 'big-domes-and-narrow-tunnels structure. The 'hub' area, re-introduced in Dark Souls II is maintained, and in fact, is more similar even to Demon's Souls than Dark Souls II in its implementation, with NPCs gathering closer together, and more prone to interconnectivity and interplay than Mejula offered.

 

The 'covenants' mechanics of Dark Souls II makes a welcome return, however, with a more focussed (smaller) set of weapons, PvP combat options are a little less about experimentation of equipment, and more about raw skill.

 

There is clear ties to Dark Souls that the game specifically and deliberately makes in terms of lore - popular items such as the Catarina equipment set, Ornstein and Smough’s sets, the Iron and the Sun Set, and the Artorias’ set are all findable in the world, along with returns to previous locations such as Anor Londo and the Painted World.

 

This mentality of plucking parts of the previous games and referencing them heavily is a bit of a dangerous move, as it has the potential to make the game feel tired - retreading old ground and concepts in order to compensate for a lack of the new - but in Dark Souls III it never really felt too much of a negative to me. The game feels more like a 'Best Of' album. Yes, perhaps there are a few 'tracks' I would have included on the album that aren't there, (such as that delightful ditty 'Ode to a Twin Blade'!,) and perhaps there are a few on there that I wouldn't have included, (While the return to Anor Londo was a glorious surprise, I could have done without the Painted World of Ariandel a second time around,) but that doesn't change the fact that the collection is a banger, and covers all the biggest hits.

 

It's worth noting that this 'best-of' mentality is most clearly crystallised in the excellent Dark Souls III 'Ringed City' DLC, which takes that concept and leans into it very heavily, treating itself as both an finale to the entire series (and the end of the world), as well as a chance to revisit highlights. 
If the ending of Dark Souls III's base game is Frodo and Sam casting the ring into Mount Doom, The Ringed City is everything afterwards - capping off not only the game it is attached to, but all previous games and tying a bow around the lot.

 

On a personal level, there are some aspects that I miss from Dark Souls II - the larger, less interconnected but more varied world and high-fantasy tropes were something I personally enjoyed a little more, and the far more varied bosses (both in terms of design, and of challenge) made that game feel a larger in comparison to this one. 
I can see where this influence was headed - Sekiro, after-all, is set in an even smaller area, however, it compensates for that by having changing biomes - where seasonal differences in late game reinvent previous areas. Dark Souls III doesn't do the same, and so the world feels a little more contained and limited than DSII's did.

 

The more limited weapon set is likely a necessary byproduct of the increased combat fidelity, however, experimentation with multiple weapons and builds is my favourite part of the series, and so limiting that did limit my potential for returning to the game - I have returned to DSII, and Dark Souls, far more often than Dark Souls III.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

Quite a few Souls and Souls-adjacent games on the list now, so comparison points are abundant!

 

In terms of Dark Souls games, personally Dark Souls III is less awesome than Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin.

 

As compared to the original Dark Souls, Dark Souls III is arguably better - it benefits for years of refinement and graphical and technical improvements, however, there is an inherent loss of originality that comes with the third entry in a franchise (and it could reasonably be argued DSIII is, in fact, the fifth entry, if Demon's Souls and Bloodborne are included.) 
While I generally try to minimise the importance of originality on this list (I have always been of the view that doing something again, but better, might be less original, but it is still better,) however, sequelisation is not the only aspect in which Dark Souls III shows this kind of issue.

Yes, conceptually it is a sequel, but where DSII introduced a massive amount of new lore, Dark Souls III tends to rely more in calling back and tying together previous lore. That is a fascinating thing at first, as items and concepts are brought back and new light cast on them, but does have the effect, in places, of negating additional, new lore, and makes the game less interesting from a 'deep-dive' point of view. 

 

In the end, I feel like Dark Souls III has to rank lower than both Dark Souls and Sekiro. I love all these games with a fire befitting the Kiln of the First Flame, but I cannot deny that DSIII is the entry I have been, and remain, the least prone to return to.

 

I do, however, see no true competition from the original Demon's Souls (aside, perhaps, from that game's bizarre and outlying musical score,) as the game has simply aged out of the ability to compete across almost 2 full generations.

