DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, Infected Elite said:

Also... ugh. Resistance 1 and 2. omg. so good. 3.... not so much. But id love to see this series come back. 

 

I'm one of those perverts that actually didn't care much for 2, but really like 3 - though I fully acknowledge that it's harder for me to be objective, as I played 3 entirely with the good lady, and she, for whatever reason, really connected with 3 in a way she didn't with 1.

(I only played 2 co-op at a friends house, and it wasn't really set up for 2 people, so the co-op was absurdly difficult with just 2, think it was designed for online co-op with 4-6 people?)

 

I think her loving 3 so much made it a joy to play together, so it probably benefits by having some of her delight rub off on me - it's much easier to love a game if you are playing with someone else who loves it!

Edited June 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Infected Elite]

5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I'm one of those perverts that actually didn't care much for 2, but really like 3 - though I fully acknowledge that it's harder for me to be objective, as I played 3 entirely with the good lady, and she, for whatever reason, really connected with 3 in a way she didn't with 1.

(I only played 2 co-op at a friends house, and it wasn't really set up for 2 people, so the co-op was absurdly difficult with just 2, think it was designed for online co-op with 4-6 people?)

 

I think her loving 3 so much made it a joy to play together, so it probably benefits by having some of her delight rub off on me - it's much easier to love a game if you are playing with someone else who loves it!

 

its been so long since i played 3, i just remember the MC of 1 and 2 was barely mentioned and they tried to go a new route.

 

I'm a sucker for trilogy packs but i hate when they're digital. So if they released them eventually as a remaster, id hope its a physical release 

[YaManSmevz]

Proud to be a science chum!

 

Nailed it with A Way Out. Charming if you loved Escape From Alcatraz and Shawshank Redemption but even then at some point you'll have to cede that it's one cliche after another. If you're fortunate enough to have a gamer friend who loves corny nonsense though, you'll be in great shape!

[GraniteSnake]

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

adding a variety of new maps. While none of the new ones felt like they quite hit me in the way Modern Warfare's did, that may be more about the amount I personally played. I never played this one long enough to 'prestige' - something I had done several times on the original Modern Warfare.

Interesting. I’m the exact opposite. I didn’t touch the original MW until long after MW2, so none of it’s maps stood out for me. MW2’s maps will always be king for me.. quick-scope 1v1’s in Rust, Mike Myers in Skidrow, trick-shots on Highrise.. the amount of hours spent on those maps alone will see them forever ingrained into my brain!

 

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

The only CoD game to truly get its multiplayer hooks into me after Modern Warfare was Black Ops.)

Black Ops multiplayer was fantastic. The introduction of Nuketown, probably the most recognisable map for any CoD fan. Playing Black Ops Declassified this year and hearing the menu music brought back some great memories...

 

 

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Spec Ops is where Modern Warfare 2 truly shines though. Playing along with my co-op buddy (and real life friend) was great across the board

I loved Spec Ops, so much so that I got 69 stars twice on two different accounts. I think it’s such a shame these weren’t featured in the MW2 remaster! Would’ve been a day one purchase for me, campaign alone isn’t enough to bring me back..

 

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It is a concept that, while simple on paper, is impressive to see, and affords a game that was already the more tactical of the two, a level of combat strategy that blows Modern Warfare 2's point-and-shoot-and-fastest-trigger-wins combat model into smithereens.

? Love your use of words here. Do you remember if you boosted those 20 demolition kills or if you did them legit? (Where you had to crumble a house with an enemy inside) I’m pretty sure I got most of them legit.. I’ll tell you I’ve never been more frustrated playing an online multiplayer then I was while playing this game. I used to properly rage!

 

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

featuring multiple fronts, vehicles, much longer gaps between deaths, and a focus on staying alive, rather than simply racking up kills quickly.

Bad Company 2’s multiplayer was so much more tactical in comparison to CoD’s. Huge maps, full of chaos. I had a great time with it, playing a lot more than just what the trophy list had to offer!

 

As always, fantastic reviews. It baffles me how you’re able to write such well-fleshed out reviews on games you’ve played many years ago. Do you watch a review or gameplay clips or anything before you do these or is it entirely off the top of you head? I’d struggle to write a paragraph on a game I played last year ? I guess I should’ve read more books while growing up, my English teacher used to always advise me to do so ?

Edited June 3, 2021 by GraniteSnake

[DrBloodmoney]

41 minutes ago, GraniteSnake said:

Interesting. I’m the exact opposite. I didn’t touch the original MW until long after MW2, so none of it’s maps stood out for me. MW2’s maps will always be king for me.. quick-scope 1v1’s in Rust, Mike Myers in Skidrow, trick-shots on Highrise.. the amount of hours spent on those maps alone will see them forever ingrained into my brain!

 

Yeah, I'd imagine there is always going to be a bit of the old "Mario Kart Effect' with CoD maps - the first one you play is always the one you love most!

 

 

Quote

Black Ops multiplayer was fantastic. The introduction of Nuketown, probably the most recognisable map for any CoD fan. Playing Black Ops Declassified this year and hearing the menu music brought back some great memories...

 

Yeah, Black Opps I though was relatively good in its campaign, but I really loved the map set in multiplayer - it also had the added bonus of playing split-screen in the multiplayer - something I don't think any of the others offered that I played. Good times!

 

 

Quote

I loved Spec Ops, so much so that I got 69 stars twice on two different accounts. I think it’s such a shame these weren’t featured in the MW2 remaster! Would’ve been a day one purchase for me, campaign alone isn’t enough to bring me back..

 

I didn't actually realise it was gone in the remaster - that's a damned shame.

 

Quote

 

 Love your use of words here. Do you remember if you boosted those 20 demolition kills or if you did them legit? (Where you had to crumble a house with an enemy inside) I’m pretty sure I got most of them legit.. I’ll tell you I’ve never been more frustrated playing an online multiplayer then I was while playing this game. I used to properly rage!

 

I honestly can't remember if I did, but my gut tells me, even if I did, I would have likely got it legit anyways, as I ended up playing a lot of that multiplayer - particularly the Vietnam stuff.

 

Quote

As always, fantastic reviews. It baffles me how you’re able to write such well-fleshed out reviews on games you’ve played many years ago. Do you watch a review or gameplay clips or anything before you do these or is it entirely off the top of you head?

 

Bit of everything really - for some recent games, it's all just what I remember, for some, I have a quick glance at my old posts on here, or watch some gameplay reviews from the time (though I do so with the sound down, as I don't want to end up plagiarising someone else's take on a game!), and for some, if I still have a copy (mostly digital stuff) I will load it up and have a quick blast on the game again to remind myself.  

For most, I at least have a look at the Wikipedia article for plot stuff and character names - even if I do remember - just to make sure I'm right on the factual stuff.

The biggest issue with doing these in batches of 10 is that the posts are so long that the forum software won't let me edit them after the fact, so I don't want to say something that is just factually incorrect, and unable to fix it when someone (inevitably) points it out! ?

 

To be honest though, I'm not really trying to be exhaustive in these reviews - I'm certainly not breaking them down into categories like Graphics, Art, Gameplay, Sound etc and trying to hit every beat for every game, and compare 1-2-1

The stuff that I think is most important is the stuff that was most memorable, so whatever I do recall of a game is the most pertinent stuff I try to always include.

I guess I figure if something stuck in my mind for 10 years, then it is something that needs to be a factor!

 

I definitely do have one of those memories that is very good for entertainment media though. Pity it doesn't extend to real life ?

Ask me the plot and the actors in a film I saw 20 years ago, and I can probably remember most of it, and can likely quote you a line or two...

...but ask me what I ate for breakfast, or whether I sent that letter yesterday, or what my wife told me to do 4 minutes ago, and I draw a blank?

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[DrBloodmoney]

 

⚛️!!SCIENCE UPDATE!!⚛️

 

 

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

 

 

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation
Colour Guardians
Fallout: New Vegas
Hue
Little Nightmares II
Lost Grimoires: Stolen Kingdom
Mortal Shell 
One Night Stand 
Prince of Persia: Warrior Within
This War of Mine: The Little Ones

 

 

 

Subjects in RED marked for ❎PRIORITY ASSIGNEMENT❎

[Care of  @Arcesius & @Copanele ]

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Let's find out!

Edited June 4, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[JoesusHCrust]

I've been without my laptop for a few weeks so it's taken me a while to catch up with this thread. I'm really enjoying reading your reviews which are very well written. There are of course a few things that I disagree with, but only one real bugbear of mine that I have to mention!

 

In your 'quarter way there review' you mention 'open world RPGs' and then list 'HZD' and 'Shadow of the Collosus' etc. I know it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but I don't like how 'watered down' the definition of 'RPG' has become. Back in my day, and RPG was something like Morrowind or Baldur's gate - deep character customisation, huge worlds to explore, hundreds of different skills and abilities to learn. Nowadays it's any sandbox with some rudimentary skill progression tree! Bah humbug! 

 

On Fallout 3, I've often read about the myriad technical issues with this game (and Oblivion, and Fallout 4, and Skyrim) but have never noticed it. I've played this game to death over hundreds and hundreds of hours and have never noticed any particular technical issue (same with the other big Bethesda RPGs). I love Bethesda RPGs so much though, that maybe I'm just blind to their flaws (or I've been incredibly lucky). 

 

Looking through your list of 'S ranks', there's quite a few games I'd like to see you review but I'll stick to just two! 

 

Return of the Obra Dinn and Skyrim. 

 

You must agree, being a fellow man of science that RotOD is an absolutely fantastic game! I'm interested to see just how fantastic proper scientific scrutiny proves it to be. 

 

Skyrim might be the weakest of the Behtesda RPGs, but it's still a great game. I don't expect it to get to the top of the pile, but can it beat the three Fallouts on your list? (no, all three are much better!).

 

Thanks again for doing these! 

