FilmFanatic Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 The Surge was a great game but being able to get back more scrap than you had dropped, providing your time limit was above a certain amount, somewhat breaks the game. I don’t mind admitting I abused this mechanic which meant I could use all the best cores as soon as I got them making the difficulty pretty much trivial. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the game even if it was a very short game (though I did do 2 full playthroughs instead of backing up my save to get the second endingon my first playthrough). I would also like to nominate Middle-Earth: Shadow Of Mordor as it’s one of the best and most entertaining gaming experiences I’ve ever had (at least it was after I started playing more stealthily since going in swords blazing kept getting me killed). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 8, 2021 Author Share Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, FilmFanatic said: The Surge was a great game but being able to get back more scrap than you had dropped, providing your time limit was above a certain amount, somewhat breaks the game. I don’t mind admitting I abused this mechanic which meant I could use all the best cores as soon as I got them making the difficulty pretty much trivial. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the game even if it was a very short game (though I did do 2 full playthroughs instead of backing up my save to get the second endingon my first playthrough). Ha - I didn't know that was a thing - I can't say I ever noticed it happening - was it something that was patched out eventually maybe? 1 hour ago, FilmFanatic said: I would also like to nominate Middle-Earth: Shadow Of Mordor as it’s one of the best and most entertaining gaming experiences I’ve ever had (at least it was after I started playing more stealthily since going in swords blazing kept getting me killed). Marked for priority with your name ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmFanatic Posted July 8, 2021 Share Posted July 8, 2021 31 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said: Ha - I didn't know that was a thing - I can't say I ever noticed it happening - was it something that was patched out eventually maybe? Marked for priority with your name No it’s a game mechanic. If you had at least 5 minutes (I think it was) on your timer you’d get an extra 50% scrap on top of what you dropped. In fact the easiest place to do it was right at the start of the game. It starts off slow but builds up pretty once you get into the hundreds of thousands of scrap. Not sure if that mechanic is in the second game but if it is I won’t abuse it again lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 8, 2021 Author Share Posted July 8, 2021 10 minutes ago, FilmFanatic said: No it’s a game mechanic. If you had at least 5 minutes (I think it was) on your timer you’d get an extra 50% scrap on top of what you dropped. In fact the easiest place to do it was right at the start of the game. It starts off slow but builds up pretty once you get into the hundreds of thousands of scrap. Not sure if that mechanic is in the second game but if it is I won’t abuse it again lol. TBH, you probably wouldn't need to abuse anything in the second game - it is a much less difficult game overall - they introduce a 'directional blocking' mechanic to the fighting, which is actually a pretty cool and fun mechanic to use, but it does have a tendency to trivialise boss fights a bit, as once you learn their patterns, you can pretty much no-hit them, as perfect directional blocks not only negate all incoming damage, but stun bosses after a certain number in a row. The second one is a good game, but not quite as good as the first one - I enjoyed it, but it's much less memorable - I remember much more of the first one off the top of my head, even though I played it 3 years prior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DrBloodmoney Posted July 9, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2021 (edited) !!SCIENCE UPDATE!! The next 5 (somewhat) randomly selected games to be submitted for scientific analysis shall be: Bloodborne FlowerMiddle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Prince of Persia(2008) Sniper Ghost Warrior Subjects in RED marked for PRIORITY ASSIGNEMENT [Care of @GonzoWARgasm , @FilmFanatic & @Copanele ] Can 'Current Most Awesome' game, Invisible Inc, maintain the title? Is new last-in-show Space Overlords going to have any competition for 'Least Awesome Game' ? Let's find out! Edited July 9, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoesusHCrust Posted July 9, 2021 Share Posted July 9, 2021 I liked Andromeda. I went into it with extremely low expectations so ended up being pleasantly surprised. I think the comparison with Dragon Age: Inquisition is fair, but I personally much preferred Andromeda. My only major beef with ME:A was that many of the locations you explore already have stuff from the original universe in them. There wasn't that feeling that you are the first person ever to have visited an area and in a game about exploration, that lack of a feeling of exploration was an issue. I thought you gave a very fair review of Skyrim. The game in't perfect but it just has so much replayability value and is so huge both in terms of map size and in terms of content that it deserves to place fairly high. I'm looking forward to your Shadow of Mordor analysis because I hate this game and I'm curious to read if there is something I've missed. The 'swamping' style of combat is just something that stresses the hell out of me. In real life, even something as banal as multiple requests to do the washing up will get me sweaty and bothered so I really can't cope with dozens of orcs appearing our of the woodwork every time I stop to pick my nose or admire the view! Anyway, I'm sure after your expert analysis it'll all become clear to me and I'll be able to go back and clear this monstrosity from my backlog!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 9, 2021 Author Share Posted July 9, 2021 (edited) 52 minutes ago, JoesusHCrust said: I liked Andromeda. I went into it with extremely low expectations so ended up being pleasantly surprised. I think the comparison with Dragon Age: Inquisition is fair, but I personally much preferred Andromeda. My only major beef with ME:A was that many of the locations you explore already have stuff from the original universe in them. There wasn't that feeling that you are the first person ever to have visited an area and in a game about exploration, that lack of a feeling of exploration was an issue. Yeah - they definitely cheat their own premise a bit by having Sara get revived several years later than the first batch. I can understand why - they obviously felt they needed some kind of ‘established’ colony world stuff to work with and some ‘pre-existing’ conflicts they could use as mission kick-offs… but you’re absolutely right - it completely destroys the one thing Andromeda could have had that the original trilogy couldn’t - a feeling of genuine ‘pioneering’. From a narrative point of view, I can’t really see what they should have done different from the Andromeda Initiative point of view - but if there were a couple more indigenous races that would have gone a long way to disguising it better - they could have minimised how much it felt like colonisation had already happened in the Pathfinder’s absence, and allowed much more genuine ‘wonder and discovery’ - which were absolutely the highlights of the game… there just wasn’t enough of them. Quote I thought you gave a very fair review of Skyrim. The game in't perfect but it just has so much replayability value and is so huge both in terms of map size and in terms of content that it deserves to place fairly high. Yeah - It’s still a great game for sure (lord knows, I’ve spent at least 200 hours in it!) - but I do think Fallout just fundamentally has more avenues that they are able to take missions - and a much deeper well from with to draw lore. Skyrim requires a massive buy-in to a very specific lore without any ‘real-world’ entrypoint, whereas Fallout always has that “what was happening before all this” aspect to add extra flavour to everything around you. Edited July 9, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 Having trouble deciding whether Demon's Souls for PS5 should be reviewed and ranked separately from the original PS3 version that has already been placed - like I did with Shadow of the Colossus. Points in favour: The game is a remarkable upgrade visually The frame rate improvements are a fairly big change for the better - and do affect gameplay to some extent. Like Shadow of the Colossus, this is inarguably the 'correct' version for people to play now, and it wholly surpasses the already excellent original game. Points against: The original already ranked very high, as even the frame rate issues were not as big a detriment as Shadow of the Colossus' were. There are fewer material changes than Shadow of the Colossus (control scheme / correction of actual errors in the original etc.) The different placements would likely be more marginal Any thoughts from the gallery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmFanatic Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said: Any thoughts from the gallery? I say review it and see if the upgrades change it’s position. Then again I’ve platted all 4 lists so maybe my opinions biased 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copanele Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 My complete and honest advice would be YES review it and rank it separately. Reasons why, besides the ones you mentioned: Different studio - how did they manage to hold up in comparison to FromSoftware New audio tracks - is the new Maiden Astraea OST better than the old one? Want your input here Online (if you managed to invade, praise Umbasa) Atmosphere in this new one compared to the old one - Tower of Latria baby, you know you love that level! And so on and so forth - The masses(me - i am fat ok?) DEMAND a review ? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, FilmFanatic said: I say review it and see if the upgrades change it’s position. Then again I’ve platted all 4 lists so maybe my opinions biased 1 minute ago, Copanele said: My complete and honest advice would be YES review it and rank it separately. Reasons why, besides the ones you mentioned: Different studio - how did they manage to hold up in comparison to FromSoftware New audio tracks - is the new Maiden Astraea OST better than the old one? Want your input here Online (if you managed to invade, praise Umbasa) Atmosphere in this new one compared to the old one - Tower of Latria baby, you know you love that level! And so on and so forth - The masses(me - i am fat ok?) DEMAND a review Good points - maybe the way I'll do it is to just do a sort of 'changes' mini review... along the lines of: "No longer hear the same scream over and over in the Prison of Latria - 0/10 " ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copanele Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said: Good points - maybe the way I'll do it is to just do a sort of 'changes' mini review... along the lines of: "No longer hear the same scream over and over in the Prison of Latria - 0/10 " They removed the "HRNNNHHHHHAHHHH" diarrhea yell of Lord Rydell? BLASPHEMY! 