DrBloodmoney's Super Scientific Ranking of Games!

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC RE-CERTIFICATION?

 

A little update here, necessitated by the DLC addition to a previously ranked game, who's DLC I have now earned!

 

 

   

 

Dead Cells - Return to Castlevania DLC

 

Summary:

 

Adding Castlevania trappings to Dead Cells feels like a perfect fit. 
Castlevania is not a franchise with which I am particularly familiar in terms of actually playing, however, while I have not personally had my hands on a controller for many entries in the franchise, I am fairly familiar with the games... and particularly with the multitude of games in its sphere of influence. I may have grown up coming more from the "Metroid" end of the "Metroidvania" genre... but I am fully aware that the "Castle" side of that portmanteau is equally important in birthing the genre that bears its name. 

Like Metroid, Castlevania is an old and beloved franchise, but where Metroid has suffered occasionally form a simply lack of entries, Castlevania has suffered from an ebb-and-flow of quality within its franchise...
...but both issues can really be attributed to the same core reason: They are both franchises that were so influential, that they created a whole genre of competitors.

 

Other games have picked up the mantle, and run with it, and given that metroidvanias are one of the biggest staples that benefitted from the explosion of indie and smaller games that began a decade ago, and is still going strong to this day, it seems the old guard have genuine issues competing with the young upstart games that have sprung up in their wake.

Dead Cells is, of course, one of these. Dead Cells is a game that was already notably influenced by, not only Castlevania, but Castlevania in its halcyon days - in the 16-bit era. 
That Dead Cells would wrap around, and fully embrace and raise up the franchise to which it owes a proto-genetic debt, feels rather fitting. Castlevania taught Dead Cells to walk, and now, Dead Cells is extending an hand, and helping Castlevania up off the matt a little. 

Could Castlevania have gotten up on its own?
Of course.

Undoubtedly. 
You can never count out a powerhouse franchise, even during it's darkest days... (just ask Agent 47!)... 
...but there's no doubt in my mind that Castlevania getting a loving tribute in a game as continually popular and well regarded as Dead Cells will have resulted in a fresh injection of steroids in the old slugger, and is more than likely to spark some renewed interest in getting it chugging away on the tracks again.

 

 

Dead Cells is no stranger to DLC additions - indeed, few games outside of the MMO space have been more thoroughly fleshed out and added to by such a wealth of additional content post-launch than Dead Cells.

There are games where DLC contains a lot of great game, but feels distinct and different from the main game to which it is attached (Returnal's Ascension DLC / Bioshock 2's excellent Minerva's Den, or even Prey's fantastic Mooncrash DLC,) and there are games like Dandara, or Slay the Spire, where the DLC additions are perhaps less "gameplay intensive" on their own, but weave into the fabric of the main game seamlessly, and simply elevate the standing of the original game.

Dead Cells is one of those rare instances where not only does the total gameplay included across its plethora of DLC offerings now outweigh the amount of gameplay originally included, but it also weaves it into the main game so seamlessly, that it becomes genuinely difficult, without actually delving into the history (or the trophy lists,) to recall which elements were "base game" and which ones were not.

That has been a real point of commendation for Dead Cells. Not only that the developer has been able to keep adding DLC content to the game that is interesting and distinct enough to sustain interest over a very long post-release tail, but that their original game is solid enough as a foundation, and fun enough in gameplay, that it could support such a hefty set of additional content, without it over-balancing the core game.
I say this because, with the Return to Castlevania DLC, Motion Twin has kept up their ability to keep adding content that is fun, interesting, distinct and well designed... but this is perhaps the first DLC where they don't quite manage to integrate it into the existing Dead Cells framework with the same level of elegance.

Let's just get this stated now: The Return to Castlevania DLC is good stuff. 

Its a few new areas that are distinct and fun - in particular, a very cool elevator-related level that works surprisingly well - evoking the Clock-Tower section of the main Dead Cells game, but still managing to feel specific and slightly different - and it contains 3 new bosses, each of which is some level of good fun to play against.
It contains some new weapons and items that, while not feeling hugely game-changing (Dead Cells is arguably at the point now, where it contains so many weapons and items, that virtually every possible new way of playing can only be made different by a matter of minor degrees,) and the tone itself is curious and fun - a little more "gothic" and "fairytale" than the rest of the game.

Where it falls down a little though, is that the Return to Castlevania DLC, unlike all other DLCs feels rather "bolted on". It never integrates seamlessly. Because the individual paths that lead to the new content do not all "loop back" into the main path, there is a feeling with this DLC, that the player is choosing to either play the DLC content, or the "real game". 
There is an early portion of the Castlevania content, which, if followed, does loop back to the main path, but doing this feels like a "side content alleyway" - and, oddly, if the player does do this section, they are actually unable to access the second, longer section of Castlevania content. 
Accessing the second Castlevania path, on the other hand, puts the player on a completely new path - and they are unable to ever loop back to the main game content. They simply reach the end of the DLC content, and see a different credits ending.

The result is, that while the Castlevania DLC is undoubtedly fun, a neat addition to a great game, and a loving tribute to a beloved franchise - it has a certain melancholic feel about it...
...as it is the first DLC that feels more like an "end-of-life" addition. 

There's nothing overtly tired feeling about it, but the fact that it feels like something designed to simply be experienced within the framework of Dead Cells, rather than substantially adding to it, or fleshing it out, feels different than the other DLCs.

Perhaps I've been playing a little too much Cities Skylines recently, but the metaphor that comes to mind, is that Return to Castlevania feels like a cul-de-sac, rather than an expansion to the Dead Cells roadmap. It is good content, but it doesn't leave obvious hooks for additional roads to be added from it. It feels like the little street you add when you get near the city-limits, because that's all you have left that can fit in the space... whereas all the previous DLCs felt like true expansions to the city itself.

 

I think any Dead Cells player will have fun with the Return to Castlevania DLC - I certainly did - and most likely this will be doubly so for players with a true love and nostalgia for the Castlevania franchise...
...however, I struggle to imagine many players who regularly play Dead Cells continuing to play the content contained within it much beyond the initial fun of beating it. It feels like an alternative extra mode, rather than a new, interesting path, and that does limit its scope for ongoing play.

 

 

 

Re-Ranking:

 

Dead Cells' previous expansions were covered in a previous Mini-Game-Science entry, and that one was one of the few that (very justifiably) resulted in the parent game being elevated further up the rankings. There were so many of them, and it resulted in such an expansion of the core game, that it was almost impossible that they wouldn't.

However, in the case of the Return to Castlevania DLC, I don't think any re-ranking is justified.

 

It's a good DLC - fun, silly, well made - and it certainly doesn't lower the game's standing...
... but on its own, I don't think it is able to elevate the (already very highly placed) Dead Cells any higher. It's a nice-to-play, and a nice-to-have, but this is the first DLC where I could argue that a player is not really getting any lesser experience playing Dead Cells without it.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[Joe Dubz]

Well said Doc!! Very much enjoyed your take here. 

 

I platinumed the base game way back in.... (checks profile) 2019!! It was way harder back then, before the addition of the assist options... Which might I say, seriously made the game 10x more enjoyable IMO!

 

Just a few weeks ago, a friend was saying how much he'd been enjoying the new DLC, Castlevania included. So I checked, it was about $21 or so for everything, so I took the plunge. Needless to say, I've been ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY at how seamlessly it feels everything has been integrated!

 

But agreed, Castlevania however is kind of the oddball in the scenario. Kinda weird that they opted for doing it this way, but it doesn't really hinder any enjoyment for me with that being said. 

 

At any rate, great read and looking forward to the next! In the meantime, I'll be slowly smashing my way through the rest of this DLC. So wish me luck!

[DrBloodmoney]

11 minutes ago, Joe Dubz said:

Well said Doc!! Very much enjoyed your take here. 

 

I platinumed the base game way back in.... (checks profile) 2019!! It was way harder back then, before the addition of the assist options... Which might I say, seriously made the game 10x more enjoyable IMO!

 

Just a few weeks ago, a friend was saying how much he'd been enjoying the new DLC, Castlevania included. So I checked, it was about $21 or so for everything, so I took the plunge. Needless to say, I've been ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY at how seamlessly it feels everything has been integrated!

 

But agreed, Castlevania however is kind of the oddball in the scenario. Kinda weird that they opted for doing it this way, but it doesn't really hinder any enjoyment for me with that being said. 

 

At any rate, great read and looking forward to the next! In the meantime, I'll be slowly smashing my way through the rest of this DLC. So wish me luck!

Yeah, it’s a little odd the way the Castlevania stuff kind of sits a little bit separately, but as you say - still great fun!

 

Some of that other dlc in there are just fantastic though - I loved the whole arboretum section, and the post-boss stuff is great…

…God speed to you on the 5bc runs on that stuff, because holy guacamole - it is NOT fucking around on the difficulty ?

 

Coming into the Castlevania stuff, and being able to play it on 1bc or 2bc was like a warm embrace after the brutality those 5bc runs visited upon my feeble Dead Cells skills!

If those assist mode options had been available at the time, I don’t mind admitting, I would have probably used them  for those areas, because DAAAAAMN! 

Edited April 4, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC RE-CERTIFICATION?

 

A little update here, necessitated by the DLC addition to a previously ranked game, who's DLC I have now earned!

 

 

   

  

Cuphead - The Delicious Last Course DLC

 

Summary:

 

Adding DLC to a game like Cuphead might seem easy on the surface.
After all, it's a game designed around single, unique boss fights, and is already divided into distinct areas (islands). That might seem tailor-made to allow addition without subtraction.

However, Cuphead is an unusual case. Because the game was trading so heavily (and so very, very well,) on its signature aesthetic and style, there was a sense, (at least in my head,) that it may be difficult for them to maintain the excruciatingly high bar of quality when adding more content. Each boss was unique, and interesting to look at and fight, and so the potential that new content simply treaded water, or was unable to feel as unique, or stand on its own compared to the pre-existing fare, was a more deadly trap than most games encounter.

Luckily, from the very outset of the Delicious Last Course DLC - in which Cuphead and Mugman encounter the ethereal Ms Chalice and the curious Chef Saltbaker, in a new animated section that is every bit as high quality and gorgeous as anything in the original game - those fears are quickly put to rest.

The Delicious Last Course is a really fantastic piece of new content!

 

The meat of the DLC initially seems to be the new island, featuring 6 new unique boss fights. These fights are each easily on par with the level of quality of the main game bosses. A couple (Mortimer Freeze, and Esther Winchester,) do feel roughly on the level of "lesser" fights in the main campaign ("lesser" being a a relative statement, of course - a "lesser" boss in Cuphead is still significantly more fun and wildly more aesthetically interesting than many game's best boss fights,)... 
...but several of these fights - in particular Glumstone the Giant, the Moonshine Mob, the final DLC boss, and the secret fight that comes through the "Divine Relic" quest, (more on this later,) are in the upper echelon of Cuphead bosses.
In fact, I would argue that the two best - Glumstone and Moonshine - are genuine contenders for the best bosses in the game, period.