 

In the end, Dark Souls III takes it's worthy, still extremely high spot right below its Japanese cousin Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, near enough to the top of the list to summon its older covenant brothers, but not quite as high as them - treading, as it does, the path they carved in their wake.

 

 

 

L8a65a9.png

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

 

Summary: 

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is one of those games you feel a little sorry for. I'll start right at the outset by saying, it is a good game. It is. It will likely place quite high on the list overall.
The reason I want to say that up-front, is that the review is, by nature, going to be comparing it to Hotline Miami a lot, and as a result, it is going to sound pretty negative, as there is no two ways to say this: It pales in comparison.

 

In creating a sequel to Hotline Miami - a game that was both incredibly good, and wildly successful, Dennaton games was in a difficult situation. Sequels to wildly successful, highly original games often are. The questions about how much to retain, and how much to change are, I would imagine, agonising and complicated. 
Unfortunately, in this case, it really feels like, as much as they couldn't win, everything thing they tried lost just a little more each time. 

 

All the parts that made Hotline Miami great are still here, to some extent - the speed, the look, the tone, the incredible cultivated synth-wave soundtrack - it is all still present, but none of it hits with quite the same level of impact. The soundtrack is still great, but not quite as perfect as last outing. The story still good, but a little less focussed and a little more convoluted. The look, the tone, and the speed are all still great, but just less impressive a second time around.

 

What has been changed, while making sense on paper, doesn't help the game much. The inclusion of 4 different characters, each with different abilities is interesting, but means the player is never able to get in a really good flow with the game - you feel like you are mastering a play-style, only to then have to leave it for 3 or 4 levels, to play a different one. The increase in level variety and size is good on paper, but actually can be a little more frustrating, as the potential for deaths from off-screen (an existing issue in Hotline Miami,) are magnified greatly, and the increased length in levels makes that all the more frustrating when it happens towards the end of one. The more 'themed' levels, such as the jungle warfare ones make for variety on paper, but are much more frustrating than anything in the first game due to the more limited weapon set.

 

This all culminates in Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number's biggest flaw - the difficulty.

Knowing they had a massive success on their hands with the first game, Dennation decided to pitch the difficulty of the sequel in a way that assumes mastery of its predecessor as the starting point. It is extremely difficult, right from the first level - overshooting the level of muscle memory most players (including me) still had from the first game, and - I can only assume - completely shutting out new players from jumping on with this game. There is virtually no ramp in challenge - I found the early levels to be incredibly difficult, but with nowhere left for the developer go, the latter levels felt about the same. There is no ramp - it is exactly as difficult at the beginning than at the end. 

 

That decision brings with it another clear problem - if a player wants to play this games, they really need to play Hotline Miami first, in order to ramp up to the level they need to be at to approach this one. In doing so, they will clearly see how much better the other aspects, such as soundtrack and story, were in that prequel.

 

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is an objectively good game - fun, satisfying, challenging, stylish, cool, and dripping with druggy-personality - with relatively few direct comparisons to other games. The only real specific competition it has is from its own predecessor, but by tying its starting difficulty to the ending difficulty of that game, and therefore directly encouraging back-to-back play, it is actively inviting the only direct comparison that it should ideally avoid - as it is one in which it will always look bad. 

 

The Ranking:

Still an excellent game, but the decrease in originality that sequelisation brings need to be offset by gameplay improvements, and Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number doesn't have them. 
The marked increase in difficulty and significantly higher potential for "bullshit" deaths (off-screen / through windows etc.) does nothing to help it, and takes the shine off an art-style, soundtrack and story that are still great, but just not as great as before.

 

Slips down from its predecessors place, and keeps sliding - ending up still a little more awesome than equally awesome-soundtracked Shatter, but cannot be placed higher than the fun and flair of FPS Rogue-like Void Bastards.

 

 

 

 

Lb15b13.png

Invector

 

Summary: 

So - this is one where I need to give a bit of disclosure.