 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

6 hours ago, JoesusHCrust said:

I've been without my laptop for a few weeks so it's taken me a while to catch up with this thread. I'm really enjoying reading your reviews which are very well written. There are of course a few things that I disagree with, but only one real bugbear of mine that I have to mention!

 

In your 'quarter way there review' you mention 'open world RPGs' and then list 'HZD' and 'Shadow of the Collosus' etc. I know it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but I don't like how 'watered down' the definition of 'RPG' has become. Back in my day, and RPG was something like Morrowind or Baldur's gate - deep character customisation, huge worlds to explore, hundreds of different skills and abilities to learn. Nowadays it's any sandbox with some rudimentary skill progression tree! Bah humbug! 

 

Haha, yeah, congrats on being the first person to mention this - I can't say I didn't expect it! ?

 

So, with the likes of Horizon (and Assassin's Creed games I think fall in this same camp,) I would call them RPG's, but only in the sense that I think that is the closest genre to them, not because I think they fall squarely in it. They are really most often considered 'Triple-A Action' games, but I dislike using that term, for two reasons. 

 

Firstly, I dislike using 'AAA' as a term, for pretty much the same reason you take issue with the term 'RPG' - it has no actual meaning anymore.

'Triple A' (and 'Double A', 'B-Game' etc.)  are actually marketing terms, having to do with the percentage of marketing spend as compared to development budget, but have been so often misused that they have lost all meaning, and have become simply a dumb-ass shorthand for 'any non-indie game'.

(In fact, even the term 'Indie Game' has started to suffer the same fate, as it has become shorthand for 'Small' or 'Interesting' or 'Niche'. It's ridiculous to think that something like Child of Light or Valiant Hearts (both of which were in-house Ubisoft developed games) get called 'Indie', and yet Mortal Shell, which was made by a tiny team independently and then found a publisher, seems to often get mistakenly called a 'AA Game' ?

 

Also, 'Action' as a genre term is far to broad to have any really meaning - given that essentially all games that are not turn-based are, in some sense, 'action' games.

 

(Also, don't even get me started on how some people use the term 'Adventure' in games. Adventure games are point and click, Lucas Arts / Sierra type games. End of. If we start using 'Adventure' as a genre by simply using the dictionary definition of the word 'adventure' as opposed to its gaming specific context, then virtually every game ever made is an 'adventure game' - given that you are almost always on some kind of 'adventure! 

Any genre where Uncharted shares a platform with Bioshock, or Assassin's Creed with Broken Sword, or Tomb Raider with The Walking dead is clearly so broad as to be inconsequential!

 

I admit, if someone was looking for some recommendations, and told me they loved RPG's, I wouldn't think to recommend Horizon or AC games, but if forced to categorise them, I think they fall at the outer edge of the RPG Venn Diagram - they have long stories, progression mechanics, loot, missions etc. In terms of seeing a visible line from old RPGs of the 16bit era, yes, they are a far cry from Final Fantasy or Chronotrigger, but I would argue there is a fairly visible (if slightly faded and convoluted) line from something like Secret of Mana or The Legend of Zelda - the more real-time action RPGs.

 

 

Shadow of the Colossus is more of a special case, and more an extrapolation of what I said above. Absolutely nowhere in the actual review, would I call it an RPG - it is, by design - essentially genre defying. It has hallmarks of many genres, but doesn't really meet any of them, but given that I consider Horizon and AC to be tangential RPGs (at least for that simple, derivative genre classification,) SotC has to then fall in the same camp, by virtue of being closest in genre to those games, even though it is a couple further steps removed from the 'core' of what an RPG used to mean.

 

 

 

Quote

On Fallout 3, I've often read about the myriad technical issues with this game (and Oblivion, and Fallout 4, and Skyrim) but have never noticed it. I've played this game to death over hundreds and hundreds of hours and have never noticed any particular technical issue (same with the other big Bethesda RPGs). I love Bethesda RPGs so much though, that maybe I'm just blind to their flaws (or I've been incredibly lucky). 

 

You have certainly been lucky I think. I am a big fan of the Bethesda stuff, as my review probably shows, but I have had endless run-ins with the bugs and the issues. I can accept them (well, tolerate them, I wouldn't say I accept them!) in service of the great aspects of the games, but I can't ignore them in a review - they have been too pervasive and anchoring in my experiences not to.

 

 

 

Quote

Looking through your list of 'S ranks', there's quite a few games I'd like to see you review but I'll stick to just two! 

 

Return of the Obra Dinn and Skyrim. 

 

Absolutely mate - I will flag them for priority ranking post-haste! ☺️?

 

Quote

Thanks again for doing these!

 

Thank you for reading and following along  ?

Edited June 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[JoesusHCrust]

6 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

...........RPGs..........

Great response. In your defence, 'RPG' is the term used by Sony to describe these games so you are only following established norms. I agree that 'AAA, Action and Adventure' are useless terms. 

 

Just out of interest....... when I was a lad, there used to be this term 'sandbox' that was used to describe games like AC, Far Cry etc. but you don't see it used so much any more. What do you think of that term? 

Edited June 7, 2021 by JoesusHCrust

[DrBloodmoney]

1 hour ago, JoesusHCrust said:

Great response. In your defence, 'RPG' is the term used by Sony to describe these games so you are only following established norms.

 

Just out of interest....... when I was a lad, there used to be this term 'sandbox' that was used to describe games like AC, Far Cry etc. but you don't see it used so much any more. What do you think of that term? 

 

Huh...

... yeah, I guess you're right, 'Sandbox' was what folks tended to call things like GTA3 and AC etc. back in the day, but yeah... it seems to have fallen out of favour a bit.

 

Most recently, I tend to hear that more in the context of games like Hitman - games where the 'box' (level) is smaller, but the player is simply given a discrete task, and can accomplish it any way they choose - more like literally playing in a sandbox - or games like Minecraft or Roblox - games where creativity is more the driving force than simply a mission-based structure in a open world.

 

I wonder if the slight modification of the meaning has less to do with the term actually changing, and more to do with the types of games on offer?

 

10-15 years ago, games like Horizon, AC and GTA were the games offering the most freedom to play as you wanted, but now, they are positively prescriptive as compared to something like Minecraft or modern Hitman.

Nowadays, with more power behind the games on a technical level, it's possible to offer much more 'true' freedom, and so there is more of a distinction between open-world, mission-based games and true 'sandbox' gaming - so I guess the term has just followed one strand and abandoned the other. 

 

That's a good point though - funny that there really hasn't been a new term sprouted to describe the strain of games that were left behind when 'Sandbox' went, well... full 'Sandbox' ?

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ??

 

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

 

 

 

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation

 

Summary: 

Released in parallel to the bigger Assassin's Creed III on PS3, one-time PS Vita exclusive Assassin's Creed III: Liberation was not the first foray into the handheld sphere for the franchise (the decidedly lacklustre Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines had previously appeared on PSP 3 years prior, to absolutely no fanfare,) but it was certainly the most successfully implemented.

The game acts as an alternative, complimentary story, taking place in the same time frame as its bigger brother, but relocating the action from Boston and New York, to New Orleans and the Louisiana Bayou.

 

Story-wise the game is operating - as in most aspects - on a significantly smaller scale than ACIII, but is markedly more interesting and successful. By telling a smaller, less historically entwined tale, the narrative is more free to go where the developer wants to take it, and is not as shackled by the anchor of 'true' know historical events.
The game follows African-French Assassin Aveline de Grandpré, during a time of upheaval New Orleans, as the city makes an uneasy transition from French colonial rule to Spanish at the tail end of the French and Indian War, and leading into the American War of Independence. 

 

The story is fairly winding and interesting one in terms of plot, involving Aveline working to scupper a Templar plan to control the economic and social side of New Orleans, and is relatively well told, if a little unevenly paced. That is not dissimilar, in some sense, to ACII's story, but there is a crucial difference - Avaline herself.

The franchise's first female protagonist, Avaline is - in stark contrast to Connor of ACIII fame - an extremely interesting and nuanced character, straddling the lines between privilege and outcast. As the daughter of wealth, she has grown up enjoying a freedom that few of her skin colour are afforded, but maintains an acute awareness of that fact, and in a city where black slave labour is the norm, has a somewhat unique duality to her point of view. Like Conner, she has a certain 'one-foot-in-each-world' aspect, but unlike Conner, her character is written to use this duality as the basis for an interesting personality, rather than as a substitute for one. She is a protagonist I would rank high on the charts of good AC protagonists, and I would gladly see her used in any future game - the same cannot be said for Connor.

 

In terms of gameplay, Liberation clearly learned from the mistakes AC: Bloodlines made in transitioning to handheld. Where Bloodlines simply transposed the AC mechanics to the PSP wholesale, then suffered appallingly for the massive required reductions in things like draw distance, graphics, crowd size and variety of art required to fit such a game on so much lesser a system, Liberation opts instead to modify the core game at a conceptual level, offsetting the necessary reductions in certain areas by adding unique aspects.
Yes, there is a very visible decrease in graphical prowess, both in the wider game and in the cutscenes, and yes, combat and movement have been slowed down and simplified to allow for the reduced capacity of the Vita as compared to the PS3, but the game adds some distinct elements that change the fundamentals in a way that attempts to alleviate a lot of these compromises. 

 

As the daughter of two worlds, Avaline is given the ability to change her guise to one of three distinct 'forms' - the 'Assassin' guise, most notably 'of the franchise', a 'slave' guise - which allows her the ability to fight on a lesser scale, but to blend much more easily given the guards lack of interest in even seeing the slaves as people at all,  and a 'Lady' guise, playing into her family name and wealth, which does not allow open combat, but affords the ability to 'charm' guards, and is virtually immune from the reproach of the law - provided no obvious illegalities are witnessed.