The DLC island does not add any of the "Run 'n' Gun" levels (which were fun enough, but certainly the weakest elements of the main campaign,) instead option for a sort of challenge-room / tutorial testing grounds, in the form of a chess-piece themed set of specific challenges. These are both very good fun, and serve as a good training ground for the player to get to grips with Ms Chalice's more unusual move-set...
...as well as allowing the developer to implement their version of a "boss-rush", in the form of a single, long challenge, requiring all these rooms to be done in a single run, similar to the Ripsnorter challenge in Sackboy's Big Adventure.
This is a fun idea, and something I much, much preferred to the challenge of the Run 'n'n Gun levels in the original game.

 

More than simply adding new content on the new island though, The Delicious Last Course actually hits both the pillars of successful DLCs in games - it adds new content, and enriches existing content.

The new playable character - Ms Chalice - is not simply usable in the new areas, but in all areas. 
Unlike Cuphead and Mugman, who are simple palette swaps, playing as Ms Chalice substantially alters the play-style of the game. When using her, the player is unable to equip relics (since the use of her requires a new relic to be equipped in that slot,) however, her move-set counters this hinderance. She has a double jump, but her "counter" move is on a dash, rather than in mid-air - a change that can make some existing fights easier, and some harder. 

Coupling the ability to chose between substantially different control schemes, with the addition of 3 new weapons, each of which feels as distinct as the original set did from one another, adds a level of variety and an extension of the "situational-customisation" to the entire game - original and new content - that really opens it up for repeat play.

This also, I would note, does go some way, (not all the way, but some way,) towards addressing my only major grievance with Cuphead - the level of difficulty for co-op play. While I would still argue Cuphead has something of a dissonance between the difficulty of the gameplay, and the bright, cheery visuals - resulting in situations where less game-savvy family members will be drawn in by the visuals and tone, want to play, then be disappointed and bounce off it due to the unforgiving nature of the gameplay, and the crushing level to which the difficulty amplifies in co-op - the fact is Ms Chalice is fundamentally easier to play with. While the game remains very tough in co-op, Ms Chalice does offer a less game-versed player at least a fighting chance at success, in a way that Cuphead and Mugman never did...
...and that this applies to the whole game, and not simply the fourth island is very welcome.

Speaking of applying changes to the whole game - the other addition the Delicious Last Course makes to Cuphead is more subtle - and involves a more esoteric, less obviously explained element. It adds a specific relic that is relatively unexplained - the Broken Relic. This seems to do nothing, but upon putting together some clues on the island, it can be turned into the "Cursed Relic" - which causes the player to have very limited health, and little control over their weapons...
...but which, upon beating different bosses with it equipped, slowly becomes more and more powerful, eventually becoming the "Divine Relic" - one much more powerful and beneficial than any pre-existing one.

It's a really clever addition to the DLC, for a few reasons.
Firstly, because it adds something that the original game never really dabbled in: mystery and riddle. 

The main portion of the DLC is obvious and on-the-surface, but in a rather Dark Souls-like way, the Divine Relic quest acts as the bubbling lava beneath the surface - providing just enough tantalising clues to draw the player in, and keep them engaged beyond the surface level. 

It adds reasons to go back to play the existing content again - but without simply calling it "NG+" - and affords the player the freedom to play the fights they enjoyed most, and avoid the ones they enjoyed least, at their own discretion.

Finally, it adds enough - via the relic itself, in cursed and then divine form; via Ms Chalice's new additions; and via the new weapons - to really show off what was likely the most difficult part of the DLC to deliver well: Making it integrate into the existing fights, without breaking or trivialising them.

 

All in all, The Delicious Last Course is not only one of those DLCs that I would recommend fans play.... but is one of those rarer DLC which I would not only recommend, but would recommend anyone playing the game - even for the first time - ensure they have installed from the start. Like the Trials of Fear DLC for Dandara, or the plethora of Dead Cells DLCs, it contains both great extra content, and substantially improves the offering of the existing content...

...and its almost difficult to imagine paying the game now, without the DLC options available.

What more could one ask of a DLC?

 

 

Re-Ranking:

 

The Delicious Last Course not only adds potentially some of the best content that Cuphead now has, but it elevates all the content it had before - and that means only one thing...

...Re-Ranking is required!

The biggest drawback element of Cuphead in its base form - the co-op difficulty spike, and subsequent "fuck-you" to gaming family members - is not completely gone, but it is somewhat softened now...
...and in terms of all the (many) great elements that benefitted Cuphead, every single one is either matched, exceeded or improved upon with The Delicious Last Course.

I'm not going to go through every game that currently outranks Cuphead, and discuss each fight individually (simply because there are quite a few that I now think it leapfrogs past!,) but will instead simply look at the final standing where I think it now belongs...

...and that is 24(!) places higher, just below Slay the Spire!

 

I still think the stultifying awesomeness of Slay the Spire is enough to stop even the vastly improved Cuphead from passing it... but one only has to look at the glowing reviews I gave to the 23 games below it, to realise just how big an improvement I think The Delicious Last Course has made to the overall product that is Cuphead.

 

I used to be something of an outlier in the Cuphead fandom - I liked it, but a few little niggles held me back from loving it...

 

...well, no more!

Now, I don't like Cuphead.... I love Cuphead!

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[Joe Dubz]

Another fantastic update, my good Doctor!!! 

 

I have to agree wholeheartedly with you here yet again. I fell in love with Cuphead from the first time I saw it... Back when it was on Xbox only!! A few years later, then we finally got our chance to enjoy all its splendour...

 

I absolutely adored the old school cartoon aesthetic, from the grainy looking backgrounds and such, to the announcer guy and everything in between! I loved this so much that it became plat milestone #175 for me.

 

Fast forward to a few months ago when I grabbed the DLC (Delicious Last Course = DLC, clever clever!!), and this was another one, like Dead Cells, that seriously made an already top notch game 100x better!

 

They really did nail everything with this and I couldn't have been happier with it. At any rate, great rereview and glad to see it got a nice fat boost up the rankings!! Bravo, Doc... BRAVO ???

[YaManSmevz]

16 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC RE-CERTIFICATION?

 

A little update here, necessitated by the DLC addition to a previously ranked game, who's DLC I have now earned!

 

 

   

  

Cuphead - The Delicious Last Course DLC

 

Aayyyy!!!

 

Excellent work as always, but also I'm really happy to see Cuphead rising up in the rankings! Absolutely loved this game, and was blown away by the DLC. I woulda been bummed if you were like "Yeah Delicious Last Course was WACK."

 

Loved almost everything it added, and replaying the base game with Ms. Chalice was such a blast - a breath of fresh air that I didn't even know the game needed! That's about it, you already covered everything wonderfully?

[DrBloodmoney]

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC RE-CERTIFICATION?

 

A little update here, necessitated by the DLC addition to a previously ranked game, who's DLC I have now earned!

 

 

  

 

    

Cities Skylines - Plazas and Promenades / Airport / Financial Districts

 

Summary:

 

Cities Skylines already had a wealth of DLC packs added to the game by the time I reviewed and ranked it originally - and so the individual additions each one offered to the main game were not individually discussed, but now that the (final?) three DLCs are in there, it's probably worth talking a little about the DLC categories that the game has.

Essentially, most of the DLC addition packs for Cities fall into one of four tiers: 

Tier 1 - "Really impactful and game-changing"
Tier 2 - "Internally deep, but not broadly impactful"
Tier 3 - "nice-to-have, but largely superfluous"
Tier 4 - "Tertiary"

The "Tertiary" packs are essentially purely cosmetic elements - these would be the Radio Station DLCs that add some new soundtrack radio stations, or the Content Creator packs, which add some additional variety to the buildings available, but do not change the core gameplay at all. These packs are always nice, but do not tend to have any associated trophies or make any impact on the game beyond cosmetic.

That leaves the three higher tiers:

In terms of the previous DLCs (those already in the game when I reviewed before,) the two that really fall into "Tier 1" were Industries, and Natural Disasters.

Those two packs made significant, serious changes to the main game - Disasters, by adding an element of randomness and danger to the life and health of the cities, as well as significant alterations in the design of cities, to protect against these dangers.

Industries, in the way that managing specific areas of industry, with internal, "micro" layouts becoming important, as well as "macro" layouts, ensuring proper, efficient transit of specific goods produced in industrial areas to factories combining these goods into end-user products worked within a city.

The existing DLC packs that fell into "Tier 2" would be Snowfall, Mass Transit, Park Life and Campus.

Each of these added something broadly significant - in the case of Park Life and Campus, "micro" builds, in getting efficient working educational areas, or working recreational areas, but had less impact on the overall City structure; and in the case of Mass Transit and Snowfall, by simply adding broader, or more sweeping changes and expansions to pre-existing City management elements - dealing with low-temperature and cold-weather climates, road-plowing, heating etc, or adding significant additional transport options to build cities around.

"Tier 3" is where pre-existing DLC packs like Sunset Harbour, and Green Cities would fall.

These ones added additional minor options and some nice new elements to make cities more varied, but none of which are hugely impactful to the gameplay, beyond simply making cities more varied aesthetically, and having a few new minor elements such as fishing industries or eco-friendly areas.

 

 

 

With that established, on the new DLCs then!

 

I'd say there is actually one of each here!

 

The most impactful - a "Tier 1", no less - is Plazas and Promenades.

 

 

Initially, it feels like a somewhat superfluous change, to allow certain areas of a city to be designed for no traffic, and to be pedestrian only... but once the DLC options are explored, it becomes apparent that this opens up quite a wealth of meaningful changes to how a city is built - and allows for fully "from-the-ground-up" designing in a way that few DLC packs do.

Pedestrian areas can be of all three major type - Residential, Commercial and Industrial, and these feel quite different in terms of layout design - and aesthetics - than most other areas do. Things like garbage management and city layout become quite different, as traffic is not allowed - for example, garbage must be collected in specific service points, which have road access, but cover the pedestrian area.
Industrial areas must be much more delicately and specifically laid out, as trucks are not an option.

Commercial areas must be more cleverly designed, to allow access, etc.

 

It adds a level of complication that, while not necessarily required in a city, is something genuinely worth doing - as there is a significant carrot beyond the simple trophies... pedestrian areas look super cool! The buildings and new areas are meaningfully different looking from anything previously in the game, and have a really distinct, interesting visual style to them, that looks great in a little area of a city.
Not since the aesthetics of individual industry areas in the Industries DLC, or the Eco-friendly, plant-lush buildings of Green Cities, has there been such a broad aesthetic change for a full, working area, and it's fun to see them implemented and grow within a city!

