2005
"Slowly Refining Itself"
A sequel was "quickly" released for the first "Call of Duty" (two years seems slow now for a COD cycle), and it looked to push the series ever further with its technical performance and gameplay addiction. The healing system was streamlined to fit the new level designs, shooting was improved to feel crisper, and the visuals were sharpened ever further to deliver one of the better military shooters at the time of release. While the gameplay didn't exactly see any large changes or tweaks, level design saw a more open-ended approach come to fruition for better or worse. "Call of Duty 2" is a good example of a solid sequel that doesn't change the formula much, though in my opinion this improve help my opinion of the series as much as I had hoped.
The biggest change is the switch to regenerative health, which in my opinion feels much more natural for the series. On easier difficulties I can see this being far too unrealistic, but I play most of the titles on "Hardened" and this felt just right. It wasn't as brutally difficult as the first game and its expansion, so engaging in firefights felt more natural and I relied on cheap tactics far less. The level design has also been opened up involve less cover and more dynamic set pieces, though this still led to frustration on higher difficulties since you still die in a few bullets.
Enemies are still far too accurate which definitely hurt my experience. You would barely peek around a corner and enemies would beam you right in the face, and this led to more situations where I cowered in cover waiting for a chance to peek out. Funny enough, this helped with immersion for a bit, but it started to get a bit old after a while.
Guns are unfortunately still a bit underwhelming. I didn't really find them to feel that good to use, and you do still have a pretty limited arsenal at this point in the series. They also don't feel super powerful at higher difficulties, and most enemies will die in two shots to the chest which is less than ideal during larger enemy attacks.
I do still hate the fact that there are so many defense sections in this series so far, and they tend to be filled with far too many enemies with not enough cover. The defense of "Hill 400" was really tedious, though thankfully not on the scale of "Pavlov's House" in the original game. The regenerating health does help a ton, and this title surely made improvements on the poorer parts of the original.
However, there is still something lacking for me with this game. The story is a tad bit less linear, at least with the ability to choose which campaign you want to play in. I still didn't care about most of the characters, and I pretty much felt like generic Russian/British/American soldier-boy most of the time. This would be improved starting with "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare", but at this point in the series the writing is still pretty much nonexistent.
The graphics are noticeably improved, and the game just feels even smoother to play. Colors pop a bit more, though there is still an overreliance on the dull grays and browns of wartime Russia and France. The final mission definitely made things more interesting visually. I also liked the smoke effects - they last a lot longer and look far more natural, even if the game is dated by nearly two decades of superior game visuals and tech in general. Audio is still nice and crisp, a huge boon for immersion and game feel.
Still no comments on multiplayer since the servers are mostly dead, but I don't think playing it currently would change my mind much. It seems very simple with some solid maps, but also not too interesting what with the changes with the series itself and in the shooter genre as a whole.
This is a solid game, but not really one I see myself playing again. It feels like a tweaked version of "Call of Duty", which is great but a bit too simple. It needs something else - more bite, more edge, and more story. More guns would help too! It's worth a look if you're interested in the series, since I think the presentation is just fine and sort of captures the formula. However, it feels like one of those generic WWII games the industry has memed now, which is sad considering it was one of the better ones at the time.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
A sequel was "quickly" released for the first "Call of Duty" (two years seems slow now for a COD cycle), and it looked to push the series ever further with its technical performance and gameplay addiction. The healing system was streamlined to fit the new level designs, shooting was improved to feel crisper, and the visuals were sharpened ever further to deliver one of the better military shooters at the time of release. While the gameplay didn't exactly see any large changes or tweaks, level design saw a more open-ended approach come to fruition for better or worse. "Call of Duty 2" is a good example of a solid sequel that doesn't change the formula much, though in my opinion this improve help my opinion of the series as much as I had hoped.
The biggest change is the switch to regenerative health, which in my opinion feels much more natural for the series. On easier difficulties I can see this being far too unrealistic, but I play most of the titles on "Hardened" and this felt just right. It wasn't as brutally difficult as the first game and its expansion, so engaging in firefights felt more natural and I relied on cheap tactics far less. The level design has also been opened up involve less cover and more dynamic set pieces, though this still led to frustration on higher difficulties since you still die in a few bullets.
Enemies are still far too accurate which definitely hurt my experience. You would barely peek around a corner and enemies would beam you right in the face, and this led to more situations where I cowered in cover waiting for a chance to peek out. Funny enough, this helped with immersion for a bit, but it started to get a bit old after a while.
Guns are unfortunately still a bit underwhelming. I didn't really find them to feel that good to use, and you do still have a pretty limited arsenal at this point in the series. They also don't feel super powerful at higher difficulties, and most enemies will die in two shots to the chest which is less than ideal during larger enemy attacks.
I do still hate the fact that there are so many defense sections in this series so far, and they tend to be filled with far too many enemies with not enough cover. The defense of "Hill 400" was really tedious, though thankfully not on the scale of "Pavlov's House" in the original game. The regenerating health does help a ton, and this title surely made improvements on the poorer parts of the original.
However, there is still something lacking for me with this game. The story is a tad bit less linear, at least with the ability to choose which campaign you want to play in. I still didn't care about most of the characters, and I pretty much felt like generic Russian/British/American soldier-boy most of the time. This would be improved starting with "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare", but at this point in the series the writing is still pretty much nonexistent.
The graphics are noticeably improved, and the game just feels even smoother to play. Colors pop a bit more, though there is still an overreliance on the dull grays and browns of wartime Russia and France. The final mission definitely made things more interesting visually. I also liked the smoke effects - they last a lot longer and look far more natural, even if the game is dated by nearly two decades of superior game visuals and tech in general. Audio is still nice and crisp, a huge boon for immersion and game feel.
Still no comments on multiplayer since the servers are mostly dead, but I don't think playing it currently would change my mind much. It seems very simple with some solid maps, but also not too interesting what with the changes with the series itself and in the shooter genre as a whole.
This is a solid game, but not really one I see myself playing again. It feels like a tweaked version of "Call of Duty", which is great but a bit too simple. It needs something else - more bite, more edge, and more story. More guns would help too! It's worth a look if you're interested in the series, since I think the presentation is just fine and sort of captures the formula. However, it feels like one of those generic WWII games the industry has memed now, which is sad considering it was one of the better ones at the time.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"A Poor Transition To Console"
What seemed be a port of the first game in the series to consoles ended up being something that was slightly original, at least in the case of it not being a port at all. "Finest Hour" contains a standalone campaign built specifically for consoles, which is no easy feat for a studio that had barely gotten its series started. However, the awful controls, lack of good shooting feedback, empty story, and all too familiar level design of the first game (yet worse) resulted in a pretty forgettable first entry for "Call of Duty" on home consoles.
The controls in this game were really bad. Aiming is really stiff yet doused in stick acceleration, meaning it feels much harder to fight enemies than it should've been. Hitboxes being as poor as they were didn't help either, so you would constantly miss shots that would have been a breeze on PC (aim assist was useless here as well).
Levels were sort of similar to the first game, though there are plenty of original missions here. Unfortunately, these ones aren't really exciting and mostly involve things like wave defense or tank segments (at least during the first third of the game). There is a new setting in North Africa which at first sounded appealing, but the actual gameplay is so repetitive that I figured the change of scenery wouldn't matter.
There are characters introduced in the story that you do take control of, but they also weren't notable. Most had some slightly generic backstory with an okay voice actor, but they lacked personality throughout each of their two missions. The plot is, well, WWII again, but Exact Ent. didn't really seem interested in forming any stories with a particular character or squad like future games in the series would go on to do.