0/10 no Umbasa for the game Edited July 15, 2021 by Copanele 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 1 minute ago, Copanele said: They removed the "HRNNNHHHHHAHHHH" diarrhea yell of Lord Rydell? BLASPHEMY! 0/10 no Umbasa for the game they did - and it shows just how engrained that sound was from the original that Ms Bloodmoney (Who, upon my playing the game, and her hearing the Maiden say "touch the demon inside me" whipped her head around and proclaimed "Uh, that bitch again - I though you finished this game ages ago!") saw me enter the prison, and actually said "Is that guy still whining in here?" ? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Together_Comic Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 2 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: Any thoughts from the gallery? 2 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: Good points - maybe the way I'll do it is to just do a sort of 'changes' mini review... Having never played the game, I think a review that highlights what is different from the main game would kind of neat, especially when it comes to which version I should eventually get around too. Though it looks like you've already answered that, I am interested to know what I will miss playing a newer version vs. the old. 1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said: they did - and it shows just how engrained that sound was from the original that Ms Bloodmoney (Who, upon my playing the game, and her hearing the Maiden say "touch the demon inside me" whipped her head around and proclaimed "Uh, that bitch again - I though you finished this game ages ago!") saw me enter the prison, and actually said "Is that guy still whining in here?" A bit off topic, but the snark on Ms. Bloodmoney is great and sounds hilarious ?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 Just now, Together_Comic said: Having never played the game, I think a review that highlights what is different from the main game would kind of neat, especially when it comes to which version I should eventually get around too. Though it looks like you've already answered that, I am interested to know what I will miss playing a newer version vs. the old. I must admit - I haven't finished the first cycle of the new version yet - I'm maybe 15ish hours in and taking my time - but I have explored a fair amount of the game, and from what I've seen, I personally think it is categorically the version to play now - Bluepoint have really maintained their crown, in terms of being able to make some aetsthetic and minor stylistic changes, but without losing any of the greatness of the game. Just now, Together_Comic said: A bit off topic, but the snark on Ms. Bloodmoney is great and sounds hilarious She does outdo herself sometimes! It always cracks me up how - since she hears much more of the games I play than actually sees them, given that she likes to sit with me and faff about on her iPad - she comes to identify certain games purely by whatever sound most annoys her in them ? to this day, she still calls Dishonoured "Enhanced Eyes", calls Heavy Rain "The Jason! game" and when I was playing The Last of Us II , she didn't really care about that game, but immediately recognised - when you come across the girl playing the Vita - that it was Hotline Miami she was playing purely based on the soundtrack playing ? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 15, 2021 ?? NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! ?? Hello Science-Lads and Science-Lassies, as promised (and in some cases requested), here are the latest results of our great scientific endeavour! Bloodborne Summary: Dropping smack-dab in the middle of, arguably, FROM Software's strongest ever position, both critically and commercially - between Dark Souls II and Dark Souls III, the PS4 exclusive Bloodborne is a curious - and incredibly successful - offering. The game is more than merely Souls-like in it's execution, it is in fact, more specifically 'FROM-like' (and actually, gave the virgin genre term 'souls-like' a run for it's money, in the sense that, for several years, 'Soulsborne' became something of a franchise name, so closely was Bloodborne seen to be a part of the overall FROM cannon,) the game perfectly straddled the line between fealty to Dark Souls, and distinction from it. Inheriting all the principle aspects that made Dark Souls a powerhouse classic (and Demon's Souls a cult classic before it) - peculiar characters, unforgiving difficulty, obtuse lore, bafflingly esoteric karmic mechanics, strong art design, animation-priority combat and a wealth of distinct, brilliantly designed bosses - Bloodborne added its own spins on the formulae, creating a truly distinct game that stands tall among its brethren, yet still a few steps removed from the pack. I won't go too deep into the aspects that are - at this point - basically par-for-the-course with FROM Souls-like games - the incredible art design, the feeling of wonder and fear at exploring new areas, the sliver of hope against crushing odds that comes from delving a little deeper into one of the games areas each time you die. Those things are all fantastic, and on the lofty FROM Software level - and I have more than covered how important such aspects are in my (now considerable number of) other FROM reviews! Instead, let's focus on the differences. Artistically and aesthetically, Bloodborne is playing in a very different arena than other Souls games. Gone is the Dark, Low-Fantasy of Demon's, and Dark Souls I & III, or the High-Fantasy of Dark Souls II. Here, the setting is Dickensian, Baroque Victoriana, and the tone one of Eldritch Horror. Where prior games felt most at home in a comparison with JRR Tolkien or George RR Martin, Bloodborne is HP Lovecraft through-and-through. It is remarkable, from a narrative and mechanical stand-point, just how well Lovecraft's 'Old-Gods', 'cosmic horror' and 'the madness of knowledge' tropes lay neatly on the top of FROM Software's signature style - characters driven mad, forbidden knowledge, even aspects such as the more obtuse karmic mechanics (a defacto re-wakening of the long abandoned 'Character Tendency' mechanic of Demon's Souls) - work here. 'Insight', a larger quantity of which reveals more of the 'reality' of the cosmic forces in the world, and changing small aspects of the world is both a Lovecraftian staple, and a FROM Software signature, and it's risk-reward aspect is incredibly fitting in the Souls-like genre. The narrative is equally as obscure as other FROM games (perhaps even a little more so,) but equally rewarding to delve into, and with a breadth of well considered lore to investigate. As with most FROM games, learning such background is not critical - one could certainly complete the game without doing so, but they can delve into it, safe in the knowledge that such exploits will be rewarding - the lore is fascinating and deep. Combat-wise, Bloodborne is certainly an outlier in terms of Souls-like games, and a fantastically fun one. Abandoning the shield and blocking mechanics in favour of a precision pistol-parry, and heavily encouraging an aggressive, pro-active style with its 'Regain' mechanic (in which health loss from incoming attacks can be stunted by immediate and swift retaliation) the game ratchets up the speed of the combat dramatically - forcing sword-and-shield players of traditional Dark Souls to completely abandon their prior reticence, and instead, bring the fight to their enemies. It's a jarring pace-change at first, but one that comes to feel natural - and awesome! - after a few hours, and going directly from Bloodborne to a more traditional Souls game is liable to feel like moving through water for a few hours as the change in tenor and speed gives the player whiplash! There is a slight reduction in things like build variety - there are fewer weapons and armour and equipment options here (not quite the total reduction shown later in Sekiro, but still a visible one.) As a result, the player's choice in approach is markedly less variable than in Dark Souls, however, there is still scope for some variation - particularly in weapons - if one approach is proving unsuitable or unwieldy. The environments of Bloodborne are uniformly magnificent in design - in terms of aesthetic variation of 'biomes', the game is a little less varied than any previous Souls game - certainly, the primary first area - the city of Yharnam - takes up a much longer and larger part of the game than any single area of any previous FROM Souls game did, but this is more as a result of it being markedly larger and featuring more distinct areas within it. Certainly, the size can lend itself to a player feeling - in a first playthrough - that the game is less varied, however, as the game enters its second half, the world opens up considerable, that the environments beyond Yharnam are as varied as any previous game. The one area that really does feel markedly weaker than Dark Souls games is the healing mechanics. For some reason, the estus flask mechanic - born out of a problem present in Demon's Souls, where running out of consumable healing items required rather dull 'farming' runs to acquire more - is abandoned, and has no Dickensian corollary. As a result, the game reverts back to consumable healing, and as such, brings back the same problem inherent to it - farming of healing items. It is not a welcome return, and one I find very odd. In terms of replayability, Bloodborne falls somewhere in the middle for the FROM pack. While it is a long and interesting game, the variety of builds is less than Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, however, there is, if anything, actually more variety in terms of approaches with regards to weapons. Yes, there are fewer overall, but unlike in Dark Souls games, where, for all the variety of weapons, some swords feel very similar in use to others, or some clubs to others etc., in Bloodborne each weapon is wildly different in style - there are no real similarities or cross-overs. As such, a simple change in weapon can make a new playthrough or run feel markedly different from a previous one, in a way