It is an interesting concept, and one that allows the missions in the game, (generally smaller and less involved than those of the big-boy console AC games,) to be broken out into a much wider variety of actions and requirements than a single persona would. Each 'persona' has its own set of collectibles in the world, its own set of side quests, and its own story critical uses - as well as functioning as the principal lens through which the games writers can comment somewhat on the hypocrisy of the times, and the cultural biases the game is skewering in its themes.

 

All this being said though, there are some issues presented by the 'persona's' model. As interesting as they are, the inclusion of 3 sets of collectibles, and them being persona-specific, does give rise to a bit of collectible fatigue. Nothing on the preposterous level of ACIII, but it can still be a bit grating - particularly when it comes the the 'Lady" persona, who's inability to climb or run, or really do anything fun outside of the main story path, means negotiating the city in that costume is just not much fun.

 

There is also a bit of a problem with regards to the scaled down combat - in order to let the Vita keep up, the already simple combat of AC has been slowed down so drastically, that it is essentially like playing the world's easiest rhythm game - simply countering the same single-enemy attack animation over and over, with them all moving as if underwater, and waiting their turn patiently until each of their friends is slaughtered to swing their sword - very slowly- towards Aveline. the controls of the game are pretty well done for free-running and movement, but again, the game runs at a markedly slower pace than other AC games, and playing it after playing other ones, it does suffer for that.

 

It's also worth noting the 'multiplayer' game, which was simply dreadful - a very very basic trading and ship battle system, essentially similar to top-trumps, but for some reason, filled with a lot of the same tropes as micro-transactional phone games of the time. The less said about it the better, as it was utterly woeful.

 

Musically and auditorially, the game is pretty flat, and while it is technically impressive in some spots, given the platform, it has some of the same issues something like Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Killzone Mercenary and Resistance: Burning Skies had. While they might be impressive as compared to other hand-held fare, by being the sole handheld offerings in primarily home-console franchises, they invite comparison with the other games in their franchise, rather than their platform.

Each, of course, pales in comparison by technical achievement, scale and grandeur.

 

Overall, ACIII: Liberation is an interesting and fairly well implemented Vita offering for the franchise - markedly better in tone, narrative, (and protagonist,) than its bigger brother game ACIII, but judged on it's own merits, it is still a game a little too simplified and technically chunky to compete with the best of the series. 

 

The Ranking:

Better and much more interesting than ACIII, but still not up to the level of ACII, we find ourselves somewhere in the (significant) gulf between the two - though still far closer to ACIII than ACII.

 

In terms of 3D action games, I think ACIII: Liberation does enough with its narrative and variety of gameplay to outdo what Lollipop Chainsaw does, but not enough to out-do Hitman: Absolution, so that narrows it a little further. 

 

In the end, I think Liberation is doing enough well to outdo interesting but simple Type:Rider, but there is enough great puzzles and cool narrative in The Spectrum Retreat to fend it off, and so it finds its spot just below that game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colour Guardians

 

Summary: 

A 3-lane, level-based auto-runner with a simple but fun, child-friendly aesthetic, Colour Guardians has some challenge, and enough limited charm to keep the player on their toes and interested over the course of its 12-15 hour length, but only just.

 

The game is made up of discrete levels, each around 2-4 minutes in length, and involves 'switching' a character between 3 colours, in order to collect items and / attack or avoid obstacles of corresponding colours, running along a 3-lane track. The primary colours aesthetic and lane-based levels evoke the distinct feeling of running sideways along a Guitar Hero track, and that comparison is somewhat apt, as success in the game is often down as much to finely tuned rhythm than picking the 'correct' or optimum lane to switch to.

 

The story is minimal, and has the feeling of playing a tie-in game to a children's television show or lower-grade movie, though I'm fairly sure that isn't the case. In some sense that feeling is an echo of the one I felt with LEGO: Legend of Chima - it dabbles in the evocation of a wider narrative as a baseline, but only in the same way that the pilot of a children's TV show will start by creating a sense that it has been there the whole time, and you are just discovering it midway through, as a way to make kids feel more at home.

The game skirts the line of 'relatively tricky at times', but never veers into out and out difficult, except, for some reason, in the final boss encounter which seems to veer so wildly off the difficulty curve the rest of the game sits on, that I genuinely question if it was deliberate, or the result of a bug.

 

The game is relatively fun as auto-runners go (and runs fairly smoothly on Vita, despite some lengthly load times bogging down the playthrough,) but unlike some more involved entries in the genre, Colour Guardians suffers a little in repeatability, given that each level has a very defined and clear 'correct' path through each level. 
Once that 'correct' path has been found, and a level completed to the fullest extent, (generally achievable in 2 or 3 tries,) there is very little reason to return to it.

 

All in all, a worthy entry in the genre, though not one with much to draw repeat play, or offer the kind of challenge some in its genre can offer. The story is simple, and the characters cute (if a little lacking in personality) and the game is good fare for the younger-gamers - it isn't going to be out of the league of tweenagers in terms of challenge, but won't patronise them either. 
I do suspect that any gaming dads who give it to their kids will though, eventually, have the Vita thrust into their hands when it comes to the final boss, with a "You do this bit" - and I'd wager they will be as confounded as I was by how almost broken the difficulty feels on that specific level!

 

 

The Ranking:

The only other auto-runner on the current list is Funk of Titans, but Colour Guardians is significantly better, if never out-and-out good.

Higher than that, previously mentioned LEGO: Legend of Chima is aimed at a similar age-group and demographic primarily, and also runs on Vita, but again, I think Colour Guardians has the edge on it, for a couple of reasons. Colour Guardians in in a smaller pool (It's easier to stand out in the field of auto-runners than in the puzzle-platformer genre, and frankly Legend of Chima doesn't even stand out in terms of LEGO games,) and Colour Guardians is more original in its aesthetic and story.

 

For the same reasons, I can say Colour Guardians moves up past The LEGO Movie: The Videogame.
It is, however, a closer fight there, and so it finds its spot just above that game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fallout: New Vegas

 

Summary: 

Fallout: New Vegas does a hell of thing in relation to its predecessor Fallout 3 - it manages to outdo it in every area: the good and the bad.

 

Like holding a magnifying glass over Fallout 3, virtually every notable part of that game is extended - the narrative is bigger and richer, the dialogue more varied and interesting, the main plot, (while a little smaller in scope,) is markedly more variable and filled with more meaningful choice-based differences... 
...and the broken aspects of the game, which were already alarmingly close to undermining the previous game, are even more broken and detrimental - finally reaching the point where even my (extremely forgiving) nature, could not accept them.

 

New Vegas, from Obsidian this time, as opposed to in house Bethesda, transposes the action from the East Coast area of Washington DC to the West Coast's Las Vegas, Nevada - an area affected differently in the Fallout lore. It took less of the brunt of the initial bombing and impact of the titular apocalypse that ended life as we knew it, but was still affected by the radiation and, even more so, the subsequent fall into inhumanity of the citizenry. 
It makes for a location a little more interesting to explore in some ways - more of the relics of the 'old world' remain, and that gives a level of curious interest in the past and an edge to exploration that was less of a focus in Fallout 3 - to the betterment of the game.

 

Obsidian are a natural fit for a sub-contracted developer in the franchise - they have their own flair for dialogue and choice-based games which meets, and can even eclipse Bethesda's, and while individual lines of dialogue are generally of a similar (high) quality to Fallout 3's fare, the overall plotting and longer, more involved 'faction' quest-lines are a marked step up. 
The inclusion of 'faction' elements to the series (only very broadly touched on in Fallout 3, with the Megaton / Tenpenny Tower type binary choice,) gives an overarching sense of place to the protagonists journey that was less a part of Fallout 3. 

 

In Fallout 3, realistically, most games - over the course of a long-term, completionist playthrough - would broadly coalesce into a similar vein - each character would be on roughy the same journey, and the choice between using Megaton or Tenpenny Tower as a 'home-base' essentially boiled the game down to a 'Paragon' or 'Renegade' type dichotomy. 
In New Vegas, however, the multitude of major and minor 'factions' - the New California Republic, Caesar's Legion, the Robert House, the Yes Man etc. - means there is a scope for playing entirely different playthroughs that feel markedly different each time.

 

It's a welcome change, and one that is complimented by the other major addition to the formula that Obsidian adds - Companions. 
The inclusion of companions is a great idea in concept (and one that Fallout 4 would continue, to much better success.) Having permanent characters to follow along with the protagonist, commenting on the story and the world around him/her is a natural, but brilliant addition to such a long and exploration-heavy game, and one that affords the game a level of minute-to-minute character that was flatter in Fallout 3, where the games personality required meeting stationary NPCs to shine through.
However, the inclusion here is marred - in a very extreme way - by the aforementioned faults in New Vegas from a technological point of view.

 

If Fallout 3 felt like it was bug-riddled, it ran like a dream in comparison to New Vegas. Be under no illusions, dear reader - this game is as broken as any full priced game I have ever bought on a console. The game is riddled with the same bugs present in its predecessor, but the increased scope highlights and amplifies them tenfold, and results in a final product that genuinely borders on unplayable.

 

As much as I loved the idea of using companions, and wanted to hear their dialogue etc. I generally found myself not bothering, as bringing one along inevitably meant the game, which chugged, hiccuped and stuttered its way along even going solo, would chunk and hard-lock with such dismal regularity, that it simply wan't worth doing so.

This game works fine on PC, but is simply not acceptable the way it runs on console - and came the closest any Fallout or Elder Scrolls game ever did to having me give up entirely.

The final battle of the game, taking place on a Hydro-electric dam and involving a large fire-fight, was - and I am not exaggerating here - like watching a motion comic. I did not time it, but I would be genuinely surprised if the frame-rate was higher than 2fps. It was entirely unplayable (in every instance - this was not a one-off, as I had to play it multiple times to get the trophies for different endings) and meant that the only way to progress through to see the end, was to ratchet the difficulty down to the lowest setting, and just hope I could suffer through and outlast the enemies I could barely see long enough to kill them, before the whole game hard-locked. It was an entirely miserable end to a game that had brought me a lot of joy in its story, and desperately disappointing. 