It's a really good DLC (and without a doubt, the one I missed most not having in the Cities Skylines Remastered PS5 version when I played it!) and it does exactly what a good Cities DLC should - makes you want to design a brand new city, making use of it fully!

 

The second most impactful - a new "Tier 2" - DLC is Airports.

 

 

Airports, like Campus and Park Life, adds a new element that really doesn't massively impact a pre-existing city build, but adds a smart, fun "micro" build element to replace what used to be a single few un-nuanced building. Airports, as a concept, existed in the game already (much like some parks and some educational establishments did before Park Life and Campus,) however, the Airports DLC expands out these "one-and-done" buildings into their own micro game - where the player can specifically tailor the design of these places, with much more customisable options, and really get into the nuances of making them run efficiently. 

 

While these changes do not make a huge difference to the overall city design (simply taking an existing city, demolishing the old "standard" airport and cargo airport, and creating a new, bespoke one allows for a fun, more aesthetically individualised, and custom air-transit solution, that is good fun to design and build, and allows for much more depth and specificity in serving the individual city needs.

 

The lest impactful of these new DLCs - a "Tier 3" - is Financial Districts.

 

 

Financial Districts adds a new set of tiered buildings allowing the player to essentially create a "Wall Street" section to their city. It's a fun aesthetic change, and more options for individual areas is always welcome in Cities, however, these do feel rather thin and un-nuanced, as compared to most other DLCs. To be honest, the new tract of buildings and institutions doesn't feel particularly impactful on a macro level, or as an individual "area" - essentially, each can be placed, then pretty much ignored until the nex one becomes available, and for all the toying I did with their placement, I never really found them to have a huge bearing on one another.

 

It does add another element to the overall game - tha ability to invest city funds in a mock "Stock Market" - essentially playing the ups and downs of the economy, and buying / selling shares of various city-related elements to offer an alternate, more risky alternative to gain money quickly...
...but again, this felt less nuanced than most other Cities Skylines elements. While I began trying to "work" it - buy stocks in, say, an airline, then build up my airport, and fiddle with ticket prices and city ordinances to encourage more tourists and air-travel - I never really found the ups and downs of the stock to be hugely affected. 
In the end, it felt more like a simple "buy as many stocks as you can when the graph is low"... than wait, and sell them again when the graph is high.

That felt a little flimsy as a gameplay mechanic - and in a larger city, with significant funds, it actually felt a little cheesy - it almost negated the need to actually manage the city funds well, as money could be amassed very quickly through alternate means... somewhat minimising the whole basis of the game in the first place!

 

 

All in all, these three DLCs tend to come out as something of a mixed bag - I do think Financial Districts is perhaps the weakest DLC added to the game... but the strength of Plazas and Promenades, and the inoffensive, and pretty fun nature of Airports more than balances out any negatives there.

 

 

Re-Ranking:

The fact is, Cities Skylines is a great game, and one that always benefits from additional scoping, and so even a weaker DLC is still welcome.

The game is very much built, and logarithmically extended, by the sum of its parts...
...and so every new part adds more than it seems to on the surface.

 

The net gain from these 3 DLCs is good, and welcome...

... however, the ranking the game received previously was already based on the base-game, plus 8 of the now 11(!) trophy enabled DLC packs. While beneficial to the game, I don't really think these three alone warrant a re-ranking.

 

If a player picks up the game for the first time, I absolutely recommend installing all DLC - and that includes Airports, Plazas and Promenades, and even Financial Districts, as the game is better the bigger it is, and them more options that are available...
...but I would have a hard time arguing that the game is significantly worse without any individual one of them.

 

they are nice to have - Plazas and Promenades in particular - but not so nice to have, that they can push Cities Skylines any higher than the (already very appropriately and well-deserved) high placement it already has!

Edited April 18, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[pelagia14]

Gosh, you're making me really want to pick up Cities Skylines right now! For so long I was worried that it would just be a lame cash grab for people nostalgic for the old Sim City games, and was delighted to see that you've had a positive experience with it!

 

I'll probably wait for this autumn when the weather gets cold again to start playing it, considering I know I'll probably get fixated on it and it will consume my free time for a little while, haha.

[DrBloodmoney]

17 minutes ago, pelagia14 said:

Gosh, you're making me really want to pick up Cities Skylines right now! For so long I was worried that it would just be a lame cash grab for people nostalgic for the old Sim City games, and was delighted to see that you've had a positive experience with it!

 

I'll probably wait for this autumn when the weather gets cold again to start playing it, considering I know I'll probably get fixated on it and it will consume my free time for a little while, haha.

 

Thats great!

 

Yeah, Cities Skylines is much more than that - I think than when Sim City dropped the ball with their reboot, Cities Skylines took over as the premier City Builder Sim - and it's just excellent with all the DLCs now - but you're right - it's a hell of a time sink!

I'll be like "oh, i'll just make a nice junction for this highway now, that'll not take long........ aaaaaaaand oh shit. It's 2am." ?

 

I'm waiting with baited breath for the Cities Skylines 2 confirmation... supposed to be released this year ??

Edited April 13, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[The_Kopite]

Can we make requests for games you haven't even played yet (On Playstation) but the person asking is really curious to see where you end up placing it in your rankings?

 

Haha, I'm sure you can guess which game or games I'm referring to lol

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, The_Kopite said:

Can we make requests for games you haven't even played yet (On Playstation) but the person asking is really curious to see where you end up placing it in your rankings?

 

Haha, I'm sure you can guess which game or games I'm referring to lol

 

Lol - you can request, sure....

but as far as I'm concerned, FF6 will be the only guaranteed play...  the rest might follow, but let's face it... it's unlikely, given how many new games I haven't even got to yet!

 

....unless you mean Sonic games.

Those, you can't request.

No one can. ?

[The_Kopite]

46 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Lol - you can request, sure....

but as far as I'm concerned, FF6 will be the only guaranteed play...  the rest might follow, but let's face it... it's unlikely, given how many new games I haven't even got to yet!

 

....unless you mean Sonic games.

Those, you can't request.

No one can. 

lol you're missing out on those Sonic games haha but yes I was referring to FF6 so I'll pre-book my request here and am looking forward to you eventually getting around to it! Will it become the highest ranked FF title? We shall see!

[DrBloodmoney]

 

!!SCIENCE UPDATE!!

 

 

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

 

 

 

Legacy

 

Queen's Quest 4: The Sacred Truce

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

 

New

 

Puyo Puyo Tetris 2

Airoheart

Two Point Campus

 

 

 

Subject(s) in RED marked for PRIORITY ASSIGNEMENT

[Care of @breakingthegreen ]

 

 

(some apologies to @Copanele - I do have a 3D Dot Game Heroes one in the works, but due to the nature of the game, I think I want to get Airoheart done and in the bag first!)

 

 

 

Can 'Current Most Awesome' game, Hitman 3, continue its glorious reign?

 

Is gaming turdlet LA Cops ever going to lose the title of 'Least Awesome Game'?

 

 

Let's find out, Science Chums!

 

[Breakingthegreen]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

 

[Care of @breakingthegreen ]

 

Write your review carefully, the raccoon army is mobilising and ready to attack anyone who dislikes the Cooper Clan.

 

(except for this guy, he's found a jar of peanut butter.)

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, breakingthegreen said:

 

Write your review carefully, the raccoon army is mobilising and ready to attack anyone who dislikes the Cooper Clan.

 

(except for this guy, he's found a jar of peanut butter.)

 

Lol - silly Trash-Panda!

 

Don't worry, I think I'm safe with this one....

...it's Sly 2 that I hated with the heat of a thousand suns....

...but this one is a whole different kettle of fish...

[Breakingthegreen]

5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

...it's Sly 2 that I hated with the heat of a thousand suns....

 

I bring news that your Band of Thieves hatred worries the Raccoons, 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

9 minutes ago, breakingthegreen said:

 

I bring news that your Band of Thieves hatred worries the Raccoons, 

 

 

It's cool. 

I'm pals with my main man Howard Lotor.

 

 

He's got my back with those dudes.

[Platinum_Vice]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

It's cool. 

I'm pals with my main man Howard Lotor.

 

 

He's got my back with those dudes.

 

My dude, that's Wallace Brotor.

[Slava]

I guess this is a reminder for me to read the last two reviews that were marked under my name - Sly 2 and Sly 3. I'm pretty sure I read everything science has to say about the Ratchet remasters as well as Sly 1.

[DrBloodmoney]

 

  NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ARE IN! 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce

 

Summary: 

 

A decent, if fairly indistinct entry in the Artifex Mundi stable, Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce is a perfectly adequate, if never sterling example of their particular oeuvre. 

Artifex Mundi's key to success is in juggling multiple, multi-entry franchises within their broad genre of light-puzzler / hidden-object adventure games, and it's a basic framework that works. One pretty much knows what to expect from their games - little challenge, and pretty rudimentary storytelling and cutscenes, but a decent variety of their standard puzzle types, some nice still-frame art, and an easy-breezy romp through a relatively well-worn formula. 
While there is variety in terms of quality - based on the art, the setting, the particular narrative and the spread of puzzles in each particular one, there is a relatively limited scope for variation. If you like one, generally, you like them all to some extent.

It's unusual for any of their individual strains of franchise to reach a 4th entry, however, and while the Queen's Quest ones have been relatively high-bar within their catalogue in terms of puzzle variety, I do struggle to quite understand why that series has had more entries than, for example, the Nightmares from the Deep, or Enigmatis series.

As I've said in previous Queen's Quest reviews - the core issue with this particular franchise, is that while all Artifex Mundi games belong to the same broad genre, each individual series does have it's own flavour...
...and as far as that goes, Queen's Quest would best be described as "basic vanilla".

They are set squarely in the "High Fantasy" realm, but unlike the Eventide, Grim Legends and Lost Grimoires franchises - all of which also exist somewhat within the same High Fantasy genre - Queen's Quest is just that.  The others each also have a distinct spins within that framework. They are "High Fantasy plus X", whereas Queen's Quest, as a franchise, is the baseline "just High Fantasy".

In order to stand out, a Queen's Quest game, therefore, has to be a little more noteworthy in terms of quality, as it doesn't really have the distinction in terms of tone... and as decent as each entry has been - Queen's Quest 3: The End of Dawn being the high point -  none have really had the level of additional quality required to overcome the lack of distinct personality. 

 
Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce suffers for this, just as the others did.

The art-style is nice - there is a good variety to the locations, and bright, well designed art to go with them, but as the fourth entry in a series not particularly dripping in distinct elements, it tends to feel just more of the same.