that only certain weapon changes in Dark Souls could. All in all, Bloodborne is a great achievement from FROM. It is notable that, while other developers would eventually open up the 'Souls-like' genre in a broad, cross-developer genre around 2017, with the likes of Nioh, Salt and Sanctuary and The Surge, it was FROM themselves who showed the first indication that the formulae would work with an alternate setting and varied mechanics. While the game is not quite as large a departure from Dark Souls as something like The Surge was, it is a distinct enough flavour to taste quite different, and that could easily have been not to everyones palate. Here, I would genuinely be surprised to find anyone who has an appetite for Dark Souls not being equally as enamoured of Bloodborne - once they adjust to the pace it requires. The Ranking: We're up in the high ramparts of the list here! While not quite on the level of Dark Souls, given the slight reduction in build variety, the less variable play-styles, and the baffling return to consumable health items as compared to the Estus Flask, I do think the lore, aesthetic and somewhat variable weapon-based approach does keep Bloodborne above FROM's next 'Non-Dark Souls', Sekiro: Shadows die Twice. While I think Bloodborne beats out Sekiro, it still has trouble against Dishonoured, for exactly the same reasons Sekiro did - despite being more variable that Sekiro, its variety and scope for unusual or esoteric approaches to problems still pales in comparison to Dishonoured's, and while combat is brilliant (as Sekiro's also was,) the other aspects in which it excels - lore, art design, replayability and visuals - are all either matched or outdone by Arkane's great offering. As such, Bloodborne finds it's very high spot, just above Sekiro: Shadows Dies Twice, but just below Dishonoured. Flower Summary: There was a time, back in 2006, when the concept of true 'artistic indie' was relatively unheard of in the console space. Thatgamecompany, along with a handful of other small developers were arguably responsible for the only output in that sphere, in their case, with the curious oddity Fl0w - an unguided, semi-interactive screensaver playing with the concepts of cell evolution, within an aesthetically simple, yet pleasing, spyro-graph looking art-style. While Fl0w did earn Thatgamecompany - and founder Jenova Chen - some limited fame, it was their second game that really put them on the map in 2009 - a simple, visually beautiful and primarily meditative experience, in which the player controls the wind, called Flower. In Flower, the player has very little in the way of direct control, but through use of the (at the time, still relatively novel) six-axis motion controls, they could harness the direction of the winds, guiding first a single flower petal caught in the breeze around various dark and lifeless environments, brushing past other flora, 'awakening' it as it goes, returning life and colour to the areas, and gathering more and more flower petals in the breeze. Once certain thresholds of effect are reached and a huge myriad of colour is built up, the gloomy darkness is dispelled and the environments burst into glorious, bright, nature-filled life. It's a fairly short experience, comprising 6 levels, and each is fairly distinct in design, while sharing a common broad aesthetic. The game offers little in the way of guidance as to the player 'goals' - Flower is very much playing in the 'learn-as-you-go', discovery milieu of something like Proteus or Shape of the World - however, the basic mechanics of sweeping around the areas, leaving colourful life in your windy wake is very satisfying, and means the player is likely to very quickly stumble across some of the various unique interactions with the objects in the levels that serve as markers both environmentally and in terms of the gameplay structure. The game looks good - the flowers and foliage move in realistic and satisfying ways as the wind sweeps across them, and petals tumble and drift with a magical realism that is impressive, particularly for the era. Artistic design of the environments is a little weaker, though never bad. The high quality of the flora and foliage visuals can feel a little jarring against the low-poly, less interesting structural objects, though it is questionable whether this is by design or not - the principle focus of the game is, after all, nature - and the superiority of living things over erected structural ones. The game features a minimalistic but pleasing score, with the music swelling in key moments in a way that is satisfying and complimentary to the experience. Having said all that, Flower is something of an oddity. It is the game that was, probably more than any other console indie, cited as a positive example in conversations about whether videogames can be 'art'. It's a reductive argument (the answer is yes, obviously,) and thankfully one that has been pretty much won now, and consigned to the dustbin of tired memes, but when Flower released in 2009, those debates were in full force. The definition of 'art' in this context is nebulous. Clearly, the argument was never really about 'art' but rather, about whether videogames are purely entertainment (which is of course, 'art' in and of itself,) or whether they can have more to say than that. I was (even back then) firmly on the 'yes' side - the one that Flower was used to represent - however, Flower is not a game I would necessarily cite as being a particularly good example of that kind of 'art' in videogames. I struggle to actually find anything meaningful Flower has to say on anything more than a very simple, surface level. While I believe that, at the time Flower was released, there was something of value simply in the mere existence, on console, of a game about relaxing and experiencing the beauty of nature, and that eschewed the headshots, gritty, bald, snarling protagonists and plasma-rifles of other console fare, it was not until their next game - Journey - that Jenova Chen and Thatgamecompany really managed to take their flair for meditative, aesthetically interesting and novel gameplay, and actually make any kind of real statement with it. Flower has some very basic 'environmentalism' overtones, but only in the sense that nature is rendered more beautifully, and the player is playing on the 'nature side' of that struggle. It is, however, a struggle that no one really takes the opposing view on. Even construction magnates and oil barons are unlikely to make the argument that 'nature sucks' or that flowers aren't more beautiful than a squat brick building - to pretend so is silly - they simply don't value it more than profit. As such, it renders Flower's central thesis something of a moot point. When you are making a broad, sweeping statement upon which everyone unanimously already agrees, and there is no conflicting point of view, then it isn't really a statement of 'art' - it's just a statement of fact. Where Flower does hold up its 'artistic' credentials, is, as said above, in the simple slowing down of the game experience to one of relaxation and calm. While this would seem to put Flower in the same category as something like Proteus - and does in some spots - it lets itself down a little, on two fronts. Firstly, like previously discussed Shape of the World, it undercuts its meditative experience by requiring the player to fulfil fixed, distinct 'goals', meaning that - once the structure of the game becomes apparent - any meditative experience naturally becomes secondary to the primary goal of satisfying their requirements. Here, those goals are at least more interesting and varied than in Shape of the World, however, it does mean Flower fares worse than Proteus in this regard, simply because it fails to take the bold step that game did. It wants to be different to most games, but is too timid to follow through entirely, feeling the need to strap on a 'gameplay loop' - but doesn't provide a particularly satisfying one. Secondly, the 'calm, pleasant enjoyment' is dramatically undercut by the game's esoteric, motion based control scheme. Since there are 'goals' to be met, these begin to hurt the game, as its controls are often unable to keep up with the precision required to complete them. The six-axis motion controls are fluid and precise enough to be fun when simply drifting around a level and enjoying the interaction with various environmental objects, however, when a specific task is being undertaken, they are too loose and imprecise to really be adequate, and as a result, are liable to turn what is intended to be a pleasant experience into one of frustration and irritation. Overall, the game does still work in the context it intends to - I found great joy in the simple mechanics, and in interacting with the visual components, however, once the structure of the game makes itself known, and the game becomes a quote unquote "game" it does lose most of what makes it unique, along with most of what makes it great. Enjoyable, clever, very unique and interesting conceptually but a bit flawed in execution. The Ranking: Falling somewhere below Proteus, whose similarly zen-like experience is far more successful in implementation, but still above Shape of the World. While Flower also undercuts its own experience with the same issues - and adds a peculiar control scheme into the mix - it's goals, aesthetics and the feeling of the controls when simple 'whooshing' around an environment are more satisfying than anything Shape of the World had to offer. There is little in the way of obvious comparisons to Flower between those two games, but in terms simple of experience, I feel like the good parts of Flower shine brighter than any of the best parts of Neverending Nightmares, but the excellent, abstract visuals, sense of speed (which is not a million miles from the similar sense in Flower) ad the surprising competence of rhythm game Invector ensure it still fall above Flower, and so it finds its spot between them. Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor Summary: After Rocksteady's Batman: Arkham Asylum came along in 2009, and was followed up by Arkham City in 2011, the innovative combat system that those games pioneered, (a smart and fabulously fun splitting of the difference between 3D brawler and rhythm game mechanics,) it quickly began to creep into other games, as different developers picked up Rocksteady's baton and began to try and run with it. Some of the early attempts at doing so were simply pale imitations of Rocksteady's style, and admittedly, few if any games, even to this day have truly surpassed Rocksteady, who finessed that combat style to arguably it's sharpest ever point in the otherwise lacklustre 2015 finale to their trilogy, Arkham Knight. Some early examples included the well meaning but flawed DotNod Sci-Fi combat game Remember Me, and excellent open-world crime sim Sleeping Dogs, but it wasn't until 2014's Shadow of Mordor was released by Monolith that any developer really managed to take Rocksteady's creation and mould it into anything close to as satisfying an implementation as they themselves had. An open-world, mission-based character action game in the vein of Assassin's Creed, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor is a curious beast in terms of its appeal. While it takes aesthetic and tonal inspiration from the wildly successful (and excellent) Peter Jackson films, it's primary story is rooted far more in the tertiary Middle Earth literature, only familiar to those who have delved into the books, and are likely far more familiar with Tolkien's work on a deeper level than the films require. As a result, it is in a slightly strange space narratively, as its story is fairly anachronistic to the pre-existing lore, and makes little sense contextually therein. It therefore has the strange ambition of both wanting to appeal most to die-hard fans of the novels, yet being likely to offend the sensibilities of that group the most with its deviations from the lore and its focus on the more filmic 'action and bloodlust' side of the Tolkien world. Narratively, the story is fairly middling - the story of principal character Talion, and the ancient Elven ghost Celebrimbor who's spirit is tied to Talion's upon his mortal death, in a quest for vengeance against the rising power of Sauron is convoluted and somewhat awkwardly tied into the existing lore - however, as a discrete story it is well told for the most part, and notable well animated, motion captured and voice acted. The premise does require a significant 'buy-in' to get to grips with - there are quite a lot of Tolkien-esque staples that are considered 'expected knowledge' and so a Lord of the Rings neophyte may struggle to understand some nuances - but what the narrative really serves to do is to establish a game world in which the player can embark upon an adventure - and that adventure is where the game puts its best foot forward. All the 'gameplay' aspects of the game are extremely well realised for the most part, and a ton of fun to play with. Mechanically, the game moves and feels great - Talion is extremely nimble, and able to run, jump, climb virtually any surface with ease, and navigating the environment is a pleasure. An extremely expansive skill-tree full of interesting and gameplay-significant upgrades means that the game is very good about always having some new ability to try out, or some new goal to shoot for, and each new ability does open up new variations on ways to approach the games plentiful array of combat encounters. There is a stealth element in place, though not quite on the level of the rest of the game, (and that becomes less meaningful later, as Talion's upgrades tend to make open combat easier and more fun, minimising the need for a stealthy approach,) but they can be useful and fun in specific contexts. The mission structure is fairly pedestrian - nothing more or less than the Assassin's Creed games it apes, though individual missions - in particular narrative-heavy ones - are a little below the standards set by Ubisoft in those games. Combat is where the game really shines, though. The Arkham-esque combat model is very fun to play with, and while it borrows heavily from Rocksteady's model, it tweaks it enough to stand alone and tall. Where Arkham's combat would generally max out at around 20 enemies per encounter, Shadow of Mordor softens certain input requirements (wider timing windows, less 'locked-in' animations etc.) to make much larger encounters both viable, dynamic and very fun. Indeed, even a simple encounter in a fort with 10 or 12 orcs can - as a result of the 'call for reinforcement' mechanics, quickly evolve into a 50-on-1 brawl featuring 3 or 4 'named' captains with various different weaknesses and strengths (or immunities) requiring varied approaches, but the mechanics are such that survival of such an encounter is still within the realm of possibility for the average mortal. Health recovery is fairly limited in combat though, and as such, while feel powerful (even overpowered in small skirmishes) is sometimes an issue, larger ones can still often result in 'death by a thousand cuts.' Death in the game is, however, turned from an annoyance to one of the games strengths by the true mater-stroke of the game - the Nemesis system. The entire structure of Mordor's army of Orcs and Uruk-Hai (bigger orcs), works on a fluid, variable and randomised hierarchical structure. Lower level 'named' captains report to higher level ones, who report to higher level commanders, who report to area commanders - and the entire structure 'tree' of any open world area's army can be discovered, manipulated, and destroyed. The hierarchy is in a constant state of flux - separate to the player's input - as each orc captain has a different (randomised) history and relationships with other captains, and they are constantly engaging one another in battles for supremacy, hunts, or one on one duels, each of which can - at the players discretion, be manipulated, either subtly, by aiding one side over the other, or decidedly unsubtly - by slaughtering everyone. The intricacies of the Nemesis system are, without a doubt, the crux of the game. Dead captains remain dead until each player death - at which time, the hierarchy 'shifts' - new sub-captains are recruited from the ranks, dead ones replaced, and successful ones - in particular, ones that killed the player, are promoted. If a captain kills the player, he is likely to be promoted a level, and will get stronger, get a new 'title' and likely a wealth of new traits, making him not only stronger, but narratively, will recognise the player, and comment on his actions upon the next encounter. If an ordinary rank-and-file orc kills the player, he will be promoted to captain status next time. If the player is kills a commander, they may well return later - having miraculously survived, but will bear the scars of their previous loss, and will remember how they lost last time, and have words to say about it. repeated deaths by the same named orc, will result in that orc becoming the player's 'nemesis' - and can give each player a unique 'big-bad' who will dog the player throughout their entire playthrough, meaning each player (and playthrough) can have truly unique aspects and emergent story. In addition to all of this, at the mid point of the game, the ability to 'brand' (i.e. recruit) orcs to Talion's side becomes available, meaning the already impressive level of manipulation of the hierarchy of Mordor's army becomes infinitely more variable. Branding a low level captain is much easier than branding a high level one, but doing so, then manipulating the encounters to ensure the recruited 'inside man' is them promoted to high level is tremendously fun and satisfying - and can result in very clever scenarios, where high level, secret moles are recruited to the positions of 'bodyguards' of upper echelon commanders, meaning that during fights with these enemies, his own bodyguards will turn on him, acting as friendly NPC helpers. It is a fascinating system, and one that I am baffled has not ben adopted by more games post- Shadow of Mordor. It takes what is a mechanically sound, fun, but never narratively or aesthetically astounding game, and turns it into a blisteringly fun, exciting, variable and - most importantly - personal - emergent-story-based combat game. On the presentation front, Mordor looks very good. Never outstanding, but the environments are interesting and evocative - though there is a 'back-loaded' aspect to this. There are two primary areas in which the game takes place, each with its own Nemesis Hierarchy, and the second one, encountered after 15-20 hours, is much, much more visually interesting - a lush, green more Elven looking environment, still retaining it's prior splendour, as opposed to the first areas drab, grey/brown, burned out and desolate landscape. Character models are uniformly excellent - Talion and Celebrimbor look great, and the randomised Orcs and Uruk-Hai - who the player will need to be able to recognise - are impressively well realised, especially considering there is a huge level of randomisation to their appearances.Characters encountered in the story all look good for the most part - and Gollum, who makes an appearance in a few missions is drawn directly from Peter Jackson's vision of him - giving player familiar only with the films a welcome - if a little hackney and predictable - bit of fan service. All in all, the game is not remarkable on a narrative level, but gameplay is very well done, and the combat, and especially the Nemesis system, elevate what could be a solid, if run-of-the-mill open-world character action game to a remarkable lofty level, and give a the game a level of replayability not often present in games of the genre. It is also worth noting here - the two DLCs released for the game (while primarily narrative focussed) both feature discrete 'challenge modes' that lean heavily into the Nemesis system, making manipulation and taming of it the main focus, and adding a timer and points system into the mix. Both are fun (Though the Lord of the Hunt is the far superior of the two.) Both these DLCs add significant replay value to the package, and are well worth investing in. The Ranking: Assassin's Creed provides the best comparisons on the list so far. While narratively, Shadow of Mordor does not come close to the better AC games, and the variety of narrative missions or of aesthetic and artistic design is lesser here, the combat is notably superior to any AC game - and the Nemesis system is, as a discrete innovation, wildly beyond any single aspect of any Assassin's Creed. As a result, I think Shadow of Mordor manages to surpass Assassin's Creed II, and even Assassin's Creed Brotherhood (even accounting for the lack of any multiplayer to counter Brotherhood's excellent one.) the question them becomes - does Assassin's Creed Revelation's clear superiority in terms of art design, environment, and narrative - as well as the presence of the still excellent multiplayer- manage to combine to outdo the huge lead Mordor has in terms of gameplay? It's a question I pondered over for some time, but in the end, I feel like the answer is - yes... but only just. The Nemesis system is such an astounding achievement in Shadow of Mordor that it does dwarf any single one of those aspects - however, in terms of overall game, the combination of them is just enough to overwhelm Mordor. It is, however, an excruciatingly difficult call, and as such, Shadow of Mordor rightfully takes its spot