This is just a really bland FPS that controls like crud on console. The only shooter I can sort of think about that had this issue was "Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30", though in "that" game you couldn't even hit enemies with your gun most of the time. It's better than that here, though not by a huge margin. This one isn't really worth the time playing through since it mostly boils down the core COD mechanics while also failing to create a fun game out of the remains.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
What seemed be a port of the first game in the series to consoles ended up being something that was slightly original, at least in the case of it not being a port at all. "Finest Hour" contains a standalone campaign built specifically for consoles, which is no easy feat for a studio that had barely gotten its series started. However, the awful controls, lack of good shooting feedback, empty story, and all too familiar level design of the first game (yet worse) resulted in a pretty forgettable first entry for "Call of Duty" on home consoles.
The controls in this game were really bad. Aiming is really stiff yet doused in stick acceleration, meaning it feels much harder to fight enemies than it should've been. Hitboxes being as poor as they were didn't help either, so you would constantly miss shots that would have been a breeze on PC (aim assist was useless here as well).
Levels were sort of similar to the first game, though there are plenty of original missions here. Unfortunately, these ones aren't really exciting and mostly involve things like wave defense or tank segments (at least during the first third of the game). There is a new setting in North Africa which at first sounded appealing, but the actual gameplay is so repetitive that I figured the change of scenery wouldn't matter.
There are characters introduced in the story that you do take control of, but they also weren't notable. Most had some slightly generic backstory with an okay voice actor, but they lacked personality throughout each of their two missions. The plot is, well, WWII again, but Exact Ent. didn't really seem interested in forming any stories with a particular character or squad like future games in the series would go on to do.
This is just a really bland FPS that controls like crud on console. The only shooter I can sort of think about that had this issue was "Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30", though in "that" game you couldn't even hit enemies with your gun most of the time. It's better than that here, though not by a huge margin. This one isn't really worth the time playing through since it mostly boils down the core COD mechanics while also failing to create a fun game out of the remains.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
"More Of The Base Game"
This is a pretty run of the mill expansion pack. Some minor updates to the mechanics like adding a way to sprint and a few new weapons, but otherwise it plays the same. The story is still all over the place, and the best one is the relatively short yet diverse British campaign wince it had some stealth, action, and segments like flying in the bomber (ironically the worst one in the main game). The worst campaign was the Russian one since there were multiple segments with endless enemies assuming you don't push forward, and I felt so much frustration from this after a while. Played through it but didn't think too highly of it, but it's competent enough. Still, it gets lost in the bunches of other average games for me.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
This is a pretty run of the mill expansion pack. Some minor updates to the mechanics like adding a way to sprint and a few new weapons, but otherwise it plays the same. The story is still all over the place, and the best one is the relatively short yet diverse British campaign wince it had some stealth, action, and segments like flying in the bomber (ironically the worst one in the main game). The worst campaign was the Russian one since there were multiple segments with endless enemies assuming you don't push forward, and I felt so much frustration from this after a while. Played through it but didn't think too highly of it, but it's competent enough. Still, it gets lost in the bunches of other average games for me.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"Pointless DLC"
This DLC was pretty much a complete joke to get through. The combat scenarios are very easy but repetitive, there is pretty much no plot/interesting writing to keep things interesting, and the rewards are pretty weak as well for the amount of time you have to sink into it. None of the mission designs are solid, most are just variations of generic multiplayer/challenge modes without the great gameplay additions to make them fun. A waste of time, and likely a blessing this code was lost for the remaster. Worst DLC I've ever played...
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
This DLC was pretty much a complete joke to get through. The combat scenarios are very easy but repetitive, there is pretty much no plot/interesting writing to keep things interesting, and the rewards are pretty weak as well for the amount of time you have to sink into it. None of the mission designs are solid, most are just variations of generic multiplayer/challenge modes without the great gameplay additions to make them fun. A waste of time, and likely a blessing this code was lost for the remaster. Worst DLC I've ever played...
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
2003
"Surprising Yet Standard Beginnings"
Where else to start my slow, insightful, and likely arduous quest towards playing all (or most) of this series than the original PC entry in 2003? What is now an industry staple (and a joke amongst many gamers), "Call of Duty" was a simpler and more interesting game in its day and age - despite 20 years seeming like nothing for a series with over 40 entries. What was it like going back to the original?
It was just plain decent. The graphics are a bit dated as to be expected, but there is some tech shown off that is interesting and a bit revolutionary for its time. The ability to aim down your sights was a big deal in 2003 and being a military shooter, this meant that it increased immersion. Nowadays this would go over most people's heads (hell I didn't even know this game was one of the first to really push this feature until I heard in a video and looked it up myself). You've also got some impressive directional audio for the early 2000's as well as weird quirks like your character being blinded from looking at the sun, or getting more and more out of breath when you sprint over and over. It's neat stuff but doesn't really carry the experience at all.
The shooting is decent but is somewhat different than the later games due to the ability to lean around corners. This is stressed heavily since enemies are much more difficult than a lot of other COD games, so staying mostly in cover is a good idea nine times out of ten. This leads to a slower and more methodical approach to combat, which wasn't actually that fun since I found the levels to be mostly subpar to average. The game is also brutally hard, pretty much unfair most of the time on "Hardened" difficulty or above. You die in about 2-4 direct shots in that mode which "sounds" fine on at first, but enemies almost never miss their shots and are constantly placed in positions where you wouldn't be able to react to them. The kicker is that you can't change the difficulty after starting a campaign, so I highly recommend playing on "Regular" if you want some challenge but don't want to rip your hair out.
The level design is pretty frustrating and generally revolves around tight corridors or wide-open areas with minimal cover. You get blasted often and thus require constant healing in order to avoid replaying sections repeatedly. There are some highlights like "Stalingrad" and most of the Russian campaign due to their cinematic feel and epic sense of scale, but the American and British campaigns are mostly forgettable. The worst levels involve defending an area for a specific timeframe, since enemies don't come in waves but rather instantly respawn. The worst of these was "Pavlov's House", which actually resulted in me dying about 40 times during the final two-minute defense stage. It led to so many needless deaths, and these segments dragged on while testing my patience tenfold.
Another aspect of this game that bothered me was the lack of regenerating health. It was definitely interesting to see COD without this feature, but I don't think Infinity Ward knew how to properly lay out these items in their levels most of the time. The defensive levels in particular lacked interesting counters to attacking foes, and when you ran out of health, the legit best option was to lay down and hide until reinforcements arrived. Awful stuff that I wouldn't go through again...
Despite the really bad stuff, there's a sense of charm to this game that got me to the end. The gameplay is still super simple, the character animations (especially that "crouch-run"), and the musical score kicking in during triumphant victories all added to the experience. While not as epic as the end to "World at War", I still enjoyed raising that flag in Red Square and achieving that hard fought victory for the Red Army...even though many died at the hands of wicked officers (a nice detail included in the campaign that showed the brutality of the war beyond what Nazi Germany was doing).
It's a decent game that most people won't play for many reasons. Aged graphics, simple gameplay, a nearly nonexistent story, and no characters you'll remember besides "Cpt. Price 1.0". The game is also massively overpriced by Activision on Steam at $20, which even at a discount still results in an overpay. If you can somehow find it for cheap (I'd say about $5 is the sweet spot), give it a try, but there may be other ways to try this out if you have the time and carefully research it.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
Where else to start my slow, insightful, and likely arduous quest towards playing all (or most) of this series than the original PC entry in 2003? What is now an industry staple (and a joke amongst many gamers), "Call of Duty" was a simpler and more interesting game in its day and age - despite 20 years seeming like nothing for a series with over 40 entries. What was it like going back to the original?
It was just plain decent. The graphics are a bit dated as to be expected, but there is some tech shown off that is interesting and a bit revolutionary for its time. The ability to aim down your sights was a big deal in 2003 and being a military shooter, this meant that it increased immersion. Nowadays this would go over most people's heads (hell I didn't even know this game was one of the first to really push this feature until I heard in a video and looked it up myself). You've also got some impressive directional audio for the early 2000's as well as weird quirks like your character being blinded from looking at the sun, or getting more and more out of breath when you sprint over and over. It's neat stuff but doesn't really carry the experience at all.