The puzzle set in Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce is fine - it feels like a good example set of Artifex Mundi's staple puzzle variants, but lacks some of the less well used ones, or unique ones Queen's Quest 3 featured. 
The hidden object sections are actually arguably better here than previously - the nice bright art helps - but from a personal taste point of view, good puzzles are much more of a benefit to an AM game than good hidden object sections, and while good ones are nice, they don't make up for the reduction in puzzle variety.

 

The narrative is a little more interesting here than in previous Queen's Quest games, but only a little - and to make an argument that AM games ride on the strength of their story-telling would be facetious. A good story is always welcome, (and in the few cases where it is particularly good and noteworthy - for example, Modern Tales: Age of Invention - it does warrant special mention,) but that is a comparison really only applicable to other AM games. 
Aside from, (as I understand, the few more esoteric AM titles, like My Brother Rabbit or Irony Curtain, which are fully outwith their usual stable of games in terms of genre,)  a "good" narrative in an AM game is still not really comparable to game with larger scopes or higher budgets. It's like comparing Mills and Boon romance novels: there are relative comparisons to be made between them, but as compared to great novels, all fall short.

Still, as stories go, Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce has a decent AM one, and coupled with the bright, nice art, the decent - if not noteworthy - puzzle variety, some good hidden object screens... and a lack of the more irksome "boss battle" type elements (there are some, but not hugely annoying or frustrating ones here,) Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce is an AM entry that is best described as the word that has been (probably over) used multiple times in this text: decent.

It's fine - workmanlike and competent...
...a decent example of AM's work, but not the great example one might point to to demonstrate their particular talents.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

 

As said, a perfectly adequate entry. 
Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce is not scratching the backs of AM's best work, but neither is it in danger of falling below their lesser ones, and falls somewhere right in the middle of the pack.

I think it outdoes Queen's Quest 2, but doesn't reach the level of Queen's Quest 3.... and more specifically, looking at the other AM games already on the list, I think Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce most naturally falls somewhere below Grim Legends 2: Song of the Dark Swan, but above Kingmaker: Rise to the Throne.

There's a fair few non AM games in between those, however, AM games are curious ones to rank compared to other games, as they are simple and fun, and tend not to wear out their welcome. They are Sunday afternoon, relaxing fare, and should be judged as such...
... so often, the question comes down to simply asking: 
"would I replay Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce in its entirety, before playing 3 or 4 hours of this other game?"

Working up from Kingmaker: Rise to the Throne, the first game to which the answer was "no"...
... was curious, if deeply combat-flawed Indian-Mythology-themed narrative romp Raji: An Ancient Epic...

...and so, Queen's Quest 4: Sacred Truce finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

 

Summary: 

 

After doing considerable work in porting the original Suckerpunch-developed Sly Cooper trilogy to PS3 and Vita, via the HD collection remaster, developer Sanzura games began work tinkering with their own project, which would eventually be green-lit as a full blown, new-gen fourth entry in the Sly Cooper franchise.

Released in 2013, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time might have been expected to do arguably the most natural thing with Sly Cooper - reboot the franchise, and start over with a new telling of the story of the Raccoonus Clan. After all, it had been, at that point, 8 full years since Sly 3, and Sly was beginning to enter that rather ephemeral stage in an older franchise's life, where it starts to feel like make or break time - poised either for a new direction (a-la Ratchet and Clank,) a change in tone (a-la Jak and Daxter,) or resignation to the annuls of history (a-la Spyro, and - at the time - Crash Bandicoot.)

 

Curiously though, Sanzura opted to do what feels simultaneously like the lest, and most, risky option... they ignored the 8 year gap, and simply made their game the next link in the existing chain.... for better or for worse.

In this case, happily, I'd argue it was for the better! 

The narrative is a good one - Sly and his gang encounter a new threat from a new villain. The dastardly, time-travelling skink Le Paradox is trying to steal various relics from the past, in order to make him rich in the present. Most of these relics are in the furry hands, (or furry sights,) of a long, historic family of thieves... of the distinctly Raccoonus variety... and Sly and his merry men (and best-girl!) are drawn into a time-travelling adventure to take down Le Paradox and his cast of bizarre goons, while teaming up with (and playing as,) his ancestors throughout time.

The writing is good, and actually funny - the games were always aiming at humour, and always somewhat hit-and-miss, but in Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time the hit rate is definitely higher than in Sly 2 or Sly 3, and - given there is quite a bit more to the game than the original - arguably better than the original too. At least, it maintaining the same hit rate over a much broader scope, and that arguably is an improvement my proxy.

 

It's a curious thing actually - Sly Cooper games are ones I personally always found a little tough to crack in terms of characterisation, because while I respect the good writing, and like a good, silly joke as much as the next fella...
... I have to admit, I tended to find the cast of characters - Murray and Bentley in particular - a little too grating for my tastes. 
In Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, however, I never really found myself wincing at their deliveries... and that did make me reevaluate my assessment of them in the previous games. I had thought I simply didn't take to the characters, or didn't care for the actors deliveries of them, but actually, when the narrative is working, I can actually find them perfectly charming. It just needs a deft hand on the keyboard, when writing the lines they actually say. I think Sanzura - owing to their careful love of the characters, and their well-honed and adept understanding of what was good and what wasn't in the previous games - were able to tap into well pretty astutely.

The actual gameplay is certainly very familiar to the old model - Sly's basic movement and his abilities feel very much a continuation of those in his previous games, and - even in 2013 - felt notably throwback. It's interesting to play a game that is visually of the 2010's but still uses some mechanics from distinctly older games, (Sly requiring a second button push to "lock" to a pole when jumping on it, for example.) They feel antiquated in some ways, (given that most games of its era would have dispensed with that second button push,) but because the movement still feels quite graceful, and because the the game uses those older mechanics, but with a more modern sleekness to them, the general feeling is one of a good throwback, as opposed to simply feeling out-of-date. 
It's a control scheme that smacks of nostalgia, rather than "oldness."

The mix of platforming, combat, stealth and light puzzles is pretty much retained whole-cloth from the original trilogy, but the roster of playable characters has never been bigger. The player can pay as Sly, many of his ancestors - such as a medieval knight, an old-west cowboy, or even a caveman (well... cave-raccoon...), as well as Bentley, Murray and once-antagonist-now-girlfriend Carmelita (returning with a - probably record breaking - 4th new voice actress!)

The gameplay loop is, as said, familiar - certainly to players of Sly 2 and Sly 3 - but with just enough reigning in, limiting, and restraint in terms of size (and of breadth of mini-games,) that it tends to feel like a much tighter game than either of those previous entires. Like the previous 2 sequels, it's semi-open, with the player free to explore larger areas, and tying the narrative through-line to a mission-based structure, but I'd argue that Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time actually represents the first really successful implementation of this format. 
Sly 2 took the original games' purely linear, level-based gameplay, and broadened it out to a semi-open, mission-based structure, but the result was pretty poor. Not only did the game feel needlessly long, and pretty frustrating and exhausting, but in making the transition, a lot of the charm, and the slickness of the original gameplay was lost in a mishmash of overly finicky exploration and camera-spinning ineptitude. 
Sly 3 tightened up a lot of these elements, but still had some of the loosey-goosey, unwieldy nature to contend with, and still felt overly long and not particularly interesting to explore. Like many franchises that take a contained gameplay loop, and expand it out to be more "open", it still suffered from a distinct case of "square-peg-in-round-hole-itus".

 

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, however, finally gets that balance right. The open world elements of the game remain, but - perhaps owing to the increased horse-power available, or the increased artistic fidelity... or perhaps simply due to the game being fundamentally tighter - it finally finds a way to amalgamate the crisp, clean, tight fun of the original Sly Cooper, and apply it to a more open structure, without it feeling diluted, or lost its own largeness. The clothes it is wearing have finally shrunk enough, and the game itself grown up enough, that the tuxedo fits pretty well.

The "learning new mechanics from different ancestors" mechanic is a smart one, as it allows for a natural "metroidvania-ification" of the exploratory elements in each era. Returning to an area armed with the new moves and abilities learned in other ones opens up new aspects of exploration, and helps to ease any feeling of exhaustion that can come from searching every nook and cranny for secrets.

 

In terms of visuals, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is a winner - the art-style of Sly, arguably one of it's strongest elements in the original games, (and likely born out of necessity back then,) looks really fantastic with the upgraded tech, and the variety of environmental design that is afforded by the time-travelling nature of the narrative helps to even further accentuate the visuals. That time-travelling nature adds a new dimension to the already impressive variety of environmental locations the Sly games always employed, and now that object clipping is less of an issue, and the visual fidelity has been ramped up on the overall cartoony visuals, there is a really slick, appealing look to the Nickelodeon-esque designs.

The strong, black outline on characters gives a cell-shaded look, in much the way early "cell-shaded" games did, but here, it feels wholly stylistic and a plus, as opposed to the "by-necessity" nature that some early cell-shaded games tended to feel.

Audio is decent too - if never outstanding. I've never really felt like the Sly games stand out in terms of music and score - they are fine, but not amazing, and I'd say Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time pretty much fits right into that same category. The voice work is bouncy and crisp - and the particular tone can still be grating in the way I always thought it was, but the better writing and more successful hit rate on the humour sakes a lot of that grating edge off it, and works well.

 

How the game runs is, sadly, of note a little. While the game runs very well on the PS3, it was also released on the Vita (where I played it,) and the reduction in horsepower was noticeable. Pop-in was more of an issue there, and the load times for levels and new areas was - frankly - pretty turgid. That the game runs much better on PS3 makes that a tough thing to really hold against the game - particularly since, at that time especially, full game experiences on the Vita were in a considerable drought, and so releasing a full new game on Vita was a laudable thing - it does have to be noted - the PS3 version is undoubtedly the one to play.

 

Overall, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is a strange beast in many ways. It is a late-in-the-day sequel to a franchise that felt rather abandoned, and one that - unlike many of the action platformers that were Sly's peers in the early days - stays entirely true to the original premise. Where Jak went "full-90's-edge" and lost its way completely, Ratchet simply went off in new directions with its "future" trilogy, and still remains strong to this day, and Spyro simply disappeared into that great dragon heaven in the sky... 
... Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time simply continued its franchise quietly, doing the same old thing, but it a competent, fun, nostalgia-stroking way.

 

Admittedly, I am not necessarily the deepest appreciator of those 3D mascot platformers - I like some, dislike others, and have little in the way of true nostalgia to draw on... I also do not have the rose-tinted baggage that comes with that, and am therefore fairly well attuned to simply judge the individual games on their own merits.

While I am aware that some die-hard Sly fans felt Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time fell short of their expectations, I'm not particularly sure why, or what the major complaint was really... outside of perhaps simply rose-tinted glasses and nostalgia clouding the view of what the original trilogy was in the first place. I have no love for Sly 2, (as is clear at this point!) but broadly, the Sly trilogy is one I certainly had some broad affection for, born particularly from the first game...
...and I think Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is actually the closest the sequels get to recapturing that good feeling of the original game.