directly beneath Assassin's Creed Revelations. Prince of Persia (2008) Summary: The Prince of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy having reached its natural end in 2005 with the (very good) The Two Thrones, by the time Ubisoft came around to create the next game, they would be led to something of a creative crossroads. Elsewhere within Ubisoft's conglomerate of international development houses, work had already begun on what would become the natural successor to Prince of Persia - in Assassin's Creed. While it was it's sequel - the blisteringly well realised Assassin's Creed II - that really cemented AC as a gold-spinning, long-lasting franchise it would become, even the first game, while driving it's own path narratively, was quite openly adopting and adapting many of the primary elements that had made the Sands of Time trilogy the games that they were. As a result, Ubisoft were left with a choice - continue in the stylistic framework already established, and virtually guarantee a negative outcome for one series or the other as obvious similarities invited open comparison, or use the previous trilogy's natural end as a springboard from which to reboot the franchise in a new stylistic direction, and leave the previous mantle to be carried by their new IP. Ubisoft chose (wisely) to do the latter, and rebooted Prince of Persia, reimagining both the tone, tenor, protagonist and art-style resulting in a game that - while retaining the same core building blocks that had defined Prince of Persia as an IP for the three games prior - lengthly platforming sections, a strong emphasis of characterisation of the titular 'hero', and a large, interesting and well designed environments, but eschewed virtually all other aspects - to, I believe, great success, but - it is worth noting - mixed critical and commercial reception. In terms of narrative, this is an entirely new take on the Prince. Actually, whether he actually is a Prince or not is somewhat debatable, as he seems to more of a roving vagabond than esteemed royalty. Beginning the game searching in a sandstorm for his donkey Farah (what poor Farah did in the trilogy to deserve that homage, I don't know!) he is swept up by some magic, and transported to another land, meets a woman named Elika who comes from a long line of warriors, sworn to guard the prison of the ancient and evil God Ahriman. She's not ding a great job, as he almost immediately gets out, and it's up to the Prince, with Elika in tow, to stop him unleashing his black corruption across the lands. Artistically and visually, this new version of Prince of Persia is wildly divergent from that that came before. Gone is the 'realistic' visual style, replace instead with a vibrant, high-contrast, cell-shaded fairytale aesthetic which looks really fantastic. In terms of environmental art, the game bears more similarities to something like Rime or Hob or Darksiders II than it does to previous games in the series - and it is notable that all three of these games used for comparison hail form at least 4 years (and in come cases up to 9 year) later. What Ubisoft does with artistic design allows a the game to shine in a way that the realistic design of the previous games never could, meaning this game is much less obviously 'outdated' visually, than even the Assassin's Creed games released around the same era. Character designs are strong and striking, with a bold black outline giving still images a true 'comic book, fairytale illustrative' feel. The addition of Elika as a companion gives the game both its narrative charm and its gameplay hooks. While this version of the Prince is not particularly likeable (not in the Emo way he was in The Warrior Within, but rather in more of a 'wise-cracking' dude-bro way that was rather tiresomely the flavour of the era,) but Elika is an incredibly engaging and likeable character, and saves the day on that front. Simple proximity to her is what redeems this Prince from suffering the same dearth of connection that The Warrior Within's Prince did, and his relationship with her helps to buoy his poor excuse for a personality considerably. Mechanically, the game works incredibly well as a two-hander. Elika is not a burdensome, incapable companion that must be protected (a la Yorda in Ico,) nor is she completely independent and liable to deviate or distract the player (as occasionally happens in something like The Last of Us.) Here, Elika is very much a part of the story, and is along for the ride every step of the way, but never seems to actually get in the way. Animations for when the characters interact mechanically - for example, passing one another on a ledge, or helping one another up a ledge and smooth and extremely natural and well done. Actions the Prince can take will involve Elika, but happen as instantaneously as actions performed solo, and so her presence becomes an extension of the player as much as the Princes are. In addition to these actions, Elika is also narratively and mechanically the excuse for the primary reason this game gets some flack from certain contingents of the fanbase (among who's ranks I do not reside) - the lack of difficulty. Make no mistake, this is a very easy game. The Prince cannot die. Even jumping directly off a cliff into thin air will simply result in an animation in which Elika pulls you back to the nearest ledge. Failing in combat (of which, it should be noted, there is far, far less of a focus here, with fights limited to a few single boss-type enemies who are encountered multiple times, and no 'grunt enemies are present,) shows her revive you - the enemies regain some health, but you do not start over. There is no fail-state in the game. This is a curious decision in the game. On the one hand, it does eliminate the narrative dissonance most games have - in which game-over screens are seen and the player must reload, and pretend it didn't happen from a narrative sense. On the other hand, it's a videogame. Players are more than accustomed to glossing over that dissonance, as we have been doing it since time immemorial. What is does mean is, the game is entirely reliant on other aspects than challenge to keep the player interested, as the 'threat' of failure is absent. In the case of narrative as a driving force, the game is fair to middling - it is an okay story, but not massively complex, interesting or nuanced. On the other hand, the joy of playing the game does come from two main aspects - Elika herself, who is uniformly and consistently charming within said mediocre story, and the interaction with the mechanics, which are uniformly good. Levels are vast and well designed, and the simple act of climbing, wall-running, ceiling scuttling (a new mechanic here) and whatnot are better realised and more fun to engage with than in any previous PoP game. The removal of the threat of death also means sections of combination platforming and long, complex acrobatic manoeuvres that are both fun to do and to watch are present, and feasible at a level that would have been untenable in the previous games. The game features a light metroidvania aspect to it, involving the unlocking of coloured 'plates' allowing signature special acrobatic moves to be done in identified places, meaning some of the end-game platforming sections, where multiples of these are employed, almost veer beyond platforming in any traditional sense, and veer into the realm of rhythm game mechanics. I have gone back and forth on the decision to implement the 'no-death' system. While the concept of a lengthly character action game in which you cannot die dies seem an odd prospect - and there is certainly an inherent lack of challenge that goes along with it - I do think in the case of Price of Persia, it is less of an issue than it might be with other franchises. The reason is simple - frankly, dying in previous Prince of Persia games was never a huge issue anyways, as a result of the 'rewind' mechanic. It could therefore be argued, this is simply an extension of that rewind mechanic - it simply is no longer up to the player to hit a button to activate it, but rather, down to Elika. Overall, despite it's divisiveness, resulting in some criticism from fans at the time of release (and I will acknowledge - a stultifyingly stupid decision, upon release, to relegate the actual ending of the game to a DLC - seriously, what were they thinking? It makes no difference to my rankings, as I consider DLC to be mandatory anyways, but still - outrageous and appalling behaviour!) - this version of Prince of Persia is, to my mind, the most enjoyable iteration to actually play on a mechanical level, the most accomplished on a technical level, and by far the most pleasing on an artistic level. Narratively, it is weaker, certainly, but what it lacks in complexity, and in likability of the Prince, it makes up for in smoothness, satisfaction, odd, fun acrobatics and a charming-as-all-hell companion. The Ranking: In comparison to the other Prince of Persia games already ranked (and which I liked quite a lot,) I believe this 2008 version does stand up. Certainly The Warrior Within falls below it, and the technical, artistic and mechanical aspects are easily enough to compensate for the narrative drawbacks it has when pitted against The Sands of Time. The real competition it has form its predecessors in in comparison to The Two Thrones - and in that case, where the technical aspects are far closer, I think the narrative elements of this game begin to show as genuine cracks. While actual platforming remains better here, and the art design is far more impressive, there is a lack of interesting combat, and of a narrative drive to the finish line that The Two Thrones has. there is also, in The Two Thrones, a far more varied and clever use of specific boss battle mechanics, which are roundly missing in this game's fairly flat combat model. As such, Prince of Persia(2008) fails to outdo its immediate predecessor. Slightly below that point, are Driver: San Francisco and the PS3 version of Shadow of the Colossus. Because of the existence of the far superior PS4 version of Shadow of the Colossus, I am less inclined to accommodate the many glaring technical issues in the PS3 version, and in comparison to Prince of Persia(2008)'s technical reliability, they make it a tough beat. Driver, on the other hand, is a game with surprisingly engaging narrative, unique and interesting mechanics, and while the art-style is fairly pedestrian, it is such a pleasure to play, that it beats out Prince of Persia. As such, Prince of Persia (2008) finds its spot on the list in between those two games. Sniper Ghost Warrior Summary: Anyone who has played the old Silent Scope games in the arcade, or the (wildly under-appreciated) Hitman Sniper, or Sniper missions in Hitman 2, knows