 

There is so much to love here - and having played the game on PC, I know it can be a great game when it runs well, but on PS3, it just doesn't. As forgiving as I am of technical hiccups, particularly when there is great stuff to be found in a game, in New Vegas they are beyond the pale. These are not mere hiccups, they are seizures, spasms and aneurysms - and my forgiveness and patience, while plentiful, are still finite.
 
It is one thing to have a game have minimal story - that I can deal with - but quite another to have one with a rich, fascinating story, yet be unable or unwilling to engage fully with it, as it is so technically incompetent that missing out on large chunks of narrative and dialogue is preferable to dealing with the technical faults.

 

 

The Ranking:

Another tough one to rank. While I think most of the good aspects of Fallout 3 are outdone by the good aspects of Fallout: New Vegas, that game's technical faults were manageable in a way this one's are not. I was irked and annoyed by those on show in Fallout 3, but it didn't change my actual interaction with the game - only my enjoyment of it. Here, I had to play a specific way - and miss out on a lot of stuff - just to get the game to run at all. That is a terrible thing.

 

While it might be better on paper, (and on PC,) on PS3, New Vegas just cannot be placed higher than Fallout 3. What is the benefit of improvement, after all, if you can't actually enjoy the fruits of that improvement?

 

These technical aspects keep weighing it down as it slips down the list, unable to get its shit together enough to beat games that should - theoretically - be left in its dust. Finally though, the game finds a foothold - in fellow Obsidian game Alpha Protocol. That game is broken in a similar way - if to a far lesser extent - however, its positive aspects are less of a high than New Vegas's. Both suffer from an "I need to play this specific way to deal with the technical issues" type problem, but in that case, I would argue Alpha Protocol is actually the worse offender. 

 

New Vegas has a wealth more interesting story, and more good aspects to keep a player bashing his/her head against - and for a much longer time - than Alpha Protocol does, and so it maintains its place above that game, in the rather unfortunate "what a game it might have been if it ran right" category.

 

 

 

 

 

Hue

 

Summary: 

Remember how I didn't like Dokuro much, despite really wanting to? 
How the art style and the concepts were right up my alley, and how, while I enjoy a puzzle game involving discrete puzzle rooms, where manipulation of objects and obstacles is key, and might have loved it if only the game wasn't so reliant on the actions of a flighty, rather suicidal NPC, if the boring combat was removed, and, most importantly, if the controls worked well?

Well, Hue feels like the antidote to all my Dokuro-flavoured misgivings.

 

A 2D, room-based puzzle-platformer (with the crank set almost all the way towards the 'puzzle' side of the genre,) Hue is a real treat on the Vita. It weaves a very simple story of a young boy on a quest to find his mother, into 10-12 hours of engaging, quirky, colour-based fun for all the Vita-wielding family.

 

The puzzle mechanic is - as in all good puzzlers - deceptively simple. Most of the objects, the environment, and our titular character, are in monochrome black silhouette. The background of the world is one of 8 colours, but so - crucially - are certain in world obstacles. Through use of a (slowly increasing) set of colours on a colour-wheel, the player can switch the background colour using a quick flick of the right analogue stick. 
The trick? Any object in the world that is the same colour as the background currently is, ceases to be visible, and therefore ceases to exist.

That might sound like it isn't enough to base a whole game on, but if the great puzzle games have proven anything, it's that it isn't about how complex your mechanic is, it's how you use it that counts. In Hue, it is used very well. 

A red boulder rolling at you doesn't exist as long as you flip the world to red. 
Those blue spikes don't exist in a blue word. 
That orange box with the green balloon tied to it? Well, it'll fall down quick in a green world, but will float in a red one, or simply vanish in an orange one.

The concept is solid, and can get remarkably tricky in later levels, though Hue has been crafted - pretty expertly - to never delve so far into the realms of challenge that guide use becomes a necessity.

 It also controls and moves very nicely and fluidly, with a precision befitting the puzzles themselves. In stark contrast to Dokuro, I never once felt like I knew the solution but couldn't quite make it work - once I realised the solution, acting on it was second nature and a pleasure. 
That might feel like a small luxury - and it should be - but it is surprising how many puzzle games fail at that hurdle. Puzzle games, more than any other genre I would argue, require crisp, clean, confident controls. The player should never be in doubt as to whether something is mechanically possible, because if they are, then they cannot be confident in whether they have arrived at the correct solution.

 

Happily, by the time Hue reached the later, tougher levels, it had instilled a level of confidence in me that I was able to simply approach the puzzles as puzzles, knowing that the action would be fair, and when I found the intended solution, acting on it would be second nature.

 

There is on minor, but notable, issue with the controls, namely, that the colour wheel changing can a touch finicky. In later levels, where multiple 'quick-switches' are required with more precise timing, and the full 8-colour wheel is in play, hitting the wrong colour at the wrong time could occasionally be an issue. It is alleviated somewhat by the world slowing down drastically during colour-switching, but it is just a slow-down, not a stop, and so there is still a requirement for a level of speed that sometimes makes accuracy an issue. (It's worth noting, while I played this only on Vita, it is also available on PS4. I have a hunch this issue would be less problematic with the larger, less fiddly analogue stick of a DualShock than it is on the shorter-throw, quicker-'bounce-back' Vita stick.)

 

Still though, even despite this occasional annoyance, I still had a great time with this little slice of puzzling fare. It has plenty to keep a player going, including some collectibles that encourage exploration and repeatability (and lent a clever twist with the colour-switching mechanic themselves.) 
Admittedly, there isn't too much to bring a player back beyond that - as with most puzzle games, once the solution is found, replays are reliant on you forgetting them, but that is more a pitfall of the genre than this specific game.

 

It's not too easy, but not too hard, simple, but deceptively clever, and stylish and whimsical and charming as all hell to boot.

 

 

The Ranking:

As is probably clear, comparison point Dokuro is left lingering so far behind in Hue's multicoloured dust that it might as well have switched the colours and made Dokuro invisible!

Hue storms up past other puzzle games like EA's lacklustre Tetris offering, past excellent 3D puzzler Cuboid, and even outdoes 3D First Person Puzzler Q.U.B.E: Directors Cut, but where it finally meets its match is in The Spectrum Retreat. 

 

While The Spectrum Retreat has fewer puzzles, they are equally well balanced in terms of challenge, (and also, curiously, also dabbling in similar colour-switching mechanics,) however, The Spectrum Retreat also has another side to it - a very good mystery and narrative element, that compliments the puzzles. 
Hue doesn't feel lacking for the absence of a great story, but in competition with a game that offers a lot of the same good puzzling fare, and has one on top? 
That becomes a blocker, and so Hue finds a spot just below that game.

 

 

 

 

 

Little Nightmares II

 

Summary: 

In following up the incredibly effective and macabre Little Nightmares, Tarsier studio doesn't stray particularly far from the formula that made the first game great. 

 

Little Nightmares II is a second chapter (or a first chapter I suppose, given that it is a prequel) in a series where tone, tenor, gameplay and - notably - length are already established.
Rather than going the 'bigger, longer, more fleshed-out' route often taken by sequels to wildly popular, but short, games - sometimes for good (Portal 2 for example,) and sometimes for ill (Hotline Miami 2,) Tarsier seems to clearly understand, (correctly,) that Little Nightmares is a dish better served as a rich, flavourful morsel than a huge meal. 

Like the first game, there is remarkably little filler - each puzzle is unique, and each location used for a singular purpose, and then moved on from, and at no point does the player fall into the 'puzzle game fatigue' of having figured out the gist of a particular puzzle type, and having to slog through repetitions within a set to progress to the next one.

The game follows a new protagonist - Mono - as he traverses first a forrest, and then a city of demonically, delightfully sinister (and oversized) adults (as well as some more nefarious children,) meeting and befriending a young girl (spoiler - a rather familiar one for series veterans!) along the way.

 

For the most part, there is little changed in the control scheme of flavour of the game - though the addition of an NPC companion does allow for some new puzzle variants, and gives a little more character to the interaction with the world. The girl does not act with gameplay-critical agency on her own, but does have personality, and does not cause any frustrating issues of hindering the player. 
In terms of game impact, she falls somewhere between Yorda from Ico, and the non-player companions in the Last of Us games - present, available for hailing should she be required, but generally free to do her own thing, and does not ever hold the player back. Occasionally the inclusion of the girl does break the immersion somewhat - where Mono is hiding carefully from an enemy, and her AI walks her straight past their eye-line as it tries to get her to an appropriate hiding spot, but that is, of course, preferable to such instances actually causing the enemy to become alerted and impacting the player experience beyond the aesthetic or superficial.

 

There is also a slight change in gameplay, in the sense that Mono is capable of wielding some rudimentary weapons (a hammer for example,) in some limited sections where fighting other children is necessary. In these cases, I think the addition does the game a disservice. While never used so much as to be significant, the combat is very tricky to aim correctly, and the very long attack animation - while certainly increasing tension and befitting Mono's size and strength wielding a too-heavy weapon - can be a downer. Failing at the same section several times, due to not quite timing or aiming the same hammer swing at the same enemy does break the creepy illusions a little, and make the game feel more mechanical than it does when simply exploring, sneaking, running and hiding.

 

In terms of sound and gameplay, the game is on par with the already very high quality original game, and visually, it surpasses it. The art design is uniformly breathtaking, and aspects such as lighting, textures and water / wet surface effects and reflections are far above those on show in the first game. They give the diorama world a gorgeous, sumptuously dank and dismal look.