To my mind, Sanzura actually managed to achieve exactly what I think the Sly Cooper franchise needed - another entry that didn't wholly reinvent it, but simply continued the progression that the previous sequels were on.
It finessed the gameplay loop, and massaging the open-world issues, and retained the charm, while adding a fun new story, some good new characters, and resulted in a game that never re-invents the wheel, but does represent a really nice, well rounded version of the same things the franchise always strove for.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

 

There are already all three of the original Sly trilogy on the ranking, and if it's not obvious already, I think Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is a significant step up from Sly 2, and actually, a relatively substantial step up over Sly 3.

The real question, is whether it beats out the original Sly Cooper.

I think the difference in release dates obviously makes a substantial different - Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is obviously benefitting from a lot of finessing of games in general between the two long gaps - but that has to be weighed against the originality of the first game. Also, despite Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time being certainly the more streamlined and honed of the sequels, I would still argue that the much tighter, much less meandering nature of that original game still remains the best incarnation of the gameplay loop in the franchise.

As such, I think Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus still retains its spot at the best of the Sly games.

That narrows things, but not by a huge amount, as there remains quite a gulf between the original Sly Cooper and Sly 3. 

One game that feels like a natural comparison then, is another mascot platformer - Jak and Daxter. While I argue Jak and Daxter certainly beats out Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time on pure originality (of course, since it's the first of a new franchise,) I do think the visuals, the music and the characters beat out Jak and Daxter, and while the comparison is a little tough, given the difference in release dates, I do think I would certainly replay Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time before replaying Jak and Daxter.

That old question becomes the only valid argument at a certain point, and so thinking about which games would likely beat out Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time if I were deciding whether to replay another game, or that one, the first game that gets a firm "yes"...
...is winning Pinball / Metroidvania (and ridiculously delightful) Yoku's Island Express.

 

I know I would replay Yoku before replaying Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time...
...and so, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Puyo Puyo Tetris 2

 

 

Summary: 

 

A 2020 sequel to 2017's (or 2014's, in Japan,) Action Puzzle mash-up battler Puyo Puyo Tetris, Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is...
...well..
...more of the same.
Indeed, it is more of the very same.

 

This is going to be a strange review.

Puyo Puyo Tetris was a really good game. It was a bright, cheerful, cheery and very smart combination of two absolute titans of the Action Puzzle genre. Arguably, the two titans of the Action Puzzle genre. It combined Tetris and Puyo Puyo in a variety of cool ways, offered a full, robust package as a game, with a good suite of different modes - both single player and multi-player, and was generally a very well put together thing.

For information on what made Puyo Puyo Tetris great, please refer to my previous Puyo Puyo Tetris review.

The unfortunate thing though...
... is that for information on what makes Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 great... just read it again. 
All the things that make Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 great - and there are many - are the same ones.

That is the problem.
The fundamental issue with Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is that I'm simply not sure why it exists.

There are plenty of sequels in which the core mechanics of the game do not change in many impactful or meaningful ways from their previous iteration. However, in most cases where that can be said, there is still something broad or sweeping than justifies the sequel. 
One could argue, for example, that the core gameplay of Uncharted 2 is not hugely different to Uncharted. Or that of Rise of the Tomb Raider, as compared to Tomb Raider. Or indeed, of many other narrative-based games...
...however, the one thing that does meaningfully change is that narrative itself.
Nathan Drake might be controlling the same way, and jumping, climbing, shooting, quipping and hair-gelling his way around in the same manner, but it's immaterial, because the fact is, the narrative, locations and reason for him doing those things is distinct. 

The problem with Puyo Puyo Tetris 2, is that while it does have a narrative - one that, like Puyo Puyo Tetris before it, is batshit crazy and as silly as a silly thing in a silly hat sitting in a silly-filled bathtub with the word "silly" written on the side...
...the narrative is not a major draw in these games.
What is a major draw, is the game modes, and the puzzle elements - the Puyo Puyo, and the Tetris... 
...and those are virtually identical in this game as they were in its predecessor.

The Adventure mode, despite featuring a new story, and a slightly longer, more involved route to the finish line, with a smattering of additional, optional stages, are, fundamentally the exact same games played previously. 
Versus, Swap, Big-Bang, Party, Fusion - these modes are the same modes from the original Puyo Puyo Tetris... and because all these modes are fundamentally 2-player battles, (even when played single player, against a CPU,) and because the basic rules of these modes are identical, the game, more than virtually any sequel I have every played, feels simply like playing the same game again, rather than playing a new incarnation of it.

Now, granted - one could, reasonably, make the same point, in many ways, about both Puyo Puyo, and Tetris as core games. 
Both games are, after all, essentially unchanging, yet there have been more versions of each game released - official and unofficial versions - than one can shake a stick at. 
While there could be an argument made that since the "core game" is the same, that means the differences between those releases is negligible, the reality is far from it. The difference between, say, EA's lacklustre "Tetris" offering on the PS3, and Resonair's ludicrously good Tetris Effect on PS4, is the difference between parking a car and landing on the moon.

The package and the feel of the game makes all the difference - as well as the suite of offering, and the presentation. The issue with Puyo Puyo Tetris 2, is that virtually all those elements are - quite literally - exactly the same... and what few minor differences there are, are not really net gains.

There are a few specific new elements.

 

The most immediately noticeable is in the tutorial side of things. Where the original Puyo Puyo Tetris offered some basic guidance and some "training" type modes for players to get to grips with its mechanics, these tended to assume a familiarity with the fundamentals of the two base games, and concentrated pretty much exclusively on teaching the rules of the specific mash-up modes Puyo Puyo Tetris itself introduced. 
In Puyo Puyo Tetris 2, however, these tutorial modes are much more robust - actually teaching the fundamentals of both Puyo Puyo and Tetris as discrete entities, as well as the rules of the mash-up modes. 

This is a good change, and a good idea. After all, the whole concept of the franchise is one that is designed to draw in fans of both games, and there is a good chance that a player might be very familiar with either Tetris, or Puyo Puyo alone, and want a crash course in the fundamentals of the other game.
It does rather beg the question, though: "Why include this in the second game, rather than the first?"
It feels, in hindsight, morel like an oversight of the original game being corrected here, than a genuine advancement made in the sequel.

Is it a good thing to include? Absolutely... but most players playing the second game will likely have already played the first, and so any unfamiliarity with the games will have ben dealt with via "baptism under fire" during the first go-around.

The other bigger change, is a new element of Versus (which, to some smaller extent, also bleeds into the Adventure Mode,) - Skill Battle. This actually is a meaningful change in some ways, and is the closest that Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 comes to justifying its existence as a sequel. 
In this mode, the player chooses not one, but three player characters to form a team, and can "equip" them with various buffs and special moves unlocked throughout the Adventure Mode, which dictate elements like health, special attacks, recovery moves etc, that can be used in battles at the player's discretion.
It adds a certain element of light "RPG-ification" to the Puyo Puyo Tetris battling, as each player is able to set up preferred sets of specials, and use these to engage their opponent. 

I am in two minds as to the value of this. 

On the one hand, that RPG-style element does have significant perks and hooks to the overall game. It allows the player to have micro-goals in unlocking different characters, and different buffs, and it can be fun to try out different combinations, and see which work to suit different play-styles, different builds, and different opponents. It adds a macro element to the match-ups, involving something they never really had in the original game - a "preparation" element. On the downside, however, it does rather pull focus from the fundamental play. 

 

I recall one of the major backlashes that was levelled at the fighting game Street Fighter X Tekken was that it introduced a "gem" system, where different gems could be slotted into characters, giving different buffs. Doing so might seem neat on paper, but in reality, it compromised the sanctity of the competitive element, as it made the fights too  much about the preparation work, and too little about the actual competitive play.
  While Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is not a fighting game, and not subject to the same stringent requirements for balancing and fair-play, (it is, after all, a party game, not to be taken too seriously,) nevertheless, the core game is still primarily intended to be built around skilful play of the particular game being engaged with. The RPG elements introduced by the Skill Battle mode do rather marginalise that "one-on-one" play, and tend to turn the matchups between two relatively evenly matched competitors into more a question of who has the best assembled team and set of buffs, than who actually plays the best in that particular game.

This unbalancing of the core game actually bleeds over into the Adventure Mode too - in some battles, where the assembled team are used, the CPU seems brutally, almost brokenly unbalanced and over-powered... but can then be utterly trivialised by using the "correct" team with the correct buffs. The most skilful player can still be bested easily when using the "wrong" team, but the least skilful player can breeze through when using the "correct" team. 
That most likely is purposeful - the Adventure Mode is, after all, primarily designed to be "training" for online play, and so these battles may well be deliberately unbalanced, in order to teach the "team assembly" element... 
...but it has a rather negative effect on player engagement, as it feels far less beneficial to get good at the game, than it does to simply find the "best build". 
In something like a Souls game, focus on "best builds" is fine... as actually making that "best build" is an enjoyable exercise in experimentation. In Puyo Puyo Tetris 2, it simply feels like ticking boxes though... and detracts from its core nature as a competitive puzzle game. 

 

Overall, Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is a very odd beast... in that it is a very good game, chock-full of fun, with a good set of fun modes, a bright, fun cheery, visually popping aesthetic and tone, some fun (if still a little grating,) audio, and a super cool concept...
...that basically already existed.

Puyo Puyo Tetris was already an excellent game, and Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is not really more than it was... it just kind of is what it was... with a very very small smattering of additions, most of which are not particularly beneficial.

The additional tutorialising is really the best new element, which could reasonably be argued to make Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 the better game of the two for any new player unfamiliar with both of the core games around which the franchise is built...
...but when the only really meaningful, positive change a sequel makes, is to introduce some better tutorialising of elements that any player who might have originally required them will likely already be familiar with, having played the original game...

...it does beg the question: 
"Why?"

 

 

 

The Ranking:

 

Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is a really difficult one to figure out an appropriate ranking for. On the one hand, it is very similar to Puyo Puyo Tetris, which ranked pretty high... but on the other hand, part of the (considerable) appeal of that game was the originality and the novelty - that it mashed together two great games and managed to craft a genuinely good new one.

Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 does the same thing... except it doesn't really innovate on it. It just adds a "2" on the box... and what few minor differences there are, are not beneficial ones.

Do I rank it based ONLY on the differences then? Or do I rank it based on the many good factors that... frankly, already existed? Does it get ranked completely discretely, or assuming a player has already played the previous entry?

 

In the end, I think I have to simply fall on my own experience...
...and in my own experience, I had already played Puyo Puyo Tetris. 

Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 had lots of things still good about it, but overall, the game was pretty disappointing anyway, because all those good things were exactly the same things I liked the first time, and none of them had made any real improvements. What changes there were, weren't good ones.
As a result, Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is a game I do broadly recommend...
...but really, that recommendation only comes if a new player happens to be looking to play at some odd time, where Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 is available and Puyo Puyo Tetris isn't. If there is a choice, I'd recommend the original, not both... and that's a pretty rough thing to say about a sequel!

As such, looking at the current list, I ignored Puyo Puyo Tetris's standing, and simply looked at puzzle games, which are less original, and simply judge Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 as another link in a chain, without any of the novelty or originality factor.

Where I ended up, was realising that while I do still think the variety of modes and the fun modes probably see Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 landing above the fun-but-relatively-basic Bejewelled 2.... but still below middling Portal-like Q.U.B.E: Director's Cut.

There's a smattering of non-puzzle games in between those, and so simply judging which I would likely replay, I can see Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 landing above Assassin's Creed III...
...but not above Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands.

As such, it finds its spot. 

Play Puyo Puyo Tetris instead... it's cheaper, it's the same... and it's better!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Airoheart

 

Summary: 

 

A kickstarted indie RPG from single-programmer developer Pixelheart Studio, Airoheart is designed and scoped to be a Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past tribute... and it wears its influences very much on its sleeve!

In the land of Engard - a land in the midst of brewing conflict between two races with a long history of oppression and strife, Airoheart- a young man raised by his grandfather, who's older brother has already left home on his own quest, is simply trying to live his life in peace, when he is unceremoniously swept up and embroiled in a quest to protect the world from a lurking danger, as an ancient evil threatens to be awoken once more, potentially plummeting the world into darkness and chaos!

 

Let's start with the good stuff: Airoheart is, without a doubt, the most accurate and specific tribute to A Link to the Past I have ever played... and what should be very clear from the outset in this review is - I fucking love A Link to the Past!

There are elements in Airoheart that really nail the feeling of that old classic - the curious 3/4 viewpoint, the feel of movement, the swing of the sword, the metroidvania aspects to over world exploration tied to abilities gained in each dungeon - even the design of specific environmental details, such as trees, houses, bushes... they feel almost carbon-copied from A Link to the Past... in the best possible way.  These elements all work to hit that nostalgia, and when they work well, they really work well.

Visuals are extremely Link to the Past - it's a good look, slightly more cartoonish and bulky than, for example, Square-style RPGs of the time, yet less psychedelic than the Genesis style of 16-bit RPGs. It's a look that really holds up - and importantly, is very, very specific, and very much associated with that one particular game. Nothing at the time looked quite the same as A Link to the Past, and few games have since. That mean that visually evoking it with this level of specificity tells the player everything they need to know about what they should be expecting.

The music too - while not quite on the level of ear-worm-like awesomeness A Link to the Past's score was - is very evocative of the era, and is quite good in its own right. The over world theme is catchy as hell, and fun, and most of the dungeon scores follow suit. Sound design on actions and item stings etc feel almost lifted directly from A Link to the Past, and really hit the nostalgia buttons they are aiming at hard.

My love of Link to the Past does, however, have a flip-side for Airoheart: I have absolutely no objectivity when it comes to that game!

Not only do I consider it to be the best Zelda game.. I also consider it to be one of very few contenders for overall "best game of all time."  That is a ridiculously high bar... and a ridiculously dangerous game to evoke, when trying to make a tribute!

On the one hand, that pre-existing love of A Link to the Past absolutely primes me for Airoheart. I am exactly the person this game is designed to appeal to... but also, potentially its biggest critic. Not only am I keenly attuned to every area in which Airoheart is aping A Link to the Past, I am also very attuned to where it falls short in that aping. 

Also - and I had to keep in mind when playing Airoheart...
... having played A Link to the Past at least 20 times over the past 30 years... I have lost virtually all notion of how difficult / frustrating / challenging (delete as appropriate!) I found it the first time.

 

The reason I bring this up is: Airoheart can be - in its later stages in particular - a tough, and often frustrating game. Later dungeons are quite tricky to navigate, and quite frustrating to solve. Bosses can be a bit cheap in their attacks, and enemy placements and combinations can feel a little off-kilter at times. 

Now... it is possible, I will admit, that Airoheart is, in fact, no more difficult or frustrating than A Link to the Past would be to a brand new player. Because I know A Link to the Past like the back of my hand, I can practically fly through the game. I know where every item is, I have the paths through dungeons engrained in my brain, and I know exactly how to deal with every boss and enemy. With 
Airoheart, of course, I did not, and so 1-to-1 comparison is difficult when gauging challenge...
...however... 
...after really trying to look at the game objectively, I do think that Airoheart does fall prey, sometimes, to the issue that a lot of "tribute" or "fan-made" games can: It over-eggs things, trying to "one-up" the game it is a tribute to.

Anyone who has played a lot of (the outrageously excellent) Mario Maker on WiiU, will know that, when players who love a game are given the tools to make their own levels, they can craft some levels that are absolutely brilliant... however, very good players often fall into the trap of creating levels with a pitch of difficulty so punishing, so obtuse or so extreme, due to their own mastery of the game's base mechanics, that they over-shoot the pitch of the "real" game by an order of magnitude, and end up with levels that are very clever... but simply not much fun to actually play.
(As another example, please refer to Hitman's Contracts mode. The number of Contracts people make that are possible... but only if you know some very specific, elite-level techniques, and know exactly where people will be at specific times, means there are a litany of crazy-ass contracts created that have been completed only by the person who made it!)

Airoheart does not suffer form this to quite the extent that some of these user-creators do (this game is, after all, made by a professional, and not purely a masochist!)... however, often in later dungeons, I felt like I could almost see, on screen, the point where the developers created a great Link to the Past like challenge... then just over-egged it by adding just one or two too many frustrating elements. 
A dungeon room where the player has to navigate slippery ice-floors holding a bomb, with obstacles in the way, and not fall to their doom is fine... but adding a couple of randomly unpredictable flying obstructions into the mix just pushes the challenge over from "fun" to "frustrating".
A dungeon where a boss must be shot with arrows is fine... but having their health set at a level where it is only possible if the player has found the "optional" NPC cave, where they can buy a larger quiver, thus having enough arrows available to actually beat it, pushes the challenge over from "fun" to "frustrating".
Having dungeons be mazes, where finding keys and unlocking doors is the main objective is cool... but not having an in-dungeon map pushes the challenge over from "fun" to "frustrating".

Its little elements like that, that tend to betray Airoheart's status as a tribute - essentially, a "fan-made" game - and detract from the fun of the original game that they are working to evoke. A Link to the Past is not a beloved game because it is wildly difficult - it is beloved because it is wildly fun. Airoheart never really tips over to overtly difficult... but it does - far too often - veer into "needlessly frustrating".

 

The other slight downside to the "game-as-tribute" angle, is that sometimes the "the same, by different means" mantra seems to work against the game as its own entity a bit. 
Despite Airoheart being very clearly - and unabashedly - a tribute to A Link to the Past, there has clearly been an effort to "once-remove" as many elements as possible - the devs essentially striving to arrive at the same end-point that A Link to the Past does, but to deliberately get there by slightly different methods, or via slightly different implementation.

 

In some cases, this is a simple change in aesthetic and in-game explanation - Airoheart's health, like Link's, is represented by hearts... but where Link's are red, and granted by finding "pieces of heart", Airoheart's are green, and given by finding "heart melons".
Link gets a "hook shot" to cross chasms, Airoheart gets a spell-rope to do the same.
Link gets a big glove to lift rocks, Airoheart gets imbued with extra strength by finding pieces of a medallion to accomplish the same thing.
That kind of change makes little material difference, and is fine as an in-game fictional deviation.

However, in other cases, these changes actually impact the narrative in awkward ways. 

Link was a lone warrior - and in the fiction of A Link to the Past, that made perfect sense. He was an only-child orphan, whose uncle and only carer died at the outset, and his quest was given to him, and to him alone. 
Airoheart, on the other hand, ends up on his quest by being swept up in one being undertaken by others... and those other characters persist in the game throughout. The game narrative ends up in a slightly clunky situation, where the narrative wants this task to be done by a team - and that team have interplay, Final Fantasy style, between different people within it...
...but the mechanics are purely solo. Airoheart fights and quests alone, and is responsible for doing everything of consequence. 
The result, is a narrative that treats the quest as a multi-hander, but because those other characters cannot actually help in any material or gameplay-reliant way, it doesn't really work. 
The player has no real path into caring about those other characters, because they are only present for small cut-scenes, and while they talk about helping, they actually can't in game... and so Airoheart ends up feeling like a tool being used by larger forces than himself, sapping player agency from the narrative aspects.

 

Those issues are, of course, somewhat subjective, and difficult to gauge accurately, given my nostalgic connection to A Link to the Past. they are, therefore, forgivable.
Unfortunately, Airoheart has some other issues that are less forgivable.

 

A Link to the Past was over 30 years ago... and yet there are some aspects in Airoheart that, in trying to feel retro, are actually demonstrably, objectively less finessed than they were in that older game.

These more gameplay-fundamental issues, are threefold:

Hit-boxing, lack of "I-Frames", and Over-world Map design.

 

Fundamentally, despite being a game 30 years younger than A Link to the Past, Airoheart is less well tuned. 
A Link to the Past had little finesse to its combat - sword swings were loose, and positioning of Link relative to the enemy was un-nuanced... but the game compensated by having fairly predictable and well tuned hit-box management. 
Airoheart doesn't. 
Often enemies will seem to hit Airoheart from too far away... and because the game has little (if any) invincibility frames after a hit, it is incredibly easy to lose all your health in an instant, by simply being trapped against the scenery, and taking 6-10 hits in quick succession, without being able to attack or block. 

 

This issue is compounded by the over-world map design, which also suffers form the "hit-box" issue, in a way. Airoheart is unable to "squeeze" through games in the environment that Link absolutely could... and because the game is so heavily evoking A Link to the Past, that feels dissonant. 
A game having it's own "game-physics" arrangement is, of course, fine... but when a game is very deliberately aping another, well known game in every other aspect, having a different model for collision detection tends to cause issues. I was constantly trying to walk through seemingly traversable gaps, only to be blocked, because they were a single pixel too small. 
That actually causes a real reduction in the feeling of exploration to the over-world map too. In A Link to the Past, there was a lot of fun in finding little secrets by walking under trees, or through small gaps, or into little hiding places for treasures. 
Because Airoheart uses a more stringent collision detection model, those areas can't exist... and so exploring the over-world for secrets stops being a thing. 

 

 

Overall, Airoheart is a game that has its heart in the right place. It knows exactly what kind of nostalgia it is going for, and does get there... to some extent. 
When it works, it really works...
...but it doesn't work all of the time.

I am aware that this review possible comes across as a list of complaints and grievances. That is a danger that any game aping a single, virtually unimpeachable classic runs into - because it deliberately summons the spectre of a great game, it inevitably gets compared to it, and those comparisons will often be unfavourable, since... well... that original game is good enough to be getting a tribute in the first place!