one thing about precision sniping in video games - it's amazing, and you feel like a God doing it. There are very few single acts in videogames more satisfying than making a perfectly timed, tricky headshot using a sniper rifle and having it pay off. City Interactive understand this too. They lean into the act with a an almost fetishistic level of gun-porn adoration. From the slow-motion shot, to the camera tracking the bullet, to the headshot cam watching the target's cranium burst apart in militaristic glory, it is abundantly clear that the developer of Sniper Ghost Warrior is well aware of what players are looking for from their game. Sniping, in Sniper Ghost Warrior feels great. Unfortunately, it is, quite literally, the only thing in the game that does. There is one thing those games listed above - the ones that have great sniping as their core mechanic - have in common. In them, the player is stationary. He or she is located in a crows-nest vantage point, and is not required to move around. If Sniper Ghost Warrior was the same, but featured its sniping model - a fairly 'simulation-heavy' military model, accounting for such technical aspects as gun type, scope type, bullet drop, wind direction etc. I really believe City Interactive could be on to a real winner. They aren't. Unfortunately, this game requires the protagonists eye to be removed from the scope, and his legs to be engaged, and the very second that happens, the game falls apart, artistically, technically, mechanically, narratively and in terms of enjoyment. Operating in an incredibly linear level design, even within the first level, it becomes extremely apparent that the game does not understand why it exists. If a player is playing as a Sniper, one would imagine that the best course of action would be to scope out the location of a target from afar, and find a vantage point from which to take their shot. However, almost immediately, as the principal character begins to move in the (apparently open) jungle setting, the scolding begins. GET BACK TO YOUR AREA! appears on the screen, warning the player they have tread three steps too far into the jungle (you know, the jungle that looks exactly like the other bits of jungle that are apparently part of 'YOUR AREA') and a 5 second timer begins counting down to your instant death. So you turn back, try a different direction, until the same message pops up. Then again. Then again. Environments are apparently large (and in fairness, fairly well detailed for the time, unlike the character models,) but so little of them seems to be allowed to be explored, that it becomes very apparent very quickly that you will simply be following a set path, to pre-chosen sniper spots. This is, of course, baffling, given that pre-chosen sniper spots would, of course, be ideal - except why am I then having to play this game of directional battleships to try and make my way to them? Visually, as stated, the environments are quite nice looking - fairly well detailed and lush. Character models are incredibly not. Every character model is blocky and unappealing, with an oddly glossy face and glassy-eyed expression - none more so than the main character (seen, animating very poorly, in cutscenes.) The nice rendering of the environments is, while welcome, still not enough to compensate for the fact that there is no real variety of location - all missions take place in the same 'jungle and military compound' type areas, so there is little sense of variety across the game. The game's narrative is dull and lifeless, and largely forgettable. A plethora of poorly rendered cutscenes are used - and as it turns out, are actually an added addition to this particular version of the game. Apparently, the Xbox 360 release of the game, (released a year prior) had a number of 'run-and-gun' sections that were so hopelessly inept and poorly received that the developers cut them out of this release, and replaced them with these cutscenes. AI in the game is a constant issue - it is never clear whether your first shot, killing a guard will cause his buddy standing beside him to stare, unfazed at his now lifeless corpse, or to immediately swivel around, and somehow spot you from 300 meters away, and fell you with two shots from a small sidearm. There is a multiplayer here, and, it has some special treats in store. As might be expected based on the above description of the single-player campaign, it is both technically poor and woefully inept, however, as an added bonus, it is also just conceptually foolish. You know, in a great military multiplayer game - say, Call of Duty or Battlefield, what playing as a sniper feels like? You are powerful, yes, and deadly, but also lack mobility. You are able to make amazing and deadly shots from a distance, but when someone gets up close, you are in trouble. Now, imagine that game, but every player is a sniper. What do you think will happen? Bingo - you guessed it! You end up with a multiplayer in which no one moves, and everyone spends the whole time waiting for everyone else to move. Every player is armed with only a sniper rifle and a side arm (plus a few grenades) which means that all matches are either a 0-scoring stalemate, or a chaotic mess of grenade-spamming and pistol combat, in a game engine and environment wildly unsuited to anything but long-range fire. It's genuinely hard for me to comprehend how many different ways Sniper Ghost Warrior fails to live up to expectations. Yes, it has excellent sniping, however, many other games in which sniping is merely a minor part - Far Cry, Hitman, Call of Duty, Battlefield - manage to have fairly serviceable sniping too - but they also manage to have a game attached. Sniper Ghost Warrior feels like an incredibly finessed single mechanic, that a publisher saw, and then gave a team 20-buck and a week and a half to turn into a fully fledged product to compete with Call of Duty. It results in a game that could barely compete with a wet paper bag. The Ranking: Okay, no point in discussing any comparison to other military shooters, as Sniper Ghost Warrior is far too inept to matter to them, and there doesn't exist on the list any FPS games of any stripe that are anywhere close to as bad as this one. We are in bottom of the list territory here. The fact that Sniper Ghost Warrior does have one aspect - the actual sniping mechanics - which are not only functional, but actively good (when not being trodden on by other aspects) does mean it is saved from ranking lower than any of the truly woeful titles that do nothing well - Watchmen: The End Is Nigh / WWE Legends Of WrestleMania / Kick-Ass The Game / Space Overlords etc. That one aspect is enough to climb up the depths of the list a little bit, but wen it reaches even the dim 'heights' of Terminator Salvation, it is unable to proceed, as that game, while staggeringly dull and disappointing, did at least offer some mild interest from a variety point of view, and had a narrative that was, while not interesting, at least somewhat varied. ⚛️⚛️BONUS GAMES⚛️⚛️ 1 Additional eligible Platinums earned this round!: Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart Summary: The latest in the Ratchet and Clank series, Rift Apart represents more than simply the next entry in a storied and revered (and very long-running) series of games, but also has a more symbolic status, as perhaps the first PS5 game to truly give a glimpse of the visual capabilities of the new console. Visuals are the absolute high-point of the game, and there is no need to mince words here - the game looks astounding. This is not simply a case of saying "This game looks good" to other regular players of games. This isn't even in that more rarified realm of "Hey, come and look at this" getting shouted by gamers to their less-game savvy family members. This is on the level of random family members stopping in their tracks as they walk by, and asking "What are you watching... wait... are you controlling that?" The expression "Like an interactive Pixar movie" is about as tired a meme as gaming has ever heard, but at this point, in looking at Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart, it has become hackneyed in a new way - the term is now both tired and inadequate - the game doesn't just look like a Pixar movie - it looks better than most Pixar movies. The visual fidelity, smoothness of animation, lighting, and textures are on a level I have not seen in console games before. I think an argument that this is the best looking console game released on any platform up to this point would be tough to counter - and as a technical showpiece of the graphics of the console, the game is unparalleled. Unfortunately, beyond the visuals, there is little else positive to say about the game, in the context of the series it represents. While Rift Apart is a marvellous looking game, and a towering achievement in that area, in virtually every other aspect, it falls well short of the games that preceded it, and the bar set by the series generally. Narratively, the game is fairly middling. Once again, Ratchet is feeling useless and bored without a nemesis to fight (that happens often to poor Ratchet, who I have to assume suffers from some form of Lombax-ADHD!) When, during a victory parade celebrating one of the duo's many galaxy saving adventures, Dr. Nefarious once again tries to seize power, this time using a stolen invention of Clank's - a Dimensionator - to find a universe in which he is already victorious. In doing so, he accidentally damages the fabric of space-time, causing multiple dimensions to bleed into one another, and finding a dimension where he already rules (as the separate Emperor Nefarious,) and - crucially - where Ratchet's counterpart, a female Lombax named Rivet, works with a resistance, attempting to bring him down. Clank ends up travelling with Rivet, Ratchet finds a new Clank-a-Like called Kit, and the pair divvy up the levels as the player hops from one pair to the other, working to repair the damage caused by Nefarious, and defeat both version of him. It's not the weakest plot a Ratchet game has ever had, but it is close. Thematically, there is very little here in the way of the satire the games have come to be known for. Gone is all the "consumerism run amok" or environmental concerns of previous games, and instead, the story is largely one following simple character-specific themes of friendship and forgiveness. These are fine, if a little simple for the series, but where it really falls down is in the lack of comedy. Ratchet games have traditionally been hotbeds of funny lines and scenes - here, there are not as many as before, and they land far less often. The game features almost no input from Captain Quark (The low-hanging, yet often best fruit of the Ratchet comedy troupe,) and Rivet, who comprises