The shooting is decent but is somewhat different than the later games due to the ability to lean around corners. This is stressed heavily since enemies are much more difficult than a lot of other COD games, so staying mostly in cover is a good idea nine times out of ten. This leads to a slower and more methodical approach to combat, which wasn't actually that fun since I found the levels to be mostly subpar to average. The game is also brutally hard, pretty much unfair most of the time on "Hardened" difficulty or above. You die in about 2-4 direct shots in that mode which "sounds" fine on at first, but enemies almost never miss their shots and are constantly placed in positions where you wouldn't be able to react to them. The kicker is that you can't change the difficulty after starting a campaign, so I highly recommend playing on "Regular" if you want some challenge but don't want to rip your hair out.
The level design is pretty frustrating and generally revolves around tight corridors or wide-open areas with minimal cover. You get blasted often and thus require constant healing in order to avoid replaying sections repeatedly. There are some highlights like "Stalingrad" and most of the Russian campaign due to their cinematic feel and epic sense of scale, but the American and British campaigns are mostly forgettable. The worst levels involve defending an area for a specific timeframe, since enemies don't come in waves but rather instantly respawn. The worst of these was "Pavlov's House", which actually resulted in me dying about 40 times during the final two-minute defense stage. It led to so many needless deaths, and these segments dragged on while testing my patience tenfold.
Another aspect of this game that bothered me was the lack of regenerating health. It was definitely interesting to see COD without this feature, but I don't think Infinity Ward knew how to properly lay out these items in their levels most of the time. The defensive levels in particular lacked interesting counters to attacking foes, and when you ran out of health, the legit best option was to lay down and hide until reinforcements arrived. Awful stuff that I wouldn't go through again...
Despite the really bad stuff, there's a sense of charm to this game that got me to the end. The gameplay is still super simple, the character animations (especially that "crouch-run"), and the musical score kicking in during triumphant victories all added to the experience. While not as epic as the end to "World at War", I still enjoyed raising that flag in Red Square and achieving that hard fought victory for the Red Army...even though many died at the hands of wicked officers (a nice detail included in the campaign that showed the brutality of the war beyond what Nazi Germany was doing).
It's a decent game that most people won't play for many reasons. Aged graphics, simple gameplay, a nearly nonexistent story, and no characters you'll remember besides "Cpt. Price 1.0". The game is also massively overpriced by Activision on Steam at $20, which even at a discount still results in an overpay. If you can somehow find it for cheap (I'd say about $5 is the sweet spot), give it a try, but there may be other ways to try this out if you have the time and carefully research it.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
2003
"Utter Goofy Madness"
A controversial game for its time, "Postal 2" seems a bit tamer nowadays. Granted this is due to copycats and the general relaxation of mature content in most current media, but this is one of those titles that isn't really that controversial when you look back on it. Sure, you CAN kill innocent bystanders if you choose, and there is a ton of violence with some solid gore effects, but its premise is actually much different from the original. It's for better or worse gameplay-wise, but it certainly doesn't top the original's goal of literally committing mass murder and it's a bit silly to think the media ran around blaming this game for so much.
The plot here is not really existent. You play as "Postal Dude" yet again, though this time it's in a far more comical setting. You carry out various random tasks throughout the fictional town of "Paradise", and this leads to all sorts of random encounters with angry video game protesters, hippies, terrorists, cops, and even postal workers (a fitting final level if you play it out in the correct order). There's a lot of black comedy and racist/sexist humor on display, but I never found it to be so offensive that the game would be banned in any sort of way.
I guess that's the interesting thing about media like this - it's bound to lose its controversial nature over time since it dared to take risks. Maybe this game actually WAS more controversial than I think, hell I daresay it must've been. What other games at the time allowed you to murder innocents at a whim while slicing them to bits? Not many I say.
With the shock and awe of its graphic material out of the way, the game underneath is sort of average. It's a shooter that plays somewhat similarly to "Half-Life", only there's way less instances of platforming, atmosphere-building, and plot progression. The shooting is alright, though weapons seem to feel weak in many cases. There's a diverse arsenal that contains all of the standard firearms you expect, though some weapons stand out in good and bad ways. I loved messing people up with the Scythe and Sledgehammer since they were interesting to use and had fun animations, but the Shotgun felt far too weak while any fire weapons risked you lighting on fire in the process.
The levels are also not very interesting nor laid out well. They're all very linear outside of the hub world and pretty easy as well. The hub world itself was fairly big, but I didn't find that much to do. There was the occasional hilarious instance of finding some terrorists twerking or seeing random NPC's break out into fights, but it was mostly an empty sandbox outside of these moments.
The humor is solid at times, but I also think the game lacks a real identity. Sometimes it's better than the original (that one being dark, moody, and edgy in its entirety), but other times I sort of wished it followed the story of someone far more interesting and possibly crazier. Instead, "Postal Dude" serves as a jokester who doesn't have much personality outside of being cynical - fine I guess, but it doesn't carry much weight after a couple of hours.
It's a fairly short game that still manages to feel a bit stale by the end. It needed more diversity and more interesting weapons, since most feel both weak and repetitive to use by the end. It also would have been nice to see missions play out more interestingly - everything sort of just devolved into chaos by the end of each day. I'd likely never play it again, and the charm lost its luster by the time I finished, but if you want some sort of chaotic sandbox shooter, I guess you could do worse than this one. Just don't expect anything too edgy compared to other games made today...
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
A controversial game for its time, "Postal 2" seems a bit tamer nowadays. Granted this is due to copycats and the general relaxation of mature content in most current media, but this is one of those titles that isn't really that controversial when you look back on it. Sure, you CAN kill innocent bystanders if you choose, and there is a ton of violence with some solid gore effects, but its premise is actually much different from the original. It's for better or worse gameplay-wise, but it certainly doesn't top the original's goal of literally committing mass murder and it's a bit silly to think the media ran around blaming this game for so much.
The plot here is not really existent. You play as "Postal Dude" yet again, though this time it's in a far more comical setting. You carry out various random tasks throughout the fictional town of "Paradise", and this leads to all sorts of random encounters with angry video game protesters, hippies, terrorists, cops, and even postal workers (a fitting final level if you play it out in the correct order). There's a lot of black comedy and racist/sexist humor on display, but I never found it to be so offensive that the game would be banned in any sort of way.
I guess that's the interesting thing about media like this - it's bound to lose its controversial nature over time since it dared to take risks. Maybe this game actually WAS more controversial than I think, hell I daresay it must've been. What other games at the time allowed you to murder innocents at a whim while slicing them to bits? Not many I say.
With the shock and awe of its graphic material out of the way, the game underneath is sort of average. It's a shooter that plays somewhat similarly to "Half-Life", only there's way less instances of platforming, atmosphere-building, and plot progression. The shooting is alright, though weapons seem to feel weak in many cases. There's a diverse arsenal that contains all of the standard firearms you expect, though some weapons stand out in good and bad ways. I loved messing people up with the Scythe and Sledgehammer since they were interesting to use and had fun animations, but the Shotgun felt far too weak while any fire weapons risked you lighting on fire in the process.
The levels are also not very interesting nor laid out well. They're all very linear outside of the hub world and pretty easy as well. The hub world itself was fairly big, but I didn't find that much to do. There was the occasional hilarious instance of finding some terrorists twerking or seeing random NPC's break out into fights, but it was mostly an empty sandbox outside of these moments.
The humor is solid at times, but I also think the game lacks a real identity. Sometimes it's better than the original (that one being dark, moody, and edgy in its entirety), but other times I sort of wished it followed the story of someone far more interesting and possibly crazier. Instead, "Postal Dude" serves as a jokester who doesn't have much personality outside of being cynical - fine I guess, but it doesn't carry much weight after a couple of hours.