 

I do stand by all the grievances listed here, however, I do think it's worth stating: Airoheart is a fun game. 

It's a game I enjoyed quite a bit (even the second playthrough I did, that was necessitated by a trophy glitch!)... 
...but comparison is inevitable, and that comparison is tough. 

If you are going to take a shot at the king... you better not miss!

Airoheart doesn't miss completely...
...but it doesn't come close to landing the kill-shot required to be ushered into the club whose members it so admires.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

 

The most obvious comparison points for Airoheart are difficult to exactly define - there are actually fewer games than I might have imagined on the current list, that are reasonable comparisons for a game so rooted in nostalgia, and in tribute to a single, specific game. What I ended up being drawn back to quite a bit when thinking about it, though, was another somewhat Zelda-inspired game - albeit, of a rather different, rather more modern strain: Death's Door.

Death's Door is a game with roots firmly planted in A Link to the Past's wheelhouse, but instead of leaning on it visually, it opts to modernise, and sprinkle in a smattering of soulsian combat. 
While I think Death's Door certainly does win over Airoheart in terms of music and combat - and the two are generally pretty even in terms of narrative, (both having some good and some bad elements,) - I do think the visuals of Airoheart win out over Death's Door... as does the general gameplay structure, and the dungeon design. 
Death's Door has more interesting secrets and esoteric elements - and the charming nature of the character, offset against the slightly maudlin narrative is a winner...
...but in the end, while both games have good elements, mixed with some overly frustrating ones, and both fall short in their own ways, fundamentally, were I to be forced to choose a repeat playthrough of one or the other, I know I would choose Airoheart. 

That matters - and in this particular case, I think speaks volumes, considering the fact that I was actually forced to do a whole additional playthrough of Airoheart already, due to a trophy glitch.

A few spots above Death's Door, however, is another (slightly) Zelda-inspired game: The Touryst. 
Now, while The Touryst is a much smaller, tighter game, I think it fairly easily takes the win over Airoheart. Its visuals are stunning, its music is fun and jaunty, and its gameplay loop is really smart, fun, clever and variable. It being a smaller game means it doesn't need to keep up its interest as long as Airoheart does... but to be frank, I think The Touryst actually still packs in more into its smaller scope than Airoheart does too.

There's only a small handful of games in between Death's Door and The Touryst, and looking at them, I actually have trouble seeing Airoheart - with its issues - ranking above any of them.

As such, Airoheart finds its spot - just above Death's Door, and just below charming Katamari-inspired silliness simulator Donut County!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Point Campus

 

Summary: 

 

After Two Point Studio successfully revived the old Bullfrog model of management sims with Two Point Hospital - trading on the nostalgic connection to, (and considerable success of,) Theme Hospital, one might have assumed the natural next step would be "Two Point Park." After all, Theme Park was the even more famous, even more successful older brother of Theme Hospital. Certainly it carries an even broader cult following with it, and could certainly be argued to be the safest, most prudent follow on.

 

However, Theme Park does have a downside to its nostalgia factor... because it is so strong, it has already been revived elsewhere. 
The Rollercoaster Tycoon games have already picked up the mantle from Bullfrog on the Theme Park simulating front (with great success,) in much the same way Cities Skylines took over from Maxis as the premier City Building simulation games. Were Two Point Studios to dip into Theme Park's well, they would find considerably less water to draw, as so much of the modernisation factor they applied to Two Point Hospital has already been applied by others.

Instead, they opted to go a different route and parley their design model into a new simulated business. 
This time: Education.

Now, I should note at this point - I haven't played Two Point Hospital. I opted to buy the two together, and through the highly scientific method of flipping a coin, I opted to play Campus first. I have, however, played more than my fair share (and the fair shares of several other people!) of both Theme Park and Theme Hospital back in the day... not to mention a fair smattering of Rollercoaster Tycoon over the years, for what that's worth!
Having said that, the majority of my recent management simulation gaming has been via spending absurd amounts of time playing Cities Skylines, and so, a lot of my comparison points for Two Point Campus will not be the natural ones (Two Point Hospital and the Theme games,) but rather, Cities Skylines.

With that in mind, let's just say right now: Two Point Campus is a much, much less "realistic" simulation than something like Cities - though, to its credit, it never strives to be.

Like Theme Park and Theme Hospital, Two Point Campus is far more concerned with the fun of watching the interactions the little AI controlled sims have in interfacing with the Campus the player has built, than with actually simulating the experience of managing them. 

It is, I must note, genuinely fun seeing the different animations and routines that the little sim students and faculty have for engaging with the different activities, machines and elements of the university - and it is very laudable just how many of them there are. Even towards the end of the game, I was still seeing new and different little animations for different things, and each one is done very well. 

Visually, in fact, Two Point Campus is quite a winner. the cartoony, silly style looks very nice, and the odd, monkey-looking little sims are tonally appropriate, and visually pleasing. The whole game has a bright, cheery, iOS-adjacent style, somewhere between The Sims and Little Big Adventure - and is arguably the most clear, specific nod to the Theme games to which Two Point Studio owes their debt.

Audio is also pretty good - there is some jaunty, relatively fun musical tracks that play, but more than that, the whole game is over-scored with Two Point "Campus Radio", which intersperses various radio DJ skits, adverts, announcements and whatnot over the score. These are generally pretty charming - I can't say any of them ever really got a belly laugh from me, but they did draw the occasional mild chuckle, and more often than not, a smile. 
They are - like the whole tone of the game - silly in that most Bullfrog-y, British-y, Monty-Python-adjacent way that used to be more common in games, and has fallen somewhat out of favour. As such - almost by accident - that element actually puts a button on the nostalgic feel of the game as much - if not more - than the gameplay does.

This focus on the visual elements, the fun and the easy-breezy, comedic nature, rather than the minutiae of simulation is not necessarily a negative... however, it is a stylistic difference between Two Point and Cities. It is one that comes down, really, to the personal tastes of the player. 
I fully admit - I tend to prefer the Cities model.

In Two Point Campus, each new educational establishment that the player builds is essentially modelled around two or three new "courses" appropriately themed around the particular location. A musical-themed university runs courses on "Musicality" and "Counter Culture" (essentially, being a cool 50's greaser.) A medieval themed university trains people to be knights. A technological university teaches "scientography" and "robotics"...

....and many of these locations will also have their own little eccentricities associated with them. 

A Beach-based "party university" removes the funding that comes from graduates, but instead awards funds based on student happiness and entertainment. A Music School that doesn't believe in charging fees, makes money only from selling academic works (songs.) One of the DLC campuses - a haunted school - requires graduates in ghost-busting to exorcise ghosts from new plots of land before they can be built on.

These add some little additional wrinkles to concentrate on, and some welcome variety.

These elements are certainly good - and I want to make clear: there is actually a fair bit of the zen-like, relaxing, "sit back and watch the thing I made flourish" style dopamine drip that is best associated with management sims to be found in Two Point Campus. Arguable, in fact, there is more - or at least, a different flavour - of that good feeling here than in something like Cities Skylines or Sim City, simply because the sprawl and size of the builds is more contained, and the individual actions of the sims more noticeable and distinct. 

That element is undeniably well done, and does serve some of the desires a player who likes this genre looks for...
...but there are some real issues with the game loop outside of those factors.

Unlike Cities, where a player might spend literally hundreds of hours crafting a single city, and slowly expanding and growing it, working to ensure it remains functional as it gets bigger, in Two Point Campus, each individual build tends to be in the 4-6 hour region. There is only so large that any specific university can get. 
Now... the same could be argued for Cities Skylines, of course. After all, there is a finite landmass (at least, when playing on console, with trophies enabled,) however, even that most limited maximum space in Cities of 9 area tiles still allows for a city that is enormous and sprawling. 
In Two Point Campus, not only is it perfectly possible to reach the maximum size of an individual build within only a handful of hours, but in reality, the campus will be "functionally complete" long before it is "complete by limitation".

There are two reasons this is the case:

Firstly, because each location features certain "star rating" targets that must be hit, in order to gain a level, and to "finish" that build. These might range from having a certain percentage of students happy, or having a certain "pass rate" or a certain number of graduates, or a certain threshold of monthly profit - they vary by situation. Once these are hit, there is little reason to continue finessing, as most require a campus to be relatively well functioning anyways. 
Once 3 stars are complete, the only real reason to keep finessing is to increase income...
...but there is little to do that requires that income at that point.

Secondly, because the relatively simplistic nature of the simulation means that almost all location builds will, after a certain amount of play, reach a natural "inflection point", beyond which they are virtually incapable of failure. 

 

The early building of a campus will naturally require the player to be quite strict and quite exacting about which elements of campus needs to focus of satisfying.
Should early money go on a new dormitory, which will increase future income, or is a computer lab a better use of cash to improve the pass rate of those students currently in their 3rd or 4th years of their degrees? 
Do we need a janitor to clean up this mess more than an assistant to run the hot-dog stand? 
Is making a better, bigger library more important than a second lecture hall?

These decisions are either/or ones early on, due to funding restrictions. However, once the player has reached a point where all the most immediate requirements are built, it is actually pretty difficult to ever run into a situation where the campus doesn't run smoothly. Beyond that point, a player needs to pretty much actively sabotage the place, to have it do anything but succeed.

Essentially, the simulation model is so loose, that the only real negatives come from not having certain elements. Once they exist - in any capacity - they pretty much serve their purpose - at least enough to start money coming in very quickly. 

What that tends to mean is that the challenge loses steam quite quickly in the mid-build, because the numbers only go up, and never down. Yes, it is possible to finesse a campus - it is, for example, better to have a shorter route from the dormitory to the lecture hall, to the bathrooms, to the labs...
...but the simulation doesn't really make having an overly long or complex one particularly detrimental.

As such, the player is not particularly incentivised to keep iterating and finessing their campus - they are much more encouraged to simply keep adding to it, as the sims are so adept at negotiating the changes, that they never really experience any of the negatives one might think they would. Eventually, when a campus expands to a certain point, and has dealt with the most obvious, basic requirements, it will almost automatically begin generating income at such a ferocious rate, that satisfying the star requirements becomes simply a waiting game - and in 90% of cases, could be satisfied while the player is AFK.

 

Virtually everything added to a campus has only practical up-sides, and very few - if any - practical downsides.

In Cities, for example, adding a highway is a huge benefit for transport... but this benefit must be weighed against the increased pollution and noise for residential areas. 
Adding industry is beneficial for jobs... but reduces land value. 
Adding an airport increases tourism, but has drawbacks to the local area.
Virtually ever addition has upsides and downsides, and the cost/benefit analysis must be factored constantly, across every little change. That IS the game. 
That's what management sim fans look for, and get their fix from mastering.