I was in the mood for a rhythm game - a notion that takes me from time to time - and this one was on sale. 
It looked like just the kind of thing I would enjoy - but what I wasn't aware of at the time of purchase, was that this was a game specifically endorsed by, and affiliated with, one artist. All the music in the game is provided by one time EDM superstar AVICII. 

While I have no issue with the concept of doing a game using the catalogue of a single artist - actually, I think it's a pretty neat idea - it is worth noting that I am not a particular fan of his style of EDM. I do not hate it - and came to moderately enjoy a few tracks here - but I can't deny that when I realised what I had purchased, I was a little let down. I have a suspicion that I was not the only person to make the same mistake, as the original version I platinumed has since been removed, and a new version listed, called 'AVICII Invector'.

 

An abstract, on-rail rhythm game in the vein of Amplitude, Invector, does most of the things that a good game in that genre needs to do. The environments are nice to look at, the sense of speed is great, and when you are hitting all the right notes, it feels great. 

 

The music - as I said - is not really to my taste, but there is a good selection of it - around 30 tracks, which I can only assume covers a fair breadth, (or at least, a broad cross-section) AVICII's output. From a personal point of view, the tracks did seem to be a little unbalanced in terms of dispersement across the game  - the limited number of tracks I was at least somewhat familiar with were all quite front-loaded, as was most of the music I didn't know but came to enjoy, so it seems that maybe the best of what was on offer was a bit front-loaded.

 

The other more negative issue the game has is one that tends to plague all games that use 'real-life' music (i.e. not original for the game) - failure is not particularly well broadcast. I always prefer, in rhythm games, that when you are doing poorly, the song plays poorly along with you - when you miss notes, the song misses them or goes out-of-key for example. That doesn't happen here, but I can accept that this issue is not exclusive to this game. When failing 'real' songs in Guitar Hero, for example, the same issue is present, and is a necessary byproduct of using actual licensed music.

 

The game is not particularly difficult - which makes sense given that it is released more as a celebration of a star's music than as a gameplay-heavy game, but I think as a showpiece of an artist, it is much better made than it could have been, and is a cool concept.

 

Actually, the biggest flaw, really, is that with it being based around a single artist, a pretty serviceable music game that could easily have supported dlc, is confined to a single set of tracks. I would certainly have been more than happy to engage with the same set of simple, yet fun rhythm mechanics across a broader selection of music, and think it could easily have sustained them.

 

 

The Ranking:

Not too much in the way of rhythm games on the current list, so really its coming down to pure enjoyment factor with this one.

 

The game being very nice looking, and having some good - if mechanically simple - rhythm gameplay elements takes it well above the flawed fare at the bottom of the list, but  the limited number of tracks does hurt it in the longevity stakes, which would be a drag, even if it weren't compounded by my personal musical tastes not really being serviced. 

 

With no major flaws dragging it down, it moves up relatively high, but in Joe Danger, it finds a game that is also timing-based, of not actually rhythmically-based, that is more fun pound-for-pound, and that offers a little more in the way of fun and longevity.

 

 

 

L300d8f.png

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days

 

Summary: 

This game is one of those odd cases, where some interesting and pretty innovative features are on show, but the game seems to go out of its way to undermine and trip over them at every turn.
 
Tonally, let's not mess about - Kane & Lynch 2 is fucking violent. That might seem like a redundant statement in video games - where it feels like we have been putting computer-generated bullets in computer-generated brains since the invention of the on-screen crosshair - but this game is going for more than that. This is not a happy-go-lucky Nathan Drake, smiling and one-liner-ing his way through 300 paramilitary soldiers on a tropical island, nor it is Call of Duty's brand of 'Ra-Ra, we're-the-good-guys', 'all-for-the-sake-of-saving-the-world' style heroism.
 This is not simply violence, it is dirty, sweaty, nasty violence. The characters are bad people, the npc are bad people, and the story is as grimy and cynical as it gets - and it works, for the most part.
I have no issue with a game set in a very seedy world being... well... very seed and nasty, and the game does that aspect well. The story is simple, but engaging enough for the few hours it takes, and has a number of points of real savagery that are surprising, even within that context.
The post-torture scene, in which you and your co-op partner are fighting through the streets bollock-naked and covered in painful lacerations is pretty hard-core as games go, and certainly a stand-out moment, and I really am a big fan of the strange, cliff-hanger 'hostage hijack' ending - and actually think it works even knowing we are highly unlikely to ever see a K&L3.