It's a fairly short game that still manages to feel a bit stale by the end. It needed more diversity and more interesting weapons, since most feel both weak and repetitive to use by the end. It also would have been nice to see missions play out more interestingly - everything sort of just devolved into chaos by the end of each day. I'd likely never play it again, and the charm lost its luster by the time I finished, but if you want some sort of chaotic sandbox shooter, I guess you could do worse than this one. Just don't expect anything too edgy compared to other games made today...
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"A Unique Terrorist Plot"
"Mass Effect" has a lot of interesting lore buried within its many text entries and one-off conversations, and one of the ones that always stuck out to me was the discussion of what a "war crime" was considered in this futuristic universe. The use of "asteroid drops" by various races during wartime is one of these infamous tactics, and it always intrigued me as to what this would really look like. Thankfully, BioWare also felt a need to explore this, thus the DLC "Bring Down the Sky" was created.
This DLC explores a situation where an asteroid is hurtling towards the human colony on an earth-like planet, all being directed by a Batarian terrorist squad who took control of its thruster system. This asteroid was a prospect for use as a space station, and the engineers working on it have been taken hostage. It's up to Commander Shepard and company to stop the asteroid's impact, save the hostages, and prevent the Batarians from getting away with their crimes.
Gameplay is pretty much identical to other planet missions, with exploration with the Mako and a few combat sections in buildings being the mainstay. The Mako is still hot garbage so unfortunately the above ground exploration is poor. However, indoor combat was not too shabby and had a decent mix of close-range and long-range firefights. There is a side quest where you find some murdered scientists, but it wasn't too interesting and seemed like it was just thrown in haphazardly.
The plot is decent, but it doesn't really go anywhere. The new characters aren't really "characters", so you don't really feel attached to them whether they live or die. Same can be said for the enemies. There isn't really a lot of time for this exploration anyhow, since the DLC barely lasted an hour. The best aspect of this plot was actually the fact that the setting was interesting, and the visuals of the asteroid hurtling towards a populated planet was both striking and inflicted some tension to the situation.
There's some decent loot to get as a reward for completion, but besides that not much else. It was an alright experience and was thankfully short enough without overstaying its welcome. It kind of toes the line of playability at times, but if I was replaying this game, I would likely run through this DLC again despite its simplicity.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
"Mass Effect" has a lot of interesting lore buried within its many text entries and one-off conversations, and one of the ones that always stuck out to me was the discussion of what a "war crime" was considered in this futuristic universe. The use of "asteroid drops" by various races during wartime is one of these infamous tactics, and it always intrigued me as to what this would really look like. Thankfully, BioWare also felt a need to explore this, thus the DLC "Bring Down the Sky" was created.
This DLC explores a situation where an asteroid is hurtling towards the human colony on an earth-like planet, all being directed by a Batarian terrorist squad who took control of its thruster system. This asteroid was a prospect for use as a space station, and the engineers working on it have been taken hostage. It's up to Commander Shepard and company to stop the asteroid's impact, save the hostages, and prevent the Batarians from getting away with their crimes.
Gameplay is pretty much identical to other planet missions, with exploration with the Mako and a few combat sections in buildings being the mainstay. The Mako is still hot garbage so unfortunately the above ground exploration is poor. However, indoor combat was not too shabby and had a decent mix of close-range and long-range firefights. There is a side quest where you find some murdered scientists, but it wasn't too interesting and seemed like it was just thrown in haphazardly.
The plot is decent, but it doesn't really go anywhere. The new characters aren't really "characters", so you don't really feel attached to them whether they live or die. Same can be said for the enemies. There isn't really a lot of time for this exploration anyhow, since the DLC barely lasted an hour. The best aspect of this plot was actually the fact that the setting was interesting, and the visuals of the asteroid hurtling towards a populated planet was both striking and inflicted some tension to the situation.
There's some decent loot to get as a reward for completion, but besides that not much else. It was an alright experience and was thankfully short enough without overstaying its welcome. It kind of toes the line of playability at times, but if I was replaying this game, I would likely run through this DLC again despite its simplicity.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
"Fun Matters"
Oh lord, this one was not up to the standards generally set in the series. Being a PSP game, I was ready to forgive a lack in graphical fidelity and a smaller scale, but I found so much more under the surface that was pretty stupid.
To start, the controls are crap. You have this finnicky little single joystick control where the camera follows you around, a d-pad strafe system, and the ability to shift the camera right and left with the bumpers. On paper it should have worked well, but in practice it never felt comfortable in combat or platforming. Jumping felt really sticky so you couldn't consistently move around, and the camera would just bump into objects in the world and would cause you to lose track of what was happening.
Combat is also weaker than previous titles. The weapon leveling is still here so "hooray", but it's limited to four levels. The weapons themselves are a combination of generic and weak, which makes it one of the worst arsenals I've seen in the series to date. Enemies are super overpowered and take little damage while dealing a bunch, and this is epitomized during the final boss fight. It's a grind fest and you ultimately start abusing the more powerful weapons in order to win, but your tactics throughout the game never change much.
To add insult to injury, the level design is ALL linear. There are some side missions to do (we'll get to those), but all of the missions were no longer than ten to fifteen minutes at most. Exploration wasn't interesting (straight shot levels and all), but the worlds themselves were just boring.
The side content is also the worst in the series up to this point. Racing was absolutely AWFUL and relied on cheap AI and mindless track design. The clank minigames were also pretty poor, with the best being a little "Twisted Metal" arena rip-off that controlled questionably. The other two minigames involved the already lackluster "Clank-control" sections (except in 2D) for a sort of "lemmings-type" level, and the other minigame which was a really dumb basketball/soccer style sport that was painfully easy. Finally, you have the Big Clank space-battles which controlled weakly and had no real content besides some sort of 3D "Galaga" angle to them.
But the story made up for it right? Wrong. The story sucks. There's really nothing going on besides R&C getting caught up in a stupid adventure involving the "Technomites", some dumb civilization headed by the main villain. This dude literally creates a robot girl to trick the duo so that he can clone Ratchet, all because he doesn't get any attention for his inventions. Stupid stuff. Also, for some reason the dialogue and humor in this title is way off the mark for the franchise. Characters act really cartoony, and it doesn't fit the vibe at all.
This game blew. I kind of regret playing it, and even though it was passable I just found nothing that special about it. Story was boring and childish, the combat was mediocre, the levels were linear and uninteresting, and the side content made me want to die. Thankfully I can just replay an older title to wipe my memory of this crud.
Still better than the phone game though.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
Oh lord, this one was not up to the standards generally set in the series. Being a PSP game, I was ready to forgive a lack in graphical fidelity and a smaller scale, but I found so much more under the surface that was pretty stupid.
To start, the controls are crap. You have this finnicky little single joystick control where the camera follows you around, a d-pad strafe system, and the ability to shift the camera right and left with the bumpers. On paper it should have worked well, but in practice it never felt comfortable in combat or platforming. Jumping felt really sticky so you couldn't consistently move around, and the camera would just bump into objects in the world and would cause you to lose track of what was happening.
Combat is also weaker than previous titles. The weapon leveling is still here so "hooray", but it's limited to four levels. The weapons themselves are a combination of generic and weak, which makes it one of the worst arsenals I've seen in the series to date. Enemies are super overpowered and take little damage while dealing a bunch, and this is epitomized during the final boss fight. It's a grind fest and you ultimately start abusing the more powerful weapons in order to win, but your tactics throughout the game never change much.
To add insult to injury, the level design is ALL linear. There are some side missions to do (we'll get to those), but all of the missions were no longer than ten to fifteen minutes at most. Exploration wasn't interesting (straight shot levels and all), but the worlds themselves were just boring.
The side content is also the worst in the series up to this point. Racing was absolutely AWFUL and relied on cheap AI and mindless track design. The clank minigames were also pretty poor, with the best being a little "Twisted Metal" arena rip-off that controlled questionably. The other two minigames involved the already lackluster "Clank-control" sections (except in 2D) for a sort of "lemmings-type" level, and the other minigame which was a really dumb basketball/soccer style sport that was painfully easy. Finally, you have the Big Clank space-battles which controlled weakly and had no real content besides some sort of 3D "Galaga" angle to them.