half the game, while genuinely likeable, is never given even a hint of comedy to work with. The french-accented Pirates are the closest stand-in for the comedy, but rarely if ever actually draw a chuckle. The switching between characters mechanic is interesting, but ultimately frivolous - and entirely a narrative hook. There is no material difference to how the Ratchet and Rivet control, and in fact, both have access to the same purchased weapons, sharing both upgrades, and even things like ammo count, so really, playing as one or the other is a simple palate swap. Personally, I found Rivet's relationship with Clank to be the more compelling of the two parings, but would have liked to see her receive some kind of different move set. (This would not be difficult to account for, as each paring has their own distinct sets of levels, and levels cannot be accessed by both characters, so I see no reason why both characters could not be more distinct, and have more character specific level designs.) The game is relatively short, and features only a handful of planets - fewer than half the number on show in some previous games. Artistic design is fun, however, there does seem to be a slight lack of variety across the worlds, and a very visible reduction in the exploration scope within each level. Each planet is generally either very much a 'tunnelled path' or a wide open plane, neither of which is peppered with the usual level of secret areas and nooks and crannies to be found and explored. Indeed, in no previous R&C game has it been more apparent that a 'style over substance' approach has been taken to the level design. There is a constant feeling that exploration is being stymied by the game, as ledges that should be accessible are guarded by invisible walls, chasms that should be traversable result in instant falls etc. The game does not want the player to expose any lack of visual fidelity, and so, refuses to allow the normal level of 'poking and prodding' at the environment. After a certain point, this does tend to teach the player to simply give up exploring, and simply follow waypoints. There is a slight lack of technical polish to the game also - while everything looks great, I found I often 'glitched' between two objects, resulting in wild camera swivels, or Ratchet / Rivet being trapped inside geometry, or simply falling through it. the game is well checkpointed, so this was never a gamebreaking issue, but is something of an immersion-breaking one. In the majority of R&C games, simply playing the story, without deviating from the main path much, would generally net the player around 30-40% of the secret collectibles (gold bolts / Raritanium etc.) This means there is inherent repeatability, in the sense that returning to previous levels to explore is a key component of the games. In this case, however, I finished the game with near 90% of the gold bolts, and having almost fully upgraded all weapons, without any additional backtracking than what was required by the primary narrative. That meant that, while amazing to look at, the scope for enjoyment of the visuals, by re-exploring the levels is dramatically lessened. Enemies are fairly varied, and fun to fight with Ratchet / Rivet's array of goofy and fun weapons, however, they do seems to have returned to a less nuanced version of AI than previous games had reached. Enemies rarely flank or take cover, and instead, simply swarm at the player, meaning combat tends to simply be a case of running backwards, firing indiscriminately, Borderlands style. All in all, the game is certainly worth playing - and the visuals alone are enough to give momentum to a playthrough, and drive the player forward, but it is a little disappointing that visuals are the sole thing doing so, in a series which has, generally, had both top notch visuals, and a lot of other things going for it. Here, the visuals are a massive step forward, but everything else takes a back seat to them, ands results in a short game with little to no replay value. A bit of a disappointment - however, with the visuals now proven, I am extremely hopeful and excited for whatever the next PS5 Ratchet game will be! The Ranking: As comparison points, obviously the two previously ranked Ratchet games are most appropriate. It goes without saying, based on the above, that Rift Apart has no hope against Ratchet and Clank 2: Going Commando. However, in reviewing against the original game, it raises an interesting concern - just how far can a single aspect of a game carry it? Visually, the game is amazing, and so far beyond the original (even accounting for the difference in release dates) that it isn't even funny, however, in all other areas, it falls markedly behind. As a result, I am forced to consider other games. The most immediate one to come to mind is The Order 1886. It was also a launch window game - this time for PS4, and also sacrificed gameplay, narrative and length in favour of (at the time) astounding graphical prowess. In the end, that was unable to save that game on the rankings, simply because, in reviewing it, science was applied long after the release. The visuals, while amazing at the time, are something that fades as time wears on and other games catch up, and that is of note. While, at the moment, Rift Apart seems breathtaking based on it's visuals, I suspect in 5 - 10 years time, when such the visuals are simply par-for-the-course, Rift Apart is destined to be remembered as 'lesser Ratchet.' As such, it is forced to fall well below the original Ratchet and Clank. We need then, to consider other games with great visuals as their primary selling points. Until Dawn, by Supermassive is a game that sells itself primarily on visual prowess, but I think there is more meat there, in terms of gameplay, and certainly in terms of repeatability than Rift Apart offers. However, despite its context as an example, The Order 1886, while suffering the same problems, is - visuals aside - simply a less good or fun game than Rift Apart, so we find ourselves in-between. In the end, on the current list, Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart's rightful place seems to be just one notches below Until Dawn - its gameplay is fine, but never more than that, and occasionally veering well under it. So there we have it folks! Thanks to @Copanele , @FilmFanatic & @GonzoWARgasm for putting in requests! Invisible Inc stays on top for now as 'Current Most Awesome Game' And Space Overlords stays as king of the crap-tastic olympics, as 'Least Awesome Game' What games will be coming along next time to challenge for the tasty treat... or the sour grape? That's up to randomness, me.... and YOU! Remember: SPECIAL NOTE If there are any specific games anyone wants to see get ranked sooner rather than later - drop a message, and I'll mark them for 'Priority Ranking'! The only stipulation is that they must be on my profile, at 100% (S-Rank).... and aren't already on the Rankings! Catch y'all later my Scientific Brothers and Sisters! ☮️ 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraniteSnake Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said: Here, the visuals are a massive step forward, but everything else takes a back seat to them, ands results in a short game with little to no replay value. Wow! Crazy to see A Rift Apart ranked so poorly. I can see why after reading your review though. Reading it reminded me a lot of inFamous Second Son, a massive step up visually but ultimately failed to surpass the quality of the first two entries. Funny seeing Sniper Ghost Warrior being reviewed as well. Man, it’s multiplayer was an absolute abomination! I’m playing through the second one now, I think it’ll be the last ‘Sniper’ game I ever play. ? Once you’ve played one, you’ve kind of played them all! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, GraniteSnake said: Wow! Crazy to see A Rift Apart ranked so poorly. I can see why after reading your review though. Reading it reminded me a lot of inFamous Second Son, a massive step up visually but ultimately failed to surpass the quality of the first two entries. Yeah - it's not a terrible game by any stretch - I just think it is destined to be completely forgotten once visuals generally catch up to the point that it isn't a stand-out on that front. In it's favour though - I will say - I'd love Rivet to stick around and be in more games, as I liked her as a character - and in a better narrative, I think she could really be an asset! Quote Funny seeing Sniper Ghost Warrior being reviewed as well. Man, it’s multiplayer was an absolute abomination! I’m playing through the second one now, I think it’ll be the last ‘Sniper’ game I ever play. Once you’ve played one, you’ve kind of played them all! You know - this one killed any desire for me to check out more sniper games - though I have heard that the other franchise - Sniper Elite is a little more varied, and a little less... fucking awful ? That MP though - jeebus. What a pile of mince! I literally cannot believe that there was a time I was willing to grind that out just for a platinum - those days are long gone now! Edited July 15, 2021 by DrBloodmoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselmanchild Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 I enjoyed reading your thoughts on Prince of Persia (2008) above, as I finished the trilogy a few months back and have had this one sitting at the top of my PS3 backlog for awhile. The cell shaded graphics and the redesigned platforming look really unique, and after reading your thoughts on the game I’m pretty much sold on making it one of my next PS3 platinums. I think this is my first time popping in here and I must say I am very impressed with the eloquence and depth to your reviews and thoughts on your games. I think many of these so called “professional” video game critics and reviewers could take a page from your book. Glancing at your list here I can see there are dozens of games that I either haven’t played, or which have collecting dust in my backlog for some time. I will certainly be skimming through and looking for your rankings on some of them to help me figure out which ones I should be prioritizing or hunting down copies of. Keep up the good scientific work, Doctor. ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 1 minute ago, dieselmanchild said: I enjoyed reading your thoughts on Prince of Persia (2008) above, as I finished the trilogy a few months back and have had this one sitting at the top of my PS3 backlog for awhile. The cell shaded graphics and the redesigned platforming look really unique, and after reading your thoughts on the game I’m pretty much sold on making it one of my next PS3 platinums. I think this is my first time popping in here and I must say I am very impressed with the eloquence and depth to your reviews and thoughts on your games. I think many of these so called “professional” video game critics and reviewers could take a page from your book. Glancing at your list here I can see there are dozens of games that I either haven’t played, or which have collecting dust in my backlog for some time. I will certainly be skimming through and looking for your rankings on some of them to help me figure out which ones I should be prioritizing or hunting down copies of. Keep up the good scientific work, Doctor. Thank you very much mate - that’s very nice of you to say ? On Prince of Persia - yeah, a very peculiar game that one - but one I definitely enjoyed - certainly more than the general consensus on it anyways! (I’m just waiting for @Copanele to come in and denounce the science forever as a result of that opinion? ?) Though - I do wonder how much people actually disliked it at the time, vs, it being pure reaction to the (genuinely disgusting) separation of the end of the game for seperate ‘DLC’ sale - it’s maybe the most egregious example of that practice ever done, outside of maybe Asura’s Wrath, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the bad taste it left in people’s mouths just soured them to every aspect of the game by association! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Together_Comic Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 3 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: It is a fascinating system, and one that I am baffled has not ben adopted by more games post- Shadow of Mordor. It takes what is a mechanically sound, fun, but never narratively or aesthetically astounding game, and turns it into a blisteringly fun, exciting, variable and - most importantly - personal - emergent-story-based combat game. I'm pretty sure that the Nemesis system has been patented so other games (outside of WB Games), literally can't use it. There was a big hullaballoo some time ago about it. Nothing that I had played this time, but either way, great reviews as always. Sad to see that Into the Nexus was pretty forgettable. With that in mind, I feel a bit more justified in waiting on an upgrading to the PS5 yet though (not that I imagine that I would have a lot of choice in that regard ?). None of the new games seem to be absolute must plays yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 16 minutes ago, Together_Comic said: I'm pretty sure that the Nemesis system has been patented so other games (outside of WB Games), literally can't use it. There was a big hullaballoo some time ago about it. Man - what a sucky move if that’s the case - and absolutely ridiculous considering the game that birthed it got where it is by making use of a very clearly influenced combat mechanic from another studio! 16 minutes ago, Together_Comic said: Nothing that I had played this time, but either way, great reviews as always. Sad to see that Into the Nexus was pretty forgettable. With that in mind, I feel a bit more justified in waiting on an upgrading to the PS5 yet though (not that I imagine that I would have a lot of choice in that regard ). None of the new games seem to be absolute must plays yet. Haha - see? Rift Apart is so forgettable that you forgot it’s name in the time it took to type this response! ?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copanele Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 2 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: On Prince of Persia - yeah, a very peculiar game that one - but one I definitely enjoyed - certainly more than the general consensus on it anyways! (I’m just waiting for @Copanele to come in and denounce the science forever as a result of that opinion ) Actually, I did not dislike the game! Other than the Prince being the dudebro who does "hey baberella" jokes and cracks some Monster energy drinks with his trusted friend the donkey, game had a lot of charm. Especially Elika who goddamn if she wasn't one of the better written females in videogames. Agreed with the scientific paper fully, game had beautiful visuals, fun platforming and horrible DLC (yes, Asura's Wrath was WAY worse. Played it and my god Capcom had some utterly scumbag - ish practices.) About the difficulty I found it to be a huge minus from my point of view, but I also agree with you. That's because you LOVE puzzles and I LOVE Action based games, which is a matter of taste So yeah, the fact that I couldn't die kinda made me approach the game in a "brute force" kind of way, applying a solution until it worked. Baboon applies hammer to problem until solution. So yeah, great scientific report as usual. No complaints there. Also big thumbs up for Bloodborne. Good game, but you can't Powerstance helicopter slash Laurence like in DS2 ?. Now...to push the science further beyond...I have a request: Far Cry Primal. I had a sort of divisive opinion as in, I actually enjoyed that game. Curious to see your take on that one 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBloodmoney Posted July 15, 2021 Author Share Posted July 15, 2021 7 minutes ago, Copanele said: Actually, I did not dislike the game! Other than the Prince being the dudebro who does "hey baberella" jokes and cracks some Monster energy drinks with his trusted friend the donkey, game had a lot of charm. Especially Elika who goddamn if she wasn't one of the better written females in videogames. haha - I think that just shows what a weird legacy that game has - I guess I just assumed that you being a big fan of the Sands of Time trilogy, you would have baulked at the 2008 one - glad I was wrong! 7 minutes ago, Copanele said: Agreed with the scientific paper fully, game had beautiful visuals, fun platforming and horrible DLC (yes, Asura's Wrath was WAY worse. Played it and my god Capcom had some utterly scumbag - ish practices.) About the difficulty I found it to be a huge minus from my point of view, but I also agree with you. That's because you LOVE puzzles and I LOVE Action based games, which is a matter of taste So yeah, the fact that I couldn't die kinda made me approach the game in a "brute force" kind of way, applying a solution until it worked. Baboon applies hammer to problem until solution. That’s actually a really good point, and one I hadn’t considered - by removing a lot of the combat, and the threat aspect, they sort of did turn PoP into what is effectively a 3D spacial puzzle game! That completely makes sense why it clicked better with me than others - Puzzlers are pretty much the one genre I have consistently loved right back to when I was a kid - (full disclosure - when considering whether to do a trophy checklist at all, I had considered doing Puzzle games exclusively - this was almost DrBloodmoney’s Puzzle Extravaganza!) It also, I guess, accounts for some of why I feel a bit out of step with the popular consensus - Puzzlers are, afterall, never as popular as character action games! 7 minutes ago, Copanele said: So yeah, great scientific report as usual. No complaints there. Also big thumbs up for Bloodborne. Good game, but you can't Powerstance helicopter slash Laurence like in DS2 ?. I really do hope that FROM revisits the Lovecraftian, Eldrich stuff at some point. Doesn’t have to be Bloodborne 2 (though that would do nicely!) but in some capacity - it’s such a good fit for their brand of fear-based-games 7 minutes ago, Copanele said: Now...to push the science further beyond...I have a request: Far Cry Primal. I had a sort of divisive opinion as in, I actually enjoyed that game. Curious to see your take on that one Oh - interesting - good call - I have a hunch you and I might be more in step with that one than you think actually… I’ll mark it down with your name, though I think I’ll need to get at least Far Cry 3 done first as a baseline - so I’ll put a marker down on that one too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselmanchild Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 3 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said: Though - I do wonder how much people actually disliked it at the time, vs, it being pure reaction to the (genuinely disgusting) separation of the end of the game for seperate ‘DLC’ sale - it’s maybe the most egregious example of that practice ever done, outside of maybe Asura’s Wrath, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the bad taste it left in people’s mouths just soured them to every aspect of the game by association! I’ve never even heard of something like that before, and wouldn’t have believed a company would dare pull some shit like that if you hadn’t told me. I can see how this would cause a lot of people to oppose the game simply out of protest against that kind of shady business. I’d wager the rest of the dislike for this game stems mostly from the fact it’s so drastically different than previous Prince of Persia games. Most people are resistant to change, especially when you’re taking a beloved franchise/character or whatever and completely reinventing it. It’s a risky proposition, and based on many of the examples I’ve seen this often doesn’t go over well at all. Take the DmC: Devil May Cry remake for example - that game was largely hated on and mercilessly criticized by fans of DMC, even though it’s actually a pretty fantastic hack-n-slash action game with a really interesting spin on the DMC universe. I have no attachment to the franchise and it’s characters so I went in with zero expectations. After playing through it myself, I was genuinely shocked to know how despised it is amongst fans because it ended up being a pretty fucking awesome game. 30 minutes ago, Copanele said: Actually, I did not dislike the game! Other than the Prince being the dudebro who does "hey baberella" jokes and cracks some Monster energy drinks with his trusted friend the donkey, game had a lot of charm. This made me laugh. The poor prince has definitely gone through some disturbing personality changes throughout the series. The funniest one so far was when he went all dark and emo in Warrior Within. He kinda came across as the type of dude who wears black eyeliner and sits in his room all day smoking weed and listening to funeral doom metal. It’s had to imagine him any edgier than that. Can’t wait to see what they did with him in this one. ? 30 minutes ago, Copanele said: Now...to push the science further beyond...I have a request: Far Cry Primal. I had a sort of divisive opinion as in, I actually enjoyed that game. Curious to see your take on that one Hey good idea.. I second this request! I just picked up Far Cry Primal in a sale a couple weeks back and was planning on playing it pretty soon. My brother says it’s one of the best Far Cry games and I’m interested to know if this is scientifically accurate? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now