 

Visually, the game is interesting. The post-processing effects that IOI added to the visuals help to ground the look in that seedy, violent world, and make for a pretty unique looking game - and one that has actually aged better than many of its peers of the time. The whole game is designed to look like Youtube footage filmed on a phone on the fly. The handheld-cam effects and digital 'noise', and the pixellation of bloody head-wounds or nudity - as if you are seeing footage that has been censored in a news report - disguises a lot of the age of the game, and does certainly make the game stand out visually in the crowded field of PS3 cover-shooters.
 
Unfortunately though, as much as IOI got right, the one aspect that a very violent shooter needs is missing here - the feel. The whole game is gunplay, and the gunplay is lacking.
There is very little punch to the feel of the guns, and the sound effects and pop is anaemic.
Shooting a gun should feel as violent as the tone of the game, but in this case, it just feels limp. A shotgun feels exactly the same as a pistol, a pistol feels the same as an Uzi, an uzi feels the same as an automatic rifle, and they all feel the same as a breathing gently on a windowpane. It's really unsatisfying.
 
The other major problem is taking cover - it just doesn't work.
There is something seriously wrong with the bullet collision detection. Enemies seem far too able to shoot you through the seemingly solid cover you are hiding behind if you actually take cover against it, but are unable to if you simply duck down near it. That means on the higher difficulties, where you can be felled in one shot, you spend more time trying to find the sweet spot where you can see enemies but they can't shoot you, than actually engaging in fun combat or strategising.
 
Those are not minor complaints - there is almost nothing in this game but cover-shooting, so the two things they needed to nail, was the covering and the shooting... and they didn't.
It really does the game a massive disservice.
 
There is Story Co-Op here, which is fun, but you need a partner who is down for the violence. The good lady Ms. Bloodmoney is no prude, but she did not like the tone or tenor of the game at all - and found the entire thing so off-puttingly misogynistic in it's treatment of the female characters, that she basically threw her hands up after one playthrough and told me I was on my own with this one. Frankly, I can't blame her - the very few female characters are treated like props at best, and whores at worst - fitting for the story, but still not exactly a trip for lady-gamers.
 
The co-op is also another area in which a very clever and interesting mechanic is on show - but fails to be implemented well. There is a concept done with enemy engagement - Lynch (who player 1 controls,) is suffering from PTSD, and is missing his medication. He sees violence where none exists, and the game leans into this - sometimes, in benign situations, the Lynch player will see a group of people raising guns and acting aggressively, and will naturally start shooting. The Kane player, however, just sees this situation as a bunch of civilians, or non-threatening npcs (which they actually are.) That means - on paper - situations where player one begins shooting innocent civilians, and resulting in the cops getting involved and escalating the situation happens, and the Kane players will be shouting "Why did you do that?!"

 

It's an interesting idea - however - the inherent problem is that player 1 is Lynch. In any household I know (including mine) the more experienced gamer is generally player 1. The "guest" is player 2. Player 1 is generally the first through the door, or round the corner, or taking point in the game, with player 2 following, so really, the mechanic doesn't have any material impact on the game, as most of the time player 1 will have begun shooting the 'hostiles' long before Player 2 is even aware that they might have looked like civilians to them. 
It also makes even less sense in single-player - given that the player is alway Lynch in that mode. They never get to see the effect in play - other than Kane occasionally shouting some scornful line about Lynch's behaviour - generally lost in an auditory sea of gunfire and screaming.
 

There is a competitive online multiplayer here also, but it is, at this point, completely dead as far as player-base goes. (Full disclosure - most of my trophies for this had to be boosted in a group.) 
As I recall, the game was pretty dead even when I played it a little 10 years ago, which is understandable, but a shame.