But the story made up for it right? Wrong. The story sucks. There's really nothing going on besides R&C getting caught up in a stupid adventure involving the "Technomites", some dumb civilization headed by the main villain. This dude literally creates a robot girl to trick the duo so that he can clone Ratchet, all because he doesn't get any attention for his inventions. Stupid stuff. Also, for some reason the dialogue and humor in this title is way off the mark for the franchise. Characters act really cartoony, and it doesn't fit the vibe at all.
This game blew. I kind of regret playing it, and even though it was passable I just found nothing that special about it. Story was boring and childish, the combat was mediocre, the levels were linear and uninteresting, and the side content made me want to die. Thankfully I can just replay an older title to wipe my memory of this crud.
Still better than the phone game though.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
2009
"Mid Fantasy"
It's been almost a full decade since I had first tried out "Dragon Age: Origins" on my Xbox 360, and while I found the introduction of the game to be pretty cool (differing backgrounds lead to different intros), I wondered for a while why I never ended up playing more than that. I then decided a few years ago to do a similar thing, again to no avail. As one of my final games of 2022, I decided to mod this thing up once and for all and attempt to delve deep into Ferelden in hopes of finding an experience truly worth the game's epic namesake. I have to say that after all of this time waiting, I've been disappointed again (surprise, surprise).
Maybe this game would have been better had I played it more around its release (or, you know, just was older in general), but I found so much of this game to feel far more dated than some of the other "great" games from 2009. Yes, the game's writing is solid enough "character-wise", and yes, the game contains impressively rich lore as per BioWare's typical offerings, but I just couldn't really harness any more fun out of this one outside of those aspects.
The combat is incredibly stiff and unsatisfying to me. This may have to do with the game's unimpresive animation at times, but I've seen people bring up that this system is mechanically deep (which I wouldn't argue with). Yet, I never found it fun to interact with. Attacks were automated and rigid, the mana/stamina systems felt overly restrictive, and in-game tactics required a constant hampering of combat pacing. For my experience in any RPG with combat, I still need to feel like I'm "taking part" in a battle AND have a direct way of influencing it. It's kind of the point of having diversity in builds and whatnot. In "Dragon Age: Origins", it feels more like you come across enemies and slowly slap them around a bit with some uninteresting abilities until one side fully dies. Well, unless you're a mage that is.
See, "DA: Origins" is absolutely clear with its intentions - in the world of Ferelden, magic is power, and everything else is just secondary. This applies both to the actual power levels of each class as well as the number of interesting things you can do with them. As a Warrior or Rogue, most skills revolve around drawing attention/distracting enemies and stunning or charging up powerful attacks. Typical stuff, but it's limited to this for a nearly fifty hour main campaign (even disregarding side content). The thing is, once you choose a class, you're stuck with them. Sorry! Better luck next time. (Unless you utilize a mod to change this, but it wouldn't really prove as a smooth transition to suddenly go from lumbering, beast warrior to fragile, reclusive mage)
If you are smart enough to play as a mage though, well, you're in for a treat. "Origins" provides a slew of fun tools to play around with, ranging from necromancy to divination, even spells covering the whole classic catalog of fire, air, ice, electricity, etc. As a mage, you actually FEEL powerful, or at least feel like you have potential to become so. This is massive flaw since none of the other classes feel this way, and this is evident when you start to interact with the party system. Mages are awesome...except for that they're built like actual twigs, snapping at any moment of exposure to direct combat.
Now, I chose my character to be a warrior. Boo-hoo, bad choice, I guess, but at least he was a damage tank. However, in "Origins" you can pretty much control another character in everything except direct dialogue, meaning you can have your character be the "Frodo" to someone else's "Sam" (there are still debates on who the main character is in "LOTR"). I can switch to being a mage, or rogue, or fricking GOLEM mid-combat! It's actually a cool concept for a game to have...until you realize most other characters aren't that fun to play as.
While magic provides for interesting tools to play around with, the actual act of playing with them is very stripped back. You click a button, see an extended animation, and watch your character send their attack towards an enemy...only to miss? This game utilizes a random attack succession system and lord does it fail to make combat feel "realistic", nonetheless "fun". The game starts to feel more like a battle management simulator, and this is far different than a direct-control RPG in many elements. One of the things that suffers the most from this in my opinion is the game's immersion.
"Origins" does not have a strong plot. It's simple and it works for sure, but it boils down quickly to "recruit allies, fight evil, save the world". It is not very subtle with this either, thus much of the game's true narrative is actual within character interactions. These are very solid, hell some of the better characters I've seen in interactive fiction. Yet, the "Alistair's", "Morrigan's", and "Zevran's" of gaming can't fully shine without immersion, and I constantly found mine broken through the rugged simplicity of the plot and the bland combat.
What also ruined my experience was how slow the game felt. I try to be patient with games but forgive me if I don't want to spend a few hours exploring a mine for a small relic for a section of one main mission. This type of mission made the game DRAG for some many hours, and by the time I got to "Orzammar" and the "Deep Roads" I just had enough. I couldn't do any more quests like "The Fade" stuff either (though I'm pretty sure that was undoubtedly the worst part of the game).
To add on top of this, the Darkspawn NEVER feel like a true threat, and there's no sense of pressure through gameplay or writing that indicates this. It's only characters "talking" about how bad they are, but besides the early sections of the game, you can go almost to the very end without being SHOWN their tenacity. They're literally just "evil monsters" and that's it.
There's no doubt that "Origins" was made with love and care, especially for the theme, genre, and lore throughout. There's an absolute truckload of material to read through in this game, and lore nerds would find much to love from the way BioWare unravels this universe. However, the game is just not very fun to play outside of dialogue interactions. Movement is cumbersome and clunky, combat lacks proper feedback and is restrictive to a key class, and the overall plot struggles with pacing and tension - one of the most important aspects of any RPG story. "Mass Effect" may be less mechanically deep than "Origins", but it was more fun because of its pacing.
Look, if you enjoy this game, good for you. I'm late to this party like most people, but I never really got behind the "real-time combat" genre. You could call me "impatient" (I played fifty hours, so f*ck me right?), but I think games should be a "bit" stronger with getting things moving along UNLESS they have a strong gameplay loop. Plus, my reviews aren't factual - look at the average review to see how people who play it feel about their experience. My experience, however, was pretty middling, so seeing people call it a masterpiece sort of causes me to scoff. Different strokes, I guess. "Dragon Age: Origins" is, frankly, not one of those games.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
It's been almost a full decade since I had first tried out "Dragon Age: Origins" on my Xbox 360, and while I found the introduction of the game to be pretty cool (differing backgrounds lead to different intros), I wondered for a while why I never ended up playing more than that. I then decided a few years ago to do a similar thing, again to no avail. As one of my final games of 2022, I decided to mod this thing up once and for all and attempt to delve deep into Ferelden in hopes of finding an experience truly worth the game's epic namesake. I have to say that after all of this time waiting, I've been disappointed again (surprise, surprise).
Maybe this game would have been better had I played it more around its release (or, you know, just was older in general), but I found so much of this game to feel far more dated than some of the other "great" games from 2009. Yes, the game's writing is solid enough "character-wise", and yes, the game contains impressively rich lore as per BioWare's typical offerings, but I just couldn't really harness any more fun out of this one outside of those aspects.
The combat is incredibly stiff and unsatisfying to me. This may have to do with the game's unimpresive animation at times, but I've seen people bring up that this system is mechanically deep (which I wouldn't argue with). Yet, I never found it fun to interact with. Attacks were automated and rigid, the mana/stamina systems felt overly restrictive, and in-game tactics required a constant hampering of combat pacing. For my experience in any RPG with combat, I still need to feel like I'm "taking part" in a battle AND have a direct way of influencing it. It's kind of the point of having diversity in builds and whatnot. In "Dragon Age: Origins", it feels more like you come across enemies and slowly slap them around a bit with some uninteresting abilities until one side fully dies. Well, unless you're a mage that is.