In Two Point Campus, the positives are the only real impacts for most additions, so simply adding anything to anywhere on campus, is a benefit. That makes the game much less punishing... but also removes much of the real gameplay of the genre.

Because of this, the real meat of campus building comes in the early part...
...however, the issue with that is, that while each location has some unique elements, the fundamentals of all universities are the same. They all need dormitories, toilets, lecture halls, showers, medical rooms, private tuition rooms, pastoral offices, janitors, teachers, assistants, libraries, research rooms... etc etc etc...
...and they all tend to need these things to be constructed in roughly the same order, and in roughly the same layout.

As such, while there are some minor differences in requirements, some minor differences in layouts, and plenty of differences in how the animations of the sims look...
...the actual nuts and bolts of playing the game is very, very repetitive. The player tends to feel pretty burned out building the same combinations of the same rooms in each of the locations every 4-6 hours... then just sitting back, and watching the numbers go up.

The game actually streamlines this early element quite a bit, by allowing the player to create "templates" of common rooms, which can then be created whole-cloth in each new campus (so a player doesn't need to actually lay out where the cubicles are within each toilet over and over, or hang posters individually in dormitories each time.) This alleviates some of the repetition over the 12 builds needed to finish the game (or 16, if the DLC is included), for sure...
...however, this streamlining is a double-edged sword.
It tends to speed up the early build so much that the player reaches the "inflection point" much quicker. It also has the rather negative effect of making each university start to look very similar... and since the difference in location and aesthetic is one of the only really distinct elements between builds, having options that negate it is not necesarily the best thing. 

It's ironic, actually, that a game like Cities Skylines doesn't really require a player to keep starting new cities - most of the game can be done by simply expanding the one they begin with... but because there is enough variety in the build types, city types, terrain types and biome types, they tend to want to anyway.
In Two Point Campus, they need to keep starting over, as a function of the game... but there is far less scope for difference in each new build, and far less incentive to do so - beyond the simple star-rating requirements and the trophies.

 

Fundamentally the core issue with Two Point Campus is simply that it is a management sim, that isn't particularly interested in simulating management. 
It is fun, and silly, and often really quite charming...
...but in its attempts to be approachable to all, it has streamlined and softened the experience so much, that there is not enough meat left on the game to sustain its length, or to really appeal to the core audience of its purported genre.

There are a litany of things that could have been added to make the simulation management more challenging - just off the top of my head: transport, disabled access, plumbing, more finite heating management, education board activities, job fares, more comprehensive routing management, more stringent rental factors or campus sharing... 
...as well as many, many other factors that go into running a real educational establishment.

I suspect that adding these, as well as making the negative impacts of some elements more impactful would likely push Two Point Campus into a slightly different genre and aim at a slightly different audience...
...and, admittedly, might reduce the appeal to more casual players...
...but that hypothetical audience is one I personally belong to.

Overall, Two Point Campus is a pretty charming, pretty goofy, fun little management sim, but one that seems to have been a little too successful in streamlining, and has almost "streamlined itself out of existence". It feels like the game has deliberately softened the edges of the old Theme games to which it owes its allegiance, and introduced quality of life elements to address some of the negative elements those games had...
...but has taken that softening and smoothing so far, that it has almost washed its own genre completely from itself. 

 

There is plenty of silly fun to be had here, and the basic management simulation does hit some of the genre pleasure-points in the player brain...
...but for the most part, the game will play itself, unless told to do otherwise... and once the novelty wears off, it has a hard time finding reasons to keep the controller in the players hands.

 

 

 

The Ranking:

 

Two things are probably obvious from the above summary: 
1. Cities Skylines is an apt comparison for Two Point Campus, and 
2. Cities Skylines is a useless comparison for Two Point Campus!

 

The fact is, Two Point Campus, as much as it is some silly fun, is not getting anywhere near Cities on the rankings.
As such, I had to look elsewhere.

 

There's not many management sims on the list, but one game that jumped out for a comparison was Islanders.
Now, Islanders is also a management sim... of sorts... and one that is actually significantly simpler than even Two Point Campus is, so one might naturally think - given the nature of the grievances I took with TPC - that it would rank lower. 

However, there is a major difference:
Islanders is wholly, and completely deliberately, simplistic. I'd argue Two Point Campus isn't. Two Point Campus's lack of depth is come by accidentally - at least in some places.

While Islanders is clearly designed to be a "Zen" experience, and all its gameplay elements are built around that, Two Point Campus has the rather more awkward feel of a game that means to be deeper than it ends up being, because it can't decide if it wants to be streamlined or complex. As such, it feels internally conflicting in a way Islanders never does.

Couple that with the more pleasing visuals of Islanders, and the much more satisfying overall gameplay loop, and I think, despite some good elements, Two Point Campus has to rank lower.

That puts Two Point Campus in a situation of being compared to very different genres, and so the question I started asking while working down, was: "what is a game that has good elements, but misses the mark or doesn't quite get there to a more egregious level than TPC?"

 

I paused at It Takes Two - that game has much, much more significant issues than Two Point Campus - specifically its rancid message, and its writing - but the fact remains, that as much as I might be loathe to admit it, the positives in that game - the co-op gameplay and the visuals, are still strong enough to carry it above Two Point Campus. 
(They'd have to be, given the place it enjoys on the ranking, despite that narrative!)

In the end, the game where I think the answer to the above question is not really in dispute to me, is a few spots lower, in Through the Darkest of Times.

That is a game with some really nice elements and some genuinely interesting historical stuff, but it cannot be denied that the experience is harmed by the technical and design issues the game has. It has a nice aesthetic, but Two Point Campus still looks better, sounds better, and the meat of the gameplay loop is still a little more satisfying in Two Point Campus.

As such, I think Two Point Campus finds its spot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there we have it folks!

 

Thanks to @breakingthegreen for putting in a request!

 

 Hitman 3 remains as 'Current Most Awesome Game'!

LA Cops stays as the worst-of-the-worst, with the title of 'Least Awesome Game'

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Remember:

 

SPECIAL NOTE

 

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

 

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

 and aren't already on the Rankings! 

 

[The_Kopite]

34 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

As such, I think Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus still retains its spot at the best of the Sly games.

Yes! Someone else who thinks the 1st Sly game is the best!

 

All I've ever heard and seen is that the sequels were better (The 4th one you just reviewed is good and it's a pity there likely won't be a 5th) but the 1st one just clicked with me the best. The way it was presented and how it played, just was something that just meshed with my playstyle so nice to see I'm not the only one to think that!

 

Ended up playing them all on the Vita too, thought that was a really cool way to experience them tbh.

[DrBloodmoney]

14 minutes ago, The_Kopite said:

Ended up playing them all on the Vita too, thought that was a really cool way to experience them tbh.

 

Yup - me too actually... for the first 3.

 

The only downside was rolling into that 4th one on Vita - the Vita struggled much more to show off the more modern game, and the load times were pretty abysmal - but those first three ran very well on vita!

 

 

I know what you mean about the first one - there's just something about Sly that feels more at home as a straight linear game than an open-world-ish one to me... 4 came close to changing my mind on that... but didn't quite get there, as that first one is so dang good!

Edited April 28, 2023 by DrBloodmoney

[The_Kopite]

7 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Yup - me too actually... for the first 3.

 

The only downside was rolling into that 4th one on Vita - the Vita struggled much more to show off the more modern game, and the load times were pretty abysmal - but those first three ran very well on vita!

 

 

I know what you mean about the first one - there's just something about Sly that feels more at home as a straight linear game than an open-world-sih one to me... 4 came close to changing my mind on that... but didn't quite get there, as that first one is so dang good!

Yes exactly! I was very appreciative of just being able to go from point A to point B very quickly and carry on with the great gameplay. Obviously we are in the minority but there you go lol 

[Breakingthegreen]

12 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

The Ranking:

 

There are already all three of the original Sly trilogy on the ranking, and if it's not obvious already, I think Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is a significant step up from Sly 2, and actually, a relatively substantial step up over Sly 3.

 

A fun fact about Sly cooper for me is that Sly 4 is the reason I don't follow dedicated fanbases of most things, because the lines in the sand are so strongly established, in most Sly fan circles it's always "Sly 2 is the best no question, Sly 4 is the worst and kiiled the franchise and you're objectively wrong and should be ashamed for liking it." Totally unrelated but I no longer go on Reddit either. It is always more interesting to learn from people who haven't made a franchise their personally compared to people pulled by pre-established biases from wanting to be cool with their community.

My order has always been  4,3,2,1, BH, Minigames. 

 

8 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I know what you mean about the first one - there's just something about Sly that feels more at home as a straight linear game than an open-world-sih one to me... 4 came close to changing my mind on that... but didn't quite get there, as that first one is so dang good!

 

I always loved the heists in 2 onwards, every single mission you did to contribute to a big heist at the end of that world, it always felt much more like being a thief to in comparison to collected seven keys (some of which were locked behind races which I hated with a passion for both gameplay and story reasons.) Linear just felt like an easy stealth theme Crash Bandicoot. To me Sly found its identity with intricately plotted heists that sometimes went off without a hitch.

[DrBloodmoney]

5 hours ago, breakingthegreen said:

 

A fun fact about Sly cooper for me is that Sly 4 is the reason I don't follow dedicated fanbases of most things, because the lines in the sand are so strongly established, in most Sly fan circles it's always "Sly 2 is the best no question, Sly 4 is the worst and kiiled the franchise and you're objectively wrong and should be ashamed for liking it." Totally unrelated but I no longer go on Reddit either. It is always more interesting to learn from people who haven't made a franchise their personally compared to people pulled by pre-established biases from wanting to be cool with their community.

My order has always been  4,3,2,1, BH, Minigames. 

 

Lol - any fandom that considers Sly 2 anything but a misstep is one I shall have nothing to do with, thank you sir! ?

 

I've genuinely get to see a good argument as to why Sly 4 was bad, that wouldn't, be default, apply doubly so so Sly 3, and triple so to Sly 2, TBH!

It's exactly what those open world games were doing before, but more interesting, more fun, and more well honed...

...what's not to love?

 

5 hours ago, breakingthegreen said:

 

I always loved the heists in 2 onwards, every single mission you did to contribute to a big heist at the end of that world, it always felt much more like being a thief to in comparison to collected seven keys (some of which were locked behind races which I hated with a passion for both gameplay and story reasons.) Linear just felt like an easy stealth theme Crash Bandicoot. To me Sly found its identity with intricately plotted heists that sometimes went off without a hitch.

 

Yeah - admittedly, it's a preferential thing... I'm not against the open world style, but for some reason, it never quite sat right with Sly for me. Having said that, if it did, then I'm fully down with your ordering... it's just Sly 1 that is the wildcard separating us really!