There are actually some pretty innovative and smart ideas for multiplayer games here - all based around 'betrayal' where there is a risk-reward element to betraying your fellow co-op players - though again, a lot of these would be undercut by the lacklustre gunplay - even if they weren't completely undercut already by the barren multiplayer.
I certainly get the impression that with a little finessing, these same multiplayers rules and mechanics, if combined with the more solid gameplay mechanics of, say, an Uncharted, would be a real winner, and would be incredibly fun.
 
All in all, the game has some things going for it, but I can't recommend it now. The Multiplayer would be fun if it was populated, but that time is long past, and the ways in which the game is unique or interesting - the tone and the visuals, are but a curiosity now  - not enough to make this worth starting up for anyone new.

 

The Ranking:

Oddly, as long as the current list has gotten, it doesn't yet feature much in the way of cover-shooters, so there are not many points of obvious comparison.

 

Games like GTAIV and Mafia II feature cover-shooting, but it is as part of a much grander tapestry, and it isn't the main focus of either of those games, so not much to start with there.

In terms of what is on the list, the first game to jump out as an obvious starting point is Lollipop Chainsaw - a game with similarly simple gameplay and short campaign, but with visual flair being used to stand out from the pack. In that case though, the visual humour and glitter-bomb-bloodbath tone is more successful in carrying the limited gameplay than Kane & Lynch 2's ultra-violent-heist-movie tropes are.

 

Far below that game, The Order: 1886 is also a cover shooter (on the rare occasion it is anything at all,) but Kane & Lynch 2 is doing a lot more that is unique, and some of it does work in among the stuff that doesn't - and has a full co-op and multiplayer attached, both of which would be great with a little more finessing, and so it beats The Order:1886 easily.

 

Between those games, it comes down to simple feel, and I'd rather do another playthrough of Lords of the Fallen than K&L2, but the same cannot be said of Freedom Wars, and so Kane & Lynch 2 finds its bloody, violent, pixelated spot right there!

 

 

 

 

L7ba99b.png

Observation

 

Summary: 

Observation is a unique experience - very odd, very original and - crucially - very good!
 
The game is almost a paradox in and of itself - in a sense it is a kind of 'anti-game'.
It's as if the premise was to create an experience where all the things the player usually does in a game will be non-interactive and controlled by the game, and all the things games usually do automatically will be interactive and controlled by the player.
 
You control SAM - an Artificial Intelligence on a space station, a-la HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Something has happened on the space station, and you have little info on what, why, or who is to blame. Your task is to help out the remaining astronauts and cosmonauts, primarily one female astronaut named Emma, and figure out what has happened as you rebuild your own memory core, and your links and controls of the various automated systems on the ship.
 
In terms of controls, that means switching between camera and interacting with systems and nodes, controlling remote free-moving camera pods at times (including some amazing looking outside-the-station spacewalk stuff -  and finding documents and such to allow you to interact with the various systems. 
 
Genre-wise, the game falls somewhere between an interactive movie, a photo hunt game, and a puzzler. I think it succeeds in all three categories.
 The story is well paced, well constructed, well thought out, and incredibly engaging from the very beginning. 
 The interactions feel good - with a good variety of input methods, satisfying feedback, cool aesthetics and some excellent sound design.
 The puzzles are simple but satisfying to figure out, and make contextual sense in the world.
 
Visually, developer No Code absolutely nail this one - there is a lot of post-processing to make the technology feel a certain way. If - like me - you have a love for older movies with 'retro-future-tech' (2001/ Bladerunner/ Alien) where the future is one as imagined from the point of view of a world still based on CRT TV's, cassette tapes and analogue cameras, you are in for a treat, but there is great art design behind that too.
For the first few minutes of the game - prior to seeing any modelled faces, I was actually unsure if what I was looking at was FMV or not - it's that smartly realistic. 
 
The game is less repeatable than many others, as the story has no branching paths - it is what it is, but what it is, is very good.
What it lacks in repeatability, it more than makes up for in style, originality, visuals and voice acting, and in some of the best sound design I've heard in a game in a very long time!

 

 

The Ranking:

The good story and excellent world-building - and admirable cohesion of a powerful and interesting aesthetic - are enough to carry this short but great game pretty far up the list of awesome.