See, "DA: Origins" is absolutely clear with its intentions - in the world of Ferelden, magic is power, and everything else is just secondary. This applies both to the actual power levels of each class as well as the number of interesting things you can do with them. As a Warrior or Rogue, most skills revolve around drawing attention/distracting enemies and stunning or charging up powerful attacks. Typical stuff, but it's limited to this for a nearly fifty hour main campaign (even disregarding side content). The thing is, once you choose a class, you're stuck with them. Sorry! Better luck next time. (Unless you utilize a mod to change this, but it wouldn't really prove as a smooth transition to suddenly go from lumbering, beast warrior to fragile, reclusive mage)
If you are smart enough to play as a mage though, well, you're in for a treat. "Origins" provides a slew of fun tools to play around with, ranging from necromancy to divination, even spells covering the whole classic catalog of fire, air, ice, electricity, etc. As a mage, you actually FEEL powerful, or at least feel like you have potential to become so. This is massive flaw since none of the other classes feel this way, and this is evident when you start to interact with the party system. Mages are awesome...except for that they're built like actual twigs, snapping at any moment of exposure to direct combat.
Now, I chose my character to be a warrior. Boo-hoo, bad choice, I guess, but at least he was a damage tank. However, in "Origins" you can pretty much control another character in everything except direct dialogue, meaning you can have your character be the "Frodo" to someone else's "Sam" (there are still debates on who the main character is in "LOTR"). I can switch to being a mage, or rogue, or fricking GOLEM mid-combat! It's actually a cool concept for a game to have...until you realize most other characters aren't that fun to play as.
While magic provides for interesting tools to play around with, the actual act of playing with them is very stripped back. You click a button, see an extended animation, and watch your character send their attack towards an enemy...only to miss? This game utilizes a random attack succession system and lord does it fail to make combat feel "realistic", nonetheless "fun". The game starts to feel more like a battle management simulator, and this is far different than a direct-control RPG in many elements. One of the things that suffers the most from this in my opinion is the game's immersion.
"Origins" does not have a strong plot. It's simple and it works for sure, but it boils down quickly to "recruit allies, fight evil, save the world". It is not very subtle with this either, thus much of the game's true narrative is actual within character interactions. These are very solid, hell some of the better characters I've seen in interactive fiction. Yet, the "Alistair's", "Morrigan's", and "Zevran's" of gaming can't fully shine without immersion, and I constantly found mine broken through the rugged simplicity of the plot and the bland combat.
What also ruined my experience was how slow the game felt. I try to be patient with games but forgive me if I don't want to spend a few hours exploring a mine for a small relic for a section of one main mission. This type of mission made the game DRAG for some many hours, and by the time I got to "Orzammar" and the "Deep Roads" I just had enough. I couldn't do any more quests like "The Fade" stuff either (though I'm pretty sure that was undoubtedly the worst part of the game).
To add on top of this, the Darkspawn NEVER feel like a true threat, and there's no sense of pressure through gameplay or writing that indicates this. It's only characters "talking" about how bad they are, but besides the early sections of the game, you can go almost to the very end without being SHOWN their tenacity. They're literally just "evil monsters" and that's it.
There's no doubt that "Origins" was made with love and care, especially for the theme, genre, and lore throughout. There's an absolute truckload of material to read through in this game, and lore nerds would find much to love from the way BioWare unravels this universe. However, the game is just not very fun to play outside of dialogue interactions. Movement is cumbersome and clunky, combat lacks proper feedback and is restrictive to a key class, and the overall plot struggles with pacing and tension - one of the most important aspects of any RPG story. "Mass Effect" may be less mechanically deep than "Origins", but it was more fun because of its pacing.
Look, if you enjoy this game, good for you. I'm late to this party like most people, but I never really got behind the "real-time combat" genre. You could call me "impatient" (I played fifty hours, so f*ck me right?), but I think games should be a "bit" stronger with getting things moving along UNLESS they have a strong gameplay loop. Plus, my reviews aren't factual - look at the average review to see how people who play it feel about their experience. My experience, however, was pretty middling, so seeing people call it a masterpiece sort of causes me to scoff. Different strokes, I guess. "Dragon Age: Origins" is, frankly, not one of those games.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
2012
"Can There Be An Objective Masterpiece?"
After reading/watching so many reviews and discussions about "Ico", one thing became very clear to me - everyone seems to have enjoyed it or recognized it's importance. The review distribution sways in an overwhelmingly positive direction even if the average rating isn't the highest on this website. But numbers are just that...numbers. What strikes me is how much this game means to so many people, how many people find this game to be amongst their favorites, how many of their other favorite games are influenced by this game alone. It's pretty mesmerizing to see it all unfold more than twenty years later.
"Ico" seems to be one of the first examples of "games as art", and even that slogan fails to capture what this title represents as a whole. It's an achievement of game design, storytelling, and thematic storytelling. So many things in this game are crafted with care that despite its extremely simple gameplay loop, it feels more enriched than the most mechanically stuffed RPG's in modern gaming. After all, there is "beauty in simplicity".
Its story is simple yet timeless. Fumito Ueda explains it to simply have revolved around the concept of "boy meets girl", but through the artistry of Team Ico is transformed into something much deeper. There's spirituality here, an attention to detail in world design that makes you ask so many questions you have a feeling may never be answered. "Where am I?" "Why was I taken here?" "Who is this girl?" "Where should we go?"
The gameplay is also focused on puzzle solving, combat, and exploration. It tries not to be flashy or deep, rather it fits into the world quite well. The boy is only capable of so much physical strength, and without the ability to communicate with his partner, he must find creative ways to move forward. The HUD is stripped in favor of immersion, and while simplicity can lead to a feeling of slow pacing, I think it works well here.
This is an experience. I find myself humming the main theme over and over despite finishing it nearly two weeks ago. The visuals were so grand and the finality so total, I could call it a perfect story.
In reality, I just don't know what I think about it yet. I found myself frustrated with the platforming many times, even more so when it came to the game's combat encounters. These sections felt bloated and cumbersome, and I constantly thought to myself - "What's the point of simplicity if it doesn't streamline fun?" I just, frankly, didn't find this game as fun as I would have liked. I almost quit this game partway through. Yet I'm glad I decided to finish it.
I also know that it may take time to love this game. For some it was instant, for others it took years. There's a strange feeling inside me that tells me that my time with "Ico" is not finished, nor may it ever be.
When a game is so beloved, you can tell through the reaction of its community. When its gameplay design is so influential, you see the industry change in response (Dark Souls, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Brothers). When its visual design is so beautiful, you see other artists take note (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater). When directors in other mediums (Guillermo Del Toro) praise the game for its artistry, it potentially infects other mediums.
This review was destined to feel conflicting since the moment I finished this game. I feel like I would need to play it more in the future in order to get my "true" opinion organized, but I just don't know if I will want to nor may find the time to go through it again. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But I still felt a need to talk about it regardless.
My rating may not reflect it, but "Ico" is undoubtably a masterpiece. Maybe I'll be able to subjectively love it as such in the future, but for now I can respect its place in gaming history just fine.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
After reading/watching so many reviews and discussions about "Ico", one thing became very clear to me - everyone seems to have enjoyed it or recognized it's importance. The review distribution sways in an overwhelmingly positive direction even if the average rating isn't the highest on this website. But numbers are just that...numbers. What strikes me is how much this game means to so many people, how many people find this game to be amongst their favorites, how many of their other favorite games are influenced by this game alone. It's pretty mesmerizing to see it all unfold more than twenty years later.
"Ico" seems to be one of the first examples of "games as art", and even that slogan fails to capture what this title represents as a whole. It's an achievement of game design, storytelling, and thematic storytelling. So many things in this game are crafted with care that despite its extremely simple gameplay loop, it feels more enriched than the most mechanically stuffed RPG's in modern gaming. After all, there is "beauty in simplicity".