Story-wise, the game plays in the same no-text, all-tone sandbox as the first game, this time aiming more at the themes of lethargy, hopelessness and sloth with it's brilliantly designed enemies (who desperately seek conformity and uniformity, and are hypnotised by the drone of television sets,) as opposed to the themes of greed, gluttony and power aimed at with the enemies of Little Nightmares, (with their endless, sausage-heavy feasts and worship of their false idol Geisha.)

 

Being a little more esoteric, it can be a little harder to keep up with the actual nuances of what is happening in late game reveals, however, Little Nightmares II, like Little Nightmares before it, is deliberately obtuse in its narrative - operating far more in the dreamlike, surrealist horror of Guillermo Del Toro than in straight narrative. Sections that seem a little beyond initial or obvious comprehension only serve to heighten the chilling sense of displacement Mono - and the player - have. Little Nightmares is, after all, not a reality, but a Nightmare! 

 

The game is a great sequel - taking everything that made the first game great, and repurposing (if not actually expanding) it to address different grotesqueries of the human condition and the child's view of the adult world. The few genuinely new additions are among the weaker aspects, but it knows which parts made its progenitor great, and knows how to add to them without unbalancing the successful formula, and that is admirable. 

There is a little disappointment in the longevity of the game - it is again, only 5 longish levels long, and despite a full trophy list with a platinum this time, repeatability is a little marred by the lack of challenging trophies (this one does not feature a no-deaths speed-run to help or hurt the game, as the first one did - probably to its benefit in terms of overall game, but decreasing the call to return to the game multiple times.)

 

 

The Ranking:

Starts up strong, with a comparison to Little Nightmares, and Little Nightmares II is a very good and worthy sequel. However, it is relatively short, and while it adds a little to the formula and improves on some areas, the lack of originality inherent in a sequel, and the failure to satisfy the desire for at least a little more expansion in length does knock it a couple of small pegs down the list. 

The game remains great, and holds its tone just as well and as evenly as the first, and so very little can be argued against it, so it falls not too far below the first, and lands squarely - one spot below Horizon: Zero Dawn, but above Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

 

 

 

 

 

Lost Grimoires: Stolen Kingdom

 

Summary: 

A strong entry in the Artifex Mundi catalogue - this is one of the older games in their stable to release on PS4, but one that is a good example of what makes these games delightful little slices of simple, puzzling and picture hunting fare.

 

A decent story, a good variety of puzzles, strong artwork - all based in the magical fairytale/ whimsical woods type aesthetic they have dabbled in often, but rarely as well - and good, strong hidden object scenes full of bright, strong art.

 

No silly boss fights or gimmicks here, which is always a good thing, as they never really work.

 

No bonus chapter this time around, which is a shame, (I think those tended to become the norm later, after this entry released originally,) but the main story is on the longer side, with a good pacing of different puzzle types.

 

 

The Ranking:

Stronger than most Artifex Mundi's on the list, this is the first non-Enigmatis game of theirs to beat any Enigmatis game - faring better than Enigmatis: The Ghosts of Maple Creek, though not quite reaching the current Artifex Mundi top slot of Enigmatis 2: The Mists of Ravenwood.

Sitting squarely between them, this one finds a spot just below Hidden Agenda, but above Arcade Archives: A-Jax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mortal Shell

 

Summary: 

The 'Souls-like' genre is a small one, and in any genre that has a specific game (or in this case, series) a flagpole and guiding beacon, there is a natural tendency for all games that fall under its umbrella to be at least somewhat derivative of their ancestral progenitor, but first time developer Cold Symmetry's debut game Mortal Shell is arguably the most slavishly derivative of the entire field.

 

Mortal Shell loves Dark Souls. It worships Dark Souls. It wants to be Dark Souls - albeit on a smaller scale - and in some aspects it does succeed in invoking similar feelings in the player, but those instances are the exception, not the rule. By virtue of its devotion, in every instance that it fails to measure up to its idol, it makes itself look and feel bad by comparison.

 

There is, to my mind, no inherent problem with a game being abjectly derivative of a single predecessor. It is a format that can work. Darksiders, for example, with its loving and faithful theft of almost all aspects of 3D Zelda games was a great success, and while the majority of the user-base certainly recognised the almost whole-cloth lifting of game concepts from its inspiration, the changes made in tone, and in aesthetic, meant that it felt like tribute, rather than imitation. 

To some extent, all Souls-like games are borrowing from Dark Souls - but where they tend to succeed, is where those concepts are reworked and re-appropriated, and where a marked change in some aesthetic, tonal or conceptual level has taken place. 

The closer they come to a straight imitation, the more they invite direct comparison - and a direct comparison with Dark Souls on a one-to-one level is a fight most games will lose.
Where The Surge succeeds by transposing the formula to a Mech-Droid, Sci-Fi Industrial setting, or Salt and Sanctuary goes 2D, or Bloodborne quickens the action and heads into the Victorian Eldritch realms with it's themes, each game manages to evoke all the feelings of Dark Souls, without drifting into the realms of pale imitation. 
That is a trap Lords of the Fallen slipped into by accident, but one Mortal Shell seems to have jumped into willingly.

 

The game is short. It comprises a single, large hub area, with 3 distinct biomes that branch off, each with it's own set of enemies and a single boss, victory over whom will spark the final standoff with the big-bad beneath the main hub.  In some sense, the whole game would feel quite at home as a dlc add-on to a Dark Souls game - if it controlled, moved and strode with the confidence of those games. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Movement and combat have a similar pacing to Dark Souls, but hit-boxing and animations are a marked step-down, and border on amateurish. NPC's speak in the same vagaries and riddles as in a Dark Souls game, but they are fewer and less varied, and the lore they hint at is notably lesser. Variety is, across the board, wildly reduced, and the layout of levels, while occasionally superficially interesting, is for the most part, barren and dull to explore. 

 

Aesthetically, the game is playing in the same 'forlorn, crumbled kingdom' themes as Dark Souls, but with significantly less flair. This is understandable in some sense, given that this is the debut game from a small team, however, less forgivable when one considers that Ska Studio, who developed Salt and Sanctuary, is an even smaller team. 
Where Ska understood their limitations, and compensated by taking their game to a more manageable scope in 2D, (one in which a fantastic art-style could flourish,) Cold Symmetry opt to take a swing at the king where he lives. They miss by a country mile, resulting in a look that is simply 'grimy-Dark-Souls-lite-lite-lite.'

Where most Souls tropes have a direct, one-to-one corollary present here (Tar in place of souls, Glimpses in place of 'bigger souls', Sesters in place of bonfires,) there are a few ideas that are a little more original - and it is in these areas that the game does best at striving to stand out. 

The game has a few distinct weapons, but eschews the 'equipment building' side of Souls entirely, in favour of an interesting 'Shells' mechanic. Essentially, the player begins as a feeble 'one hit and you are dead' hollow character. Throughout the game, you find a (small) number of 'shells' - fallen peoples bodies - that you can inhabit. Each one is essentially a pre-specced build - one is your basic 'knight', one a more dynamic 'rogue' one a tough-guy 'tank' etc.
It gives the game a little variety - and some interesting lore, given that NPCs see you as whomever you are inhabiting - but it does mean that the personalisation side of speccing a character is gone - an aspect I enjoy immensely in a Souls game. 

 

The Shell mechanic is also, tangentially, the source of one of the most interesting trophies in the game - the Forever Alone trophy - for completing the game without bonding to any shell. 
This is a Souls-like game doing what, I believe, no other has had the gumption to do (and something most, with their length, would be impractical to attempt,) require a 'no-hit' run.

While this might initially seem insurmountable, it is actually not - and the requirement for the trophy serves to highlight not the games strengths, but its biggest weakness. Due to the layout of the small levels, and the lack of any upgrade system or loot, there is no reason to actually engage with any non-boss enemies. 

Each area can simply be run through, and once the boss is reached, each has a save point ready and waiting. This means that the 'no-hit-run' is actually not so much a full playthrough of the game, as it is a no-hit boss rush of the 5 boss fights (which are, to be fair, actually quite engaging fights, and fun to do in no-shell mode, requiring a lot from the player,) but with a tedious run through a long, uninteresting looking biome in between. 

It is a baffling choice of trophy to include, as it virtually guarantees that any trophy-minded player will be forced to become painfully aware of how little substance the majority of the game's combat has, and how little they gain by engaging with it.

 

All in all, I did not hate Mortal Shell, and I take absolutely no pleasure in deriding an indie game made with a clear love of their subject matter, but by trying to simply copy their favourite game, rather than adapt, massage, improve or transpose it, Cold Symmetry have simply crafted a lesser version of it. 

 

It should be said though - I hold out significant hope for whatever Cold Symmetry do next. Lords of the Fallen had a lot of the same 'copycat' issues in terms of Souls-like derivative, and the game that followed from its developer - Focus home Interactive - was The Surge: one of, I believe, the very best of the non-FROM Software Souls-Likes.

My fingers are crossed.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

In terms of Souls-likes, we have plenty on the current list, but the only one worth comparing Mortal Shell to is Lords of the Fallen, and unfortunately, despite some laudably effort, Mortal Shell still falls below it. 

 

It slips down past quite a few middling games that I think offer more in the way of flair or competency. I didn't hate Mortal Shell, but there is little to out-and-out like in it either, and with its short length, many games with serious problems, but higher highs beat it in a match-up.  

 

The one aspect where Mortal Shell can shine brightest is in its (few,) but competent boss fights. The no-hit runs prove these to be markedly more finessed and competently crafted than the rest of its combat, and I did find myself excited and engaged in them, and so when it slips far enough to encounter a game only maintaining its position on the list by virtue of thrills alone - in this case middling pixel-art horror Claire - it finds a game it beats and gains a foothold, finding its spot.

 

 

 

 

 

One Night Stand

 

Summary: 

Despite being quite an advocate for narrative in games, and being a fan of, for example, Walking Sims (I do not think gaming as a medium should be limited simply to 'gameplay first' games - it's a big tent, and with plenty of room to cater to all tastes,) I'm not generally a Visual Novel guy per-se. 
That being said, the primary reason why I'm not, is that most entries in the genre are not anything like One Night Stand.