Immediate comparison points on gameplay are a lost cause, given the fairly unique concept, however, SOMA, with its smart sci-fi story and more puzzle-focussed strain of gameplay is a rough comparison point. 


I think SOMA still holds its place against Observation - there is a little more to that game, and it nails the horror it aims for in a way few games manage - but Observation isn't aiming for that, and what it does is still very well executed.


A little lower, Dear Esther: Landmark Edition covers more of the 'limited gameplay / joy of a cohesive world' aspects that Observation also plays in, and as great as that game is, Observation holds its story together over a much longer experience, and has more gameplay meat on its bones.

 

In the end, Observation finds a spot between them - just below SOMA and Limbo's horror-puzzling greatness, and just above Dear Esther's majestic, poetic world-building.

 

 

 

L4c45d4.png

Pic-A-Pix Colour

 

Summary: 

Another Picross game in the Pic-A-Pix series, displaying the trademark workmanlike competence, but lack of flair we have come to expect.

 

Good, solid picross puzzles, (though this time around, of the multi-colour variety, which I find inherently less fun or 'pure' as the monochromatic ones on display in Pic-A-Pix Classic), and plenty of them - ensuring there is a wealth of puzzling for those down for the satisfying, mild cerebral challenge good Picross can bring.

 

Still suffers from the same inherent problems as Pic-A-Pix Classic - console controller is not the best input method for Picross, a wealth of better (and more portable) alternatives on iOS / Android (at cheaper price points), and a hint system that is laudable, though a little too open to cheesing.

 

 

The Ranking:

The coloured variety of Picross being slightly less personally favoured than 'pure' classic picross, Pic-A-Pix Colour fall below it's black-and-white brother - and is enough of a detriment to pull it below Clockwork Tales: Of Glass and Ink - but the game is still more fun than Gem Smashers, and so it finds its spot in the list.

 

 

 

 

L376d25.png

Welcome Park

 

Summary: 

Not so much a game as a user-interface demo, the PS Vita Welcome Park lives alongside obvious comparisons of Paint Park Plus and the PS4's The Playroom, though even in that company of 'not-really-a game' type games, Welcome Park is the most 'not-really-a-game' of the lot.

 

Essentially a very short collection of mini-games demonstrating the various inputs of the Vita, and given for free to all new owners. Most of the mini-games are barely games, more simple reflex tests used as demonstrations of the various touch inputs a Vita user will become familiar with on the console - presses back and front, swipes etc.

There is one - the snap & Slide puzzles - which is actually bizarrely difficult to earn the associated trophy in, but for the most part, this is a trophy set that will be knocked out first, and very quickly by any trophy hunting new vita owner.

 

The package is fairly slickly produced, including some nice - if a little unnecessary - intros, but where The Playroom went above and beyond the call - actually crafting genuinely serviceable (if simple) games to demonstrate the concepts it was a tutorial for - and included a butt-load of personality, up to, and including the creation of a number of 'characters' who would go on the endure beyond that one game (Asobi and the AstroBots) -  here, it genuinely just feels like playing the first page of an electronic instruction manual.

 

Fine for what it is, but there's no enduring game here - I cracked out The Playroom a number of times for my son when he was little, and he had a ton of fun with the on-screen robots - that's the power of a good tech demo - it made learning the inputs a fun time in and of itself. 


Here, all we is the required instructions, and nothing more.

 

The Ranking:

Falls below Paint Park Plus, as there is no allowance for creativity.


Less enjoyable game here than even The Mystery of Little Riddle, and a missed opportunity to have a little more creativity than even that game. 

 

Still ranks above the two ultra-stinkers in Watchman: The End is Nigh and Kick-Ass: The Game though, as I would still vastly prefer playing a few Snap & Slide puzzles than touch either of those games again.

 

 

 

Lc70321.png

White Night

 

Summary: 

A super-stylised, 3rd-Person, Fixed-angle, Detective Noir Puzzle-Horror game, White Night is a game that knows what its biggest strength is - it's art-style - and leans into that completely - for better or for worse.

 

Let's not play around here, it needs to be stated right at the top of this review - this game looks great. The almost complete monochromatic art-style is shockingly good to look at. At virtually any point in this game, a screenshot will look like a caption from any of the best noir comic books.