Its story is simple yet timeless. Fumito Ueda explains it to simply have revolved around the concept of "boy meets girl", but through the artistry of Team Ico is transformed into something much deeper. There's spirituality here, an attention to detail in world design that makes you ask so many questions you have a feeling may never be answered. "Where am I?" "Why was I taken here?" "Who is this girl?" "Where should we go?"
The gameplay is also focused on puzzle solving, combat, and exploration. It tries not to be flashy or deep, rather it fits into the world quite well. The boy is only capable of so much physical strength, and without the ability to communicate with his partner, he must find creative ways to move forward. The HUD is stripped in favor of immersion, and while simplicity can lead to a feeling of slow pacing, I think it works well here.
This is an experience. I find myself humming the main theme over and over despite finishing it nearly two weeks ago. The visuals were so grand and the finality so total, I could call it a perfect story.
In reality, I just don't know what I think about it yet. I found myself frustrated with the platforming many times, even more so when it came to the game's combat encounters. These sections felt bloated and cumbersome, and I constantly thought to myself - "What's the point of simplicity if it doesn't streamline fun?" I just, frankly, didn't find this game as fun as I would have liked. I almost quit this game partway through. Yet I'm glad I decided to finish it.
I also know that it may take time to love this game. For some it was instant, for others it took years. There's a strange feeling inside me that tells me that my time with "Ico" is not finished, nor may it ever be.
When a game is so beloved, you can tell through the reaction of its community. When its gameplay design is so influential, you see the industry change in response (Dark Souls, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Brothers). When its visual design is so beautiful, you see other artists take note (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater). When directors in other mediums (Guillermo Del Toro) praise the game for its artistry, it potentially infects other mediums.
This review was destined to feel conflicting since the moment I finished this game. I feel like I would need to play it more in the future in order to get my "true" opinion organized, but I just don't know if I will want to nor may find the time to go through it again. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But I still felt a need to talk about it regardless.
My rating may not reflect it, but "Ico" is undoubtably a masterpiece. Maybe I'll be able to subjectively love it as such in the future, but for now I can respect its place in gaming history just fine.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
2009
"For Once, It's Fun"
This game should have been a LOT shorter. When you look at the whole package, you have a relatively decent platformer with a bit of goofiness and charm dashed in. However, those first few hours slowly ramp up into a truly good experience, and if this weren't Ubisoft making the game (always known for making properly paced videogames), this would have been pretty good. Instead, this one exists as one of the few enjoyable "Rabbids" games, though it's still a flawed experience.
The game doesn't have much of a story, and the humor is juvenile and mainly slapstick in nature. Some of the jokes/situations were funny, but it wore really thin over the course of the entire game. This is mainly because locations are repeated with different levels showing alternate stories in each location. If each location only had one level, I think they would have been more memorable. I enjoyed the fact that they went in a goofy direction though and didn't just rely on them being solely annoying.
Despite this, there is fun to be had. I liked the concept of kidnapping a diseased patient and using their sickness to "boost" between platforms, the idea of causing a farmer to crash his truck while stealing his cow, and the fact that the Rabbids, at one point, commit terrorism in order to steal a jet engine off of a plane MID-FLIGHT. This stuff was pretty golden and reminded me of older cartoons like "Tom & Jerry" and "Looney Tunes".
The gameplay is fairly simple, with you controlling a pair of Rabbids in a shopping cart as they go around collecting "stuff" for their "ladder to the moon". You have a boost (charged by drifting) and a "Bwaaa" (force attack) used for making jumps or destroying obstacles. These worked well for the most part, but there were many times, especially late-game, where the boost wouldn't trigger properly and would cause me to miss a jump and have to re-do sections again and again.
I also disliked that when you failed certain sections, you would lose all of the materials you collected prior to the checkpoint you respawn at. This means that for some levels, if you die, you have to repeat the whole level if you want to get a semi-decent score. The game is pretty casual despite this, so this feels like a design error more than anything.
Replaying this again with a working Wii controller, I have to say that it still can control a bit finnicky. Movement doesn't feel as tight as you'd like it to be, but at least I didn't encounter the glitch where I couldn't stop using the "Bwaaa" move like before. I also had to emulate this one, and that version is kind of a mess still despite "Dolphin" emulator being updated to run most games well. This led to missing textures and moments where I would glitch through the level (always during an elevator transition). It sucks that this version is in this condition since most people will likely play it via this method in the future.
I didn't expect to like this one, but I did. This is probably the best that Ubisoft can do when it comes to using the "Rabbids" in a standalone game, since they tend to make their games far too long. Still, I actually found these things charming and funny, which I had believed to be impossible.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
This game should have been a LOT shorter. When you look at the whole package, you have a relatively decent platformer with a bit of goofiness and charm dashed in. However, those first few hours slowly ramp up into a truly good experience, and if this weren't Ubisoft making the game (always known for making properly paced videogames), this would have been pretty good. Instead, this one exists as one of the few enjoyable "Rabbids" games, though it's still a flawed experience.
The game doesn't have much of a story, and the humor is juvenile and mainly slapstick in nature. Some of the jokes/situations were funny, but it wore really thin over the course of the entire game. This is mainly because locations are repeated with different levels showing alternate stories in each location. If each location only had one level, I think they would have been more memorable. I enjoyed the fact that they went in a goofy direction though and didn't just rely on them being solely annoying.
Despite this, there is fun to be had. I liked the concept of kidnapping a diseased patient and using their sickness to "boost" between platforms, the idea of causing a farmer to crash his truck while stealing his cow, and the fact that the Rabbids, at one point, commit terrorism in order to steal a jet engine off of a plane MID-FLIGHT. This stuff was pretty golden and reminded me of older cartoons like "Tom & Jerry" and "Looney Tunes".
The gameplay is fairly simple, with you controlling a pair of Rabbids in a shopping cart as they go around collecting "stuff" for their "ladder to the moon". You have a boost (charged by drifting) and a "Bwaaa" (force attack) used for making jumps or destroying obstacles. These worked well for the most part, but there were many times, especially late-game, where the boost wouldn't trigger properly and would cause me to miss a jump and have to re-do sections again and again.
I also disliked that when you failed certain sections, you would lose all of the materials you collected prior to the checkpoint you respawn at. This means that for some levels, if you die, you have to repeat the whole level if you want to get a semi-decent score. The game is pretty casual despite this, so this feels like a design error more than anything.
Replaying this again with a working Wii controller, I have to say that it still can control a bit finnicky. Movement doesn't feel as tight as you'd like it to be, but at least I didn't encounter the glitch where I couldn't stop using the "Bwaaa" move like before. I also had to emulate this one, and that version is kind of a mess still despite "Dolphin" emulator being updated to run most games well. This led to missing textures and moments where I would glitch through the level (always during an elevator transition). It sucks that this version is in this condition since most people will likely play it via this method in the future.
I didn't expect to like this one, but I did. This is probably the best that Ubisoft can do when it comes to using the "Rabbids" in a standalone game, since they tend to make their games far too long. Still, I actually found these things charming and funny, which I had believed to be impossible.
Final Verdict: 6/10 (Above Average)
2015
"A Truly Hidden Gem"
Wow. Playing the prologue before jumping into the main game, I totally believed that I would end up quitting this one after a short session. Instead, I ended up beating this in one sitting with my girlfriend, and I was very impressed with this title's ideas. It's an adventure/puzzler that I just didn't expect to be good, let alone an excellent experience.
The puzzles here are thoughtful and fair, but really make you rack your brain for solutions to the game's many problems. The story is extremely abstract and more centered around themes than actual plot devices. The visuals are super limited, yet it helps to draw more attention to the characters and writing (plus, there's a reason why lots of characters look similar).
This game is an introduction to the religion of Discordianism. I had never heard of this religion beforehand, but the game explains it's concepts extremely well and manages to get you to question your ethics and morals by the end. It's an absolutely effective world with some great writing.