 

One Night Stand stands out to me, in the limited crop of Visual Novels I have played, primarily as a result of the things it isn't rather than the things it is. 
The vast majority of the genre comes from Japan, and is often steeped in the particular peculiarities and tropes of that nations cultural approach to storytelling (and specifically females in their storytelling) that I find incredibly cringe-inducing and overwhelmingly off-putting. All female characters tend to fall, in those games, into two camps - either ultra-capable, cyborg-esque/ vampiric 'bad-asses' (with giant boobs, cartoonishly girlish faces and skimpy clothes,) or utterly submissive, giggling schoolgirl-esque paedophilic-fantasies (with giant boobs, cartoonishly girlish faces and skimpy clothes.)
As a result, the majority of the genre is not for me, as it feels incredibly rare to come across a Visual Novel that actually tells a story in the realms of the 'real world' - where characters feel like characters, and not simply cookie-cutter sub-anime archetypes, edge-lord fan-fiction, or an acne-pimpled, 13-year old boy's wank-bank fodder.

 

The antidote to all of that though, is One Night Stand.

 

One Night Stand is a very simple premise - you are a guy in his early 20s, who wakes up in an unfamiliar girl's room, next to her, after a night of heavy drinking and a one night stand. That's about it - the rest of the story is up to the player, and how they decide to deal with the situation. You can try and play detective, and piece together the previous night, or who the girl is. You can just level with her, and confirm you have no idea who she is, or try and lie or muddle your way towards letting her down easy. You can try to keep some relationship going, or just try to escape the awkwardness with minimal fuss. 

 

Despite the short length of the game, it does a great job of conveying the awkwardness of the situation. It's a scenario most people (certainly most people who attended college or university!) are at least in some capacity familiar with, and is handled pretty realistically for the most part. The dialogue is appropriately awkward, and does a good job of conveying the girls own reciprocal caginess - depending on the actions you take, it becomes fairly clear that she has some memory gaps too, and is trying to mask them, but equally clear she remembers more than you do, and is in some ways feeling you out to see what kind of guy you are without a drink in you.

 

Visually, I really like the style the game takes. The game uses a sepia-toned quick-cut motion comic style, giving a kind of rotoscope feel to movement, and despite the simplistic style, is effective in conveying realistic movement, emotion and tone.

 

The game encourages multiple playthroughs, and with each clocking in around the 10-20 minute mark, that is ideal - and it is remarkable how many different ways each playthrough can go. The quick-run-through-and-try-again style gives the whole game the feeling of watching some scenes in Groundhog Day - as each time Bill Murray learns a little more about Andy MacDowell, and adjusts his behaviour the next time, resulting in different potential ways to progress the relationship (or embarrass himself.) 

 

This is not a game in which there is a single 'best' ending, but rather one in which the more different paths the player takes, the more they come to understand the characters and the details of their lives. There is little beyond simply enjoying coming to know the characters, so it is helpful that both - but particularly the girl - are well rounded and written.

It also means the game is, in some senses, very replayable - in fact, replayability is a baked-in feature - however, once all ending are achieved, there is little scope for returning to the game, as the short length means that by the time a player has seen ever ending, they have tapped every drop from the well, and there is little left to discover.

 

All in all, I like One Night Stand quite a bit - though I recognise it sits in a slightly strange space in the gaming landscape. As a 'Visual Novel for Grown Ups', it has a lack-of-appeal issue on both sides - fans of the more prevalent Japanese Visual Novels are likely to find the lack of length and absence of over-the-top or titilating fare boring by comparison, and non-VN fans may be put off by the genre entirely. 

That is a shame, as I think One Night Stand does a great job at accomplishing what it sets out to do.

 

 

The Ranking:

Despite how much I enjoyed it, One Night Stand does have trouble competing with similarly narrative-heavy, choice based games, simply by virtue of it's very limited scale. While it does what it does well, it is not really feasible to compare to Telltale's The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us, given the limited nature, and the fact that those games also bring their own level of emotional investment. 

 

Awkwardness is tough to do right in games (easy to accidentally stumble into, but unintentional awkwardness is something else entirely!), and that is admirably well done here, but even David Cage's games - while lacking anything close to good dialogue, are, pound-for-pound, still eliciting an emotional response that, while less immediately successful, is more profound overall, and over a much longer timeframe. As such, One Night Stand has to come lower than Heavy Rain, as well as Supermassive's Quantic Dream-esque horror romp Until Dawn.

 

I do, however, think size isn't everything, and I was never bored by any playthrough of this game, whereas I can't say the same for well-meaning but ultimately frivolous DotNot game Twin Mirror, and so we find ourselves somewhere in between.

 

In the end, One Night Stand finds its place equidistant between Until Dawn and Twin Mirror, one rung below 3D puzzle-fest Cuboid, but above fun-at-first-but-outstays-its-welcome Plants vs. Zombies.

 

 

 

 

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within

 

Summary: 

Picking up the story of the eponymous Price a few years after the event of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The Warrior Within redesigns him considerably, casting him more as a gritty, dark anti-hero than the white-hatted, earnest character he once was, and the game strikes a notably darker tone across the board to match. 

Where in the first game, the Prince's quest was a heroic one, as he fought to save Farah and the Sultanate, unleashing the Sands of Time in pursuit of those noble goals, here, the fruits of those escapades are shown to have been haunting him ever since - in the form of an otherworldly nemesis called the Dahaka - a sort of old-testament golem acting as the protectorate of Fate, intent of destroying the Prince for his time-defying shenanigans. 
The Prince, having spent the years outrunning the Dahaka, arrives on the 'Island of Time', in an attempt to travel back in time to kill the 'Empress of Time', and prevent the creation of the Sands of Time. 

It's a convoluted and silly story - and one I'm on board for (I like my time travel stories like I like my women - crazy, off-the-wall and down for some silliness... though not necessarily with the hint of 'emo' that is introduced with The Warrior Within.)

 

The advantage of the story in The Warrior Within is clear - the Island of Time allows the game to repeat what was a great strength of The Sands of Time - a distinct, large but manageable and definable location in which the player can unravel the story and become familiar with, and grounds the game in a signature aesthetic, but it does have an inherent disadvantage, in the fact that, without a 'hero's quest' the Prince is really only out to save himself, not anyone else. That means there is little in the way of emotional investment beyond the main character, and since he has been redesigned to be more 'edgy' (and as a result, more video-game-generic,) he is a harder character to root for in a narrative sense.

 

Gameplay-wise though, the game is a step up from The Sands of Time - combat is more chaotic and features larger numbers of simultaneous enemies to deal with, movement is more fluid and sections of wall-running, platforming and traversal are, as before, uniformly fun and engaging - and markedly more tricky here - though the improvements in the controls and fluidity mean there is generally less scope for failure due to control errors. 

 

The inclusion of the Dahaka gives a continual, omnipresent threat to the narrative, and although each encounter is scripted (I think), it does evoke at least some of the tone of say, the Nemesis in Resident Evil 3, if not the genuine fear of a random encounter with Mr.X in Resident Evil 2.

 

The game looks good - it's dated now of course, as all these Prince of Persia games are, but less so than The Sands of Time, though I do think the general aesthetic of the game is a little less artistically interesting than that game. The Island of Time is significantly less visually varied, but what is on show looks good. enemies look better, and move much better, and while I don't love the actual design of the new 'edgy' Prince, there is no contest in terms of artistic fidelity. 

 

Sound and music are nothing to write home about - never bad, and no worse or better than in the previous entry, but never stand-out - for good or ill. The voice of the Prince has clearly changed in terms of the actor - he speaks with more of an angry growl now, to match his snarky attitude (a clear sign of the times, as this is the era that would, a year later, give rise to famously angry, unrelentingly snarling and compulsively God-bothering anti-hero Kratos in the God of War series.) 

 

The game works well - is very playable and an enjoyable romp, though, like its predecessor, not inherently given to repeatability. 
This is not really an issue with big, splashy 3D Action games such as this, however - it should be noted for the trophy-hungry - if the platinum is your goal, you are going to be playing this a good few times. This is one of the very few games I can think of that does not 'stack' difficulty trophies. Play on hard? You get the trophy for that, but still need a separate playthrough for the 'normal' and another for 'easy' mode - virtually ensuring that by the end of the platinum, you have had more than enough of the game, and probably feel like someone has unleashed the Sands of Time on your own life!

 

 

The Ranking:

In comparison to its predecessor, this is an interesting one. The things it does better - combat, controls, traversal mechanics - I think are notably better, but the areas if falls behind - narrative, tone, artistic variety - are about the same level of notably worse.

As a result, it becomes a virtual tie - however, there are two areas that I think hurt The Warrior Within, which in isolation, would not be much of a factor, but given how close a call it is, they must be considered:
Firstly, the inherently less original premise, as a sequel, and secondly, the requirements of 3 distinct playthroughs for the platinum.

 

As a result, the game falls a little below The Sands of Time, but not by much. It slips a coupe of rungs down, below more original games Trine, and Telltale's The Walking Dead, but not too far, and still manages to hold its own against lovable but flawed Final Fantasy XIII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This War of Mine: The Little Ones

 

Summary: 

Games love war. 
Since the inception of games as a medium, they have worshiped, bathed in and fetishised it. 
Type the word "war" into the game search bar on this site alone, and it returns 21 pages of results.

Even as compared with other videogame-centric terms such as "Adventure" (7 pages), "Fight" (6 pages), "Zombie" (3 pages), "kill" (2 pages), "fantasy" (3 pages) and "Alien" (2 pages), "War" stands alone, as a singular obsession. It, as a concept, is inextricably tied to the medium.

 

Very very few of those games, however, actually reflect war, as experienced by a citizenry. 