This style is not just for show either - darkness and light are the defining factors in virtually every aspect of the gameplay too - as the unnamed protagonist navigates the old mansion he has stumbled into, light is his only defence against the creatures that haunt it. Electric lights will banish them, but absent that, matches are all he has to stave off the suffocating dark, and with them being a finite resource, light management provides the majority of the games' gameplay - and darkness its principal antagonist. 

 

The haunting spectres that dwell in the dark are pretty well done - their scary designs benefitting from the shroud of darkness they live in in much the same way as the alien in the movie Alien did - you see little of them, and so they are mysterious and terrifying. The relative smallness of the mansion and the simplistic nature of the puzzles is also helped - when simply navigating is difficult, it takes little in the way of additional obstacles to make the game feel claustrophobic and scary to stand still in.

 

The game has some issues though. Since there is no way to counter the enemies, and not even any effective way to hide, (as in similarly weaponless games like Amnesia or Outlast,) it means that being spotted - if not in the immediate vicinity of a light source, is pretty much always deadly. This means there a bit of a problem of repetition. Dying once in an area is scary, but dying several times becomes a chore. This is compounded by the lack of any modern saving - there is no autosave as far as I can tell - all saving is done manually at set points.

This means in a game like this with set camera angles, and a lack of visibility as a selling point, tricky section where solving a puzzle requires running into and out of danger is heavily reliant on memorisation of a rooms' layout - something only really possible by failing several times first. That has the effect of lessening the scares to mere irritations in a quest to move forward, than the creeping tension aimed for.

 

The game's story is okay - not much plot-wise, but the writers do a decent job of sticking to the hard-boiled, pulpy noir tropes - a genre I like - though while they get the Raymond Chandler-esque dialogue mostly right (if occasionally a bit ropey or laboured), it works less well without a twisty-turny plot to drive it.

 

Also, for all that the game remains great to look at throughout, the puzzles and the small irritations do compound, and without the story improving to compensate the game starts to drag in the back half, and limp by the end.

 

Not bad at all overall - fairly standard gameplay-wise, and pretty forgettable narratively, but full of style, very interesting, and - seriously - look up some screenshots. 
The game has got a fucking look down cold!

 

The Ranking:

In terms of horror-lite games, this one does better than pixel-art horror game Claire - weaker on the story perhaps, but better in the gameplay and light-years ahead on style.

 

In terms of heavily stylised games with a signature look as their primary driving force, I think Beyond Eyes still has an edge over White Night though, so we are looking at a spot somewhere in between.

 

In the end, finds a spot just below humorous nonsense RPG Deathspank, but above Joe Danger, who personality and short, repeatable game have trouble going against a game with such a unique signature style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

 

Thanks to @Copanele for putting in a request - hope my review is acceptable, or at least sufficiently explanatory if not!

 

Prey remains immovable for the moment, as the 'Current Most Awesome Game',

 

...and even barely-a-game Welcome Park is more of a game than actual, but terrible, game Kick Ass: The Game, which would have a more appropriate name if they dropped the first word in it!

 

 

 

What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the glory... or the ignominity?

 

That's up to randomness, me.... and YOU!

 

Remember:

 

 

 

 

1f6a8.png1f6a8.pngSPECIAL NOTE1f6a8.png1f6a8.png

 

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'! 1f913.png

 

The only stipulation is that they must be on my profile, at 100% (S-Rank)....

 and aren't already on the Rankings! 263a.png

 

 

 

 

Catch y'all later my Scientific Brothers and Sisters! 262e.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was gonna register a multiple post, Jak 2-esque complaint in defense of gta4, but I just don't have the energy (and the outrage would be entirely fictional anyway).

Definitely fair, and the online stuff for the plat deserves all the evisceration it gets - I finished it (story, not achievements!) on my 360 and from a trophy hunter perspective I'm not sure I want to bother on my ps3... in spite of actually physically owning it! Regardless, I will always have a soft spot for that game as a whole?

Also your review of Brothers has seen it join my to-play list. I'm lovin this, you're like a gaming version of 'Eat This, Not That!'

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...