I am not deriding Call of Duty or Battlefield - I am a fan of game in both franchises - nor do I think they have no place in the medium or the industry. They inarguably do - but they are not reflections of the true horror of what war actually is, and does. They are masturbatory power fantasies using War as the backdrop - bug dumb fun, and a stonking good time - but they have nothing of value to actually say. 

This War of Mine: The Little Ones does.

 

If Call of Duty is the over-the-top, popcorn selling, action War movie that Michael Bay would make, This War of Mine: The Little Ones is the introverted, quietly horrific, plaintively self-loathing and introverted one Lars Von Trier would make. 
It is not interested in selling popcorn. 
It has no desire to entertain.
It doesn't care if you are having a good time - in fact, like any Lars Von Trier film, it is actively trying to ensure that you don't. 
As anyone (like me) who "enjoys" Lars's output knows, he is only happy when he is doing one of two things: either making you the saddest you could possibly be at any given moment, or the most uncomfortable you could possibly be at any given moment. 
That is the sandpit The War of Mine: The Little Ones plays in.

 

Now, I understand that that sounds like I am disparaging the game. After all games are meant to be fun, right?
Well... sometimes, sure, But no. Broadly, I disagree.

In the same way that film as a medium is a broad tent, and can cater to many different audiences, I believe games are, and should be, too. One of the principal reasons why I adore the medium and the place it is at right now, is that it is currently in the throws of a massive expansion at the conceptual level. 
What a game "should" be, do and say, is being broadened in a way that is fascinating, and games are finally heading in the direction that film took years before them - going beyond the exclusivity of frivolous fare, and into the realms of important and/or artistic commentary. 
Artistically combative, socially aware and pointed, and politically or philosophically troubling or triggering fare should not - and will not ever - replace the fun, frivolous, entertaining and delightful games that have been the industrial wheelhouse for the past 5 decades, but the rise of them within the expanding medium is something I find to be both necessary, healthy and important. 

Essentially a sort of Black-Mirror inversion of the basic concepts of EA's (great) ever-cheery, happy-go-lucky life simulator The Sims, The War of Mine: The Little Ones takes the concept of watching over a small group of semi-autonomous characters, and controlling the path of their lives to a whole different setting -  as they struggle to survive through the decimation cause by the War in Sarajevo. 
In 2.5D (and with a gorgeous, simple aesthetic and gloomy, realistic tone,) the player is tasked with one thing and one thing only - help them outlast the fighting. 
Survive. 
At whatever cost.

 

These characters are not soldiers. They are not part of the War - indeed, at no point in the game is the "Warfront" ever seen - they are merely casualties of it. The war that is the games backdrop wants nothing from them, nor does it care about them. None of the politics of said war are ever discussed, or ever really mentioned by any character except in passing. The War is not of any concern to them on a political or moral level - it is simply the whirlwind storm that has decimated their lives, picked them up, thrown them together, and is stomping down upon them with an iron boot of impunity and indifference.

 

The game works on a day/ night cycle. By day, the characters struggle to improve their broken-down dwelling, eat what food they have mustered, build and maintain what life-giving apparatus they are able to, and attempt to keep morale, health and well-being up - for the adults and the children.

 

By night, some adults can engage in scavenging runs, in the hope of finding necessary items to help with the daytime tasks, but these runs are dangerous and often deadly. Finding enough food to feed everyone is rare, and fraught with danger. Each scavenging location is know to other survivors too, and they have their own people to feed, house and shelter - and will potentially react to you as you might to them - with self-preservation-motivated violence.

 

The game is filled with moral conundrums. While saving someone, or letting them join your group might be the right thing to do, and would likely help morale, that decision is offset by the increased requirements for food such and addition would make. 
If there are only 2 rations of food, and 3 people, someone is going hungry. The child might be less close to starving into sickness, but denying them food is likely to reduce the morale of the adults more than hunger might, as thier crying through the night resulting from hunger or neglect, will haunt those who hear it. That drop in morale may well result in a listlessness that makes them less effective in repairing the water supply, or growing vegetables in their makeshift 'patch' in an old bathtub.

 

The game is often about trying to decide which is the least bad solution, rather than the best one. Would repairing the barricades on the windows be a better use of materials than crafting a new bed? What use is surviving another night if everyone is do depressed they can't function, but on the flip side, what use is high morale with a bullet in your head or all your food stolen?

 

The game does a phenomenal job of showing the hideous, hellish effects War has on regular people, and the true cost of conflicts that might seem like political necessities, on the people caught in the middle. There are many areas in which the developer makes crucial decisions that heighten the players connection to the events. The use of actual photographs, rather than rendered pictures and a full bio of each character, means that the player is unable to detach themselves easily from human empathy from the characters - it is one thing to turn away a desperate man looking for shelter if he look like a videogame character. It's harder when he has a human face, a real name, a realistic picture, and you know he used to run a local tool-shop before this War came crashing down upon his head.

 

From a gameplay point of view, the game's survival simulation mechanics and strategy side is a good, well implemented affair - the flipping between the more passive daytime fare, and the more active, night time scavenging keeps the game fresh, and the ways in which all the systems compliment each-other is both nuanced and broadly realistic. 

If the game has one flaw - and it is a small one - I would argue that, after playing for a significant amount of time, it does become apparent that there are paths to getting to a 'good' place - it is feasible, with a bit of luck and careful rationing early on, to get to a point, around mid-way through a playthrough, where the dwelling has ample food and water, and is able to function reasonably well. 
That does mean that the point the game is making about the horror of war is lessened - but only a little, and it is not easy to get to that point.

There are games - like Papers, Please, and Cart Life - which take the 'this is hell' concept that this War of Mine: The Little Ones plays with to a more extreme level - by deliberately off-balancing the game in such a way as to make ever actually 'doing well' impossible, and I would argue that doing so here might make the central thesis of the game more pointed, but I do not think failing to do so is massively to the game's detriment. Some people do survive war, of course, and so here, it is equally possible to do so - but the moral costs of such a survival will still likely leave the characters, and the player, a little more broken for it.

All in all, This War of Mine: The Little Ones is a powerhouse - and a game that is both good as a game, and important as a concept.

Frankly, I would likely have a lot of good things to say about the game, even if the gameplay was lacking, given the relative rarity, still, of works of social commentary on War in the medium of games. The fact that the actual game mechanics are both sound, well balanced and interesting too, only heightens what is a universally significant morality and ethics simulator into a genuine must-play of the more fringe and progressive side of an expanding cultural medium.

 

 

The Ranking:

The gameplay aspects of This War of Mine: The Little Ones are, in isolation, good enough to propel it into at least the upper half of the list, but its more symbolic place as - I believe - a genuine contender for one of the most important games to feature 'War' in gaming, and its willingness to approach a side of War seldom braved by other games, gives it an edge that few, if any current games on the list have, and ensures it will place extremely highly.
This is not only a good game, (there are a lot of those,) - it is also an important game, and those are rarer.

 

In many ways, this one is very difficult to rank, as the specific things about it that are responsible for it being so good, have no one-to-one equivalent on the list so far. I am therefore forced to offset those aspects, against the sheer enjoyment of other, more frivolous, but longer, more enjoyable games.

That makes actual comparison points basically moot.
Of course, many many games on the list have better, more enjoyable gameplay, but the rarity and virtual uniqueness of the effect playing this game had on me, make comparisons to narratives that simply enthralled or hooked me not quite relevant either.

 

In the end, I am forced to simply start high on the list and work down, considering which games had such a massive emotional impact on me (as an overall package) that they better the the one This War of Mine: The Little Ones had.

By that rationale, I see Transistor and the games above it retaining their spots above This War of Mine, but I cannot say the same for Dead Cells, as outright fantastic as that game is. 
As such, This War of Mine: The Little Ones takes a deservedly high spot, between those two games, and shall serve as a beacon and comparison point for socially significant and moral-based games to live up to on the list going forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

 

Thanks to @Arcesius & @Copanele for putting in requests!

 

 Prey still cling onto  'Current Most Awesome Game'

 

 Kick Ass: The Game remains the current 'Least Awesome Game', once again!

 

 

 

What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the shiny apple... or the mouldy banana?

 

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

 

Remember:

 

 

SPECIAL NOTE

 

If there are any specific games anyone wants to see get ranked sooner rather than later - drop a message, and I'll mark them for 'Priority Ranking'! 

 

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

 and aren't already on the Rankings! 

 

 

 

 

Catch y'all later my Scientific Brothers and Sisters! ☮️

[Copanele]

Bless my advanced English lessons from the childhood, this was a good one to read.

Another great Scientific paper there  fully agreed with the Prince's emo placement on the list (I still liked Sands of Time the most). And thanks to the Mortal Shell Review, I again am reminded that I have to play those blasted The Surge games already.

[Cleggworth]

This War of Mine has sat on my maybe list for the longest time. Sounds like it'll finally move up to the to play list. I agree with you in where games are/should be going. Like a film, or TV series more in my case, they aren't just something that is fun anymore, They can tell stories that are actually pretty miserable and I really like that. That's why I when I describe my time with The Last of Us PtII to anyone I say its both the best and worst game I've ever played. I felt utterly dreadful playing that game at times but still loved it. Sounds like This War of Mine will give me a similar experience and that sounds great to me.

 

Speaking of Part II as much as I "enjoyed" it its the most high profile marmite game in years and that's putting it mildly. I'm really intrigued to see which side of the fence you come down on it. I see you don't have the 100% yet though so I'm putting in a request for immediate scientific analysis as soon as its done if it hasn't been called for already.

 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

1 hour ago, Cleggworth said:

This War of Mine has sat on my maybe list for the longest time. Sounds like it'll finally move up to the to play list. I agree with you in where games are/should be going. Like a film, or TV series more in my case, they aren't just something that is fun anymore, They can tell stories that are actually pretty miserable and I really like that. That's why I when I describe my time with The Last of Us PtII to anyone I say its both the best and worst game I've ever played. I felt utterly dreadful playing that game at times but still loved it. Sounds like This War of Mine will give me a similar experience and that sounds great to me.

 

That's great to hear! 

 

Yeah, This War of Mine is such an interesting game to describe your actual experience with it - I remember my mate asking me what I thought of it, and my response was "Oh my God, I had such an awful time... it's amazing!" ?

 

That's basically why my review mentions Lars Von Trier movies - that is a feeling that I get quite rarely, but almost always do with his films - everything from the complete horror of The House that Jack Built and Antichrist, to the abject sadness of Dancer in the Dark or Dogville, to the complete loneliness and disgusting beauty of the Nymphomaniac movies or Meloncholia...

 

...that "This is an incredible experience - I'm so abjectly miserable and uncomfortable, I want to crawl behind the couch - but I am feeling stuff films make me feel so rarely, that I have to keep watching!"

 

 

Quote

Speaking of Part II as much as I "enjoyed" it its the most high profile marmite game in years and that's putting it mildly. I'm really intrigued to see which side of the fence you come down on it. I see you don't have the 100% yet though so I'm putting in a request for immediate scientific analysis as soon as its done if it hasn't been called for already.

 

Sooooo, yeah, The Last of Us Part II isn't eligible to rank right now - I haven't done my Grounded playthroughs yet, so haven't go that S-Rank...

 

...however, the reason for that is - I have been specifically saving those playthroughs for when I get to do them on a PS5, and I finally now have one ordered and (apparently) on the way, due to arrive in my covetous little hands at the end of the month ☺️

 

 

So, it should be eligible fairly soon - and will likely get added onto whatever batch i'm doing when I finally S-Rank it at the time.

I will say - the fact that I saved a playthrough so I could experience it in the best possible way, probably hints at which side of fence I fall on ?

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Copanele said:

Bless my advanced English lessons from the childhood, this was a good one to read.

Another great Scientific paper there  fully agreed with the Prince's emo placement on the list (I still liked Sands of Time the most). And thanks to the Mortal Shell Review, I again am reminded that I have to play those blasted The Surge games already.

 

Haha, I've glad some good can come of that review!

 

I really hate ragging on games - and especially games like Mortal Shell, as I certainly have to fight the urge to try and deny my own experience and review more positively if the game I had issues with comes from a small, or first time developer (both of which are the case with Cold Symmetry) - however, in going back for a refresher, and writing that review, I really did come to understand how fundamentally disappointed I was with Mortal Shell.

 

Good to hear that the passing comparisons at least encorage some positive outcome - the spreading of the good word about the excellent The Surge (and not quite as excellent but stilll very good, The Surge 2)!

Edited June 12, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Cleggworth]

3 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Sooooo, yeah, The Last of Us Part II isn't eligible to rank right now - I haven't done my Grounded playthroughs yet, so haven't go that S-Rank...

 

...however, the reason for that is - I have been specifically saving those playthroughs for when I get to do them on a PS5, and I finally now have one ordered and (apparently) on the way, due to arrive in my covetous little hands at the end of the month 

 

 

So, it should be eligible fairly soon - and will likely get added onto whatever batch i'm doing when I finally S-Rank it at the time.

I will say - the fact that I saved a playthrough so I could experience it in the best possible way, probably hints at which side of fence I fall on 

 

 

I was waiting to do the same ? In my case I already had the PS5, I was just waiting for the inevitable patch which seemed to take forever to come. I'll be starting once I'm done with Mass Effect. I Look forward to hating and loving it in equal measure all over again, this time in even shinier mode

Edited June 12, 2021 by Cleggworth

[DrBloodmoney]

32 minutes ago, Cleggworth said:

 

I was waiting to do the same ? In my case I already had the PS5, I was just waiting for the inevitable patch which seemed to take forever to come. I'll be starting once I'm done with Mass Effect. I Look forward to hating and loving it in equal measure all over again, this time in even shinier mode

 

They certainly did seem to take their sweet time about it!

Was no skin off my nose since I had such a time trying to secure a PS5 (sans-scalpers), but I was very surprised they didn't have that patch day one out the gate - considering it would have been - if not system-seller per-se - at least an additional arrow in the sales quiver.

 

 

BTW - I meant to say - If you do give This War of Mine a go, come back and lemme know what you think! Would love to hear how you felt about it given your similar outlook on the direction of that side of gaming ☺️

Edited June 12, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Arcesius]

Nice read, as always! 

 

I was particularly interested in Little Nightmares II (appreciate the spoiler-free review), and Mortal Shell. It is a pity to read that the latter did not deliver. I'd like to say that the "game was made on a budget", but ever since I played Hollow Knight and Salt and Sanctuary, both of which were made by a ridiculously small team, that argument just doesn't hold all too well... 

 

Speaking of which... I cannot see Hollow Knight on your profile ?? Any particular reason you haven't played that one yet? 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Arcesius

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

Nice read, as always! 

 

I was particularly interested in Little Nightmares II (appreciate the spoiler-free review), and Mortal Shell. It is a pity to read that the latter did not deliver. I'd like to say that the "game was made on a budget", but ever since I played Hollow Knight and Salt and Sanctuary, both of which were made by a ridiculously small team, that argument just doesn't hold all too well... 

 

no problem mate - and you’re right, Salt and Sanctuary (along with, I would say Outer Wilds, The Witness and a few others) are basically the antidote to any argument that small dev teams should result in a lower grading curve - since they blow other games by massive teams out of the water!

 

3 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

Speaking of which... I cannot see Hollow Knight on your profile  Any particular reason you haven't played that one yet? 

 

I know, I know ?

 

No reason - I have it, it’s in the mountainous backlog - near the top, but not quite made it out yet!

 

It will though, certainly - all in good time!

[totakos1]

Very interesting forum and reviews, gives a nice idea of what to play next, is there anyway to see the rankings or got to go through the whole thing?

[DrBloodmoney]

13 minutes ago, totakos1 said:

Very interesting forum and reviews, gives a nice idea of what to play next, is there anyway to see the rankings or got to go through the whole thing?

thank you mate - thanks for stopping by ☺️

 

The full ranking is on the first page - along with links to all the individual reviews.

 

They are in batches, so whatever number is in (brackets) next to the game, is the Batch number the review is in ☺️
 

The first few batches were just a few lines, but around Batch 5 or 6 I started doing more full reviews like the recent ones

Edited June 12, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[JoesusHCrust]

Sad to read that you had such a rough time with Fallout: New Vegas. Again, I never had any technical issues when playing this game. It's just occurred to me though that I didn't play it (or Fallout 3, or Oblivion or Skyrim the first time around) on the PS3. I had an Xbox 360 at that time. It seems that the Xbox was much better than the PS3 for running these large RPGs at the time. 

 

For me, Fallout New Vegas is one of the best games ever. I remember how excited I was when it first came out, just a few months after I'd played Fallout 3. The graphics in F:NV are pretty ropey, but the scope of the game and variety of ways to play it still have rarely been matched. Fair play though, you have to review the game as you played it on PS3 and if it was as bad as you say, you can't place it further up the rankings. 

I agreed with everything you wrote about Hue. That game was a lot of fun and just the right level of challenge for me (a spectacularly low-skilled gamer). I'll definitely try out the other game you mentioned next to it. 

[DrBloodmoney]

18 minutes ago, JoesusHCrust said:

Sad to read that you had such a rough time with Fallout: New Vegas. Again, I never had any technical issues when playing this game. It's just occurred to me though that I didn't play it (or Fallout 3, or Oblivion or Skyrim the first time around) on the PS3. I had an Xbox 360 at that time. It seems that the Xbox was much better than the PS3 for running these large RPGs at the time. 

 

Yeah - I never played any of them on xbox, but I have on PC, and it’s night and day with the PS3 - I’m guessing the cell was just allergic to the particular Bethesda open-world formula - it was really beyond the pale.

 

Cut to PS4 - which is, as I understand, a much more ‘standard PC’ type architecture, and Fallout 4 (and that Skyrim re-release) ran totally fine - so really seems to be a PS3 exclusive issue.

 

 

Quote

For me, Fallout New Vegas is one of the best games ever. I remember how excited I was when it first came out, just a few months after I'd played Fallout 3. The graphics in F:NV are pretty ropey, but the scope of the game and variety of ways to play it still have rarely been matched. Fair play though, you have to review the game as you played it on PS3 and if it was as bad as you say, you can't place it further up the rankings. 

 

Yeah - tried to be fair, and mention all the things I loved about the games (and those are a lot of things) but in both cases - NV especially- the way it ran was just heartbreaking. The worst part is, for the first 10 hours they are both basically fine, then slowly, the more and more you progress and do (and the more and more you get invested in the world and the lore and the story), the worse and worse the technical stuff becomes ☹️
 

EDIT -

 

I’ve actually decided that I’m so sick of talking about the technical issues, that I’m going to change how I had planned on reviewing Skyrim.

 

Originally, I had planned on doing it like I did with the Shadow of the Colossus - do two entries, one for PS3 and one for PS4, as the experience is so different due to the way it ran on PS3...

 

... but sod that.

 

Instead, I’m just going to review it based on the PS4 version, and mention that the PS3 one should be avoided in favour of it - that way I don’t have to keep finding new synonyms for ‘broken’, and can just concentrate on what the game was actually trying to do, and not what stopped it from doing it on PS3 ?

Edited June 13, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Guest]

On 4/24/2021 at 2:42 PM, DrBloodmoney said:

52. Final Fantasy XIII(9)

 

THAT'S MY BOY

[TimeLordCrow13y]

I’ve been enjoying your thread for a bit and would like to request a review of Tomb Raider: Legend (because I’ve recently Platted it myself, and I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it). 

 

I also find the fact that you’ve completed every single TR & LC game very impressive-I hope to get there someday myself!