However, this game appears far simpler than it actually is. I could see many players quitting due to its slower pace, simple graphics, and wordy dialogue. I only suggest that you try to stick though it to the end, as there are a lot of modern and human philosophies explored.
I couldn't say much more without delving into spoilers, but this is one of those super clever indie games that I've just never seen get any buzz. It's definitely carved a spot amongst some of the better games I've ever played, which is pretty solid territory if you ask me. Check it out if you are into philosophy, as it crafts enough interesting situations to get your mind racing.
Final Verdict: 9/10 (Excellent)
Wow. Playing the prologue before jumping into the main game, I totally believed that I would end up quitting this one after a short session. Instead, I ended up beating this in one sitting with my girlfriend, and I was very impressed with this title's ideas. It's an adventure/puzzler that I just didn't expect to be good, let alone an excellent experience.
The puzzles here are thoughtful and fair, but really make you rack your brain for solutions to the game's many problems. The story is extremely abstract and more centered around themes than actual plot devices. The visuals are super limited, yet it helps to draw more attention to the characters and writing (plus, there's a reason why lots of characters look similar).
This game is an introduction to the religion of Discordianism. I had never heard of this religion beforehand, but the game explains it's concepts extremely well and manages to get you to question your ethics and morals by the end. It's an absolutely effective world with some great writing.
However, this game appears far simpler than it actually is. I could see many players quitting due to its slower pace, simple graphics, and wordy dialogue. I only suggest that you try to stick though it to the end, as there are a lot of modern and human philosophies explored.
I couldn't say much more without delving into spoilers, but this is one of those super clever indie games that I've just never seen get any buzz. It's definitely carved a spot amongst some of the better games I've ever played, which is pretty solid territory if you ask me. Check it out if you are into philosophy, as it crafts enough interesting situations to get your mind racing.
Final Verdict: 9/10 (Excellent)
"A Strange Entry"
With "Ratchet & Clank" being one of my favorite franchises, I've continued to try and play every single title I can that's under the "franchise umbrella". With "Going Mobile", it's time to get simple and weird - something that sounds right at home with this series.
I never expected to play a Java emulated version of "R&C", but I definitely expected that if I were to have, it would be terrible. Thankfully, "Going Mobile" is not too bad. It has some ridiculously awful controls, but rebinding keys for the emulator made it palatable. There's also next to no presentation quality here besides the charming Java graphics, and sound is pretty much nonexistent.
Still, the core of the franchise is buried within this title. It's very streamlined, sure, but you still have some basic platforming, action, and exploration here. You can even rank up your weapons, something I did not expect to be a part of a title like this.
Sadly, the story and premise here are just not interesting enough to warrant more than a short session. The levels are really repetitive, and the plot is nonexistent. It just doesn't provide too much to talk about in general. I still find it a bit impressive that the game even RESEMBLES anything from the franchise, but there's a reason that this title is mostly unheard of. It's honestly shocking that the Java phone games for "R&C" and "God of War" turned out semi-decent...
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
With "Ratchet & Clank" being one of my favorite franchises, I've continued to try and play every single title I can that's under the "franchise umbrella". With "Going Mobile", it's time to get simple and weird - something that sounds right at home with this series.
I never expected to play a Java emulated version of "R&C", but I definitely expected that if I were to have, it would be terrible. Thankfully, "Going Mobile" is not too bad. It has some ridiculously awful controls, but rebinding keys for the emulator made it palatable. There's also next to no presentation quality here besides the charming Java graphics, and sound is pretty much nonexistent.
Still, the core of the franchise is buried within this title. It's very streamlined, sure, but you still have some basic platforming, action, and exploration here. You can even rank up your weapons, something I did not expect to be a part of a title like this.
Sadly, the story and premise here are just not interesting enough to warrant more than a short session. The levels are really repetitive, and the plot is nonexistent. It just doesn't provide too much to talk about in general. I still find it a bit impressive that the game even RESEMBLES anything from the franchise, but there's a reason that this title is mostly unheard of. It's honestly shocking that the Java phone games for "R&C" and "God of War" turned out semi-decent...
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
"Murder Mystery Gamified"
For a title that is built using Unity engine, I expected this game to be a lot worse than it actually is. The visuals are solid, but the gameplay built around it is enough to keep the player engaged through this game's narrative. Now there are some weaker aspects of the gameplay and story that do start to intrude on the experience by the 10-ish hour mark, but it was still an interesting adventure.
The gameplay is this game's most simple aspect, and I think it was done fairly well. Actions are mostly limited to interacting with objects and walking, but because of this the pacing of the game's story was solid for about 75% of the playthrough. I do wish that there was more to do on the puzzle side of things, and some of the puzzles are a bit wonky and lack real guidance in terms of how you're supposed to solve them.
The story is the much better aspect of this title, and I found the tale of Painscreek to feel semi-realistic and engaging. The characters were mostly established well through the multitude of writings throughout the game, and the town (while being empty) had a sense of forelonging. The atmosphere was consistent and showcased elements of America's lost townships, broken dreams, and buried secrets.
The ending was a bit too clunky to be very enjoyable, and it sort of takes a nosedive in believability. The killer also ends up being fairly obvious about 75% into the game, yet you have to still find a bunch of clues that point you in the "right" direction that sort of kills the pacing. The last 20% of the game is a bit bloated, and the puzzles also felt like they were waning in quality.
Overall, it's a solid mystery title. The puzzles could have been tighter, and the pacing smoother, but the story is interesting, and you feel pushed to figure out more information.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
For a title that is built using Unity engine, I expected this game to be a lot worse than it actually is. The visuals are solid, but the gameplay built around it is enough to keep the player engaged through this game's narrative. Now there are some weaker aspects of the gameplay and story that do start to intrude on the experience by the 10-ish hour mark, but it was still an interesting adventure.
The gameplay is this game's most simple aspect, and I think it was done fairly well. Actions are mostly limited to interacting with objects and walking, but because of this the pacing of the game's story was solid for about 75% of the playthrough. I do wish that there was more to do on the puzzle side of things, and some of the puzzles are a bit wonky and lack real guidance in terms of how you're supposed to solve them.
The story is the much better aspect of this title, and I found the tale of Painscreek to feel semi-realistic and engaging. The characters were mostly established well through the multitude of writings throughout the game, and the town (while being empty) had a sense of forelonging. The atmosphere was consistent and showcased elements of America's lost townships, broken dreams, and buried secrets.
The ending was a bit too clunky to be very enjoyable, and it sort of takes a nosedive in believability. The killer also ends up being fairly obvious about 75% into the game, yet you have to still find a bunch of clues that point you in the "right" direction that sort of kills the pacing. The last 20% of the game is a bit bloated, and the puzzles also felt like they were waning in quality.
Overall, it's a solid mystery title. The puzzles could have been tighter, and the pacing smoother, but the story is interesting, and you feel pushed to figure out more information.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
2011
"A Costly Step Backwards"
The third game in the series, and I found this one to be arguably worse than the first game. The visuals and music are stellar as to be expected, but I found the level design to have taken on a fat decrease in quality. These things feel overly convoluted and contain a lot of problematic platforming, and I still question the necessity of these types of levels (ex. underwater, pinball) in a "Sonic" game. Very diverse with mechanics, but nothing feels fleshed out nor fun to interact with.
The controls felt loose and imprecise yet again, and you somehow having to react to enemies that you can't even see has not proven to be fun in the slightest. No clue what this is here for besides those willing to replay for mastery, but for someone trying to go through and enjoy the game, it kills the pacing. Pacing is equal in many parts to enjoyment in these games; thus, my enjoyment also fell.
I don't really have much else to say besides the fact that I'm disappointed yet again. I feel like I should think "one" of these titles are good at some point, but it hasn't happened so far in the "Classic Sonic" era and I'm unsure when it will happen. All I can say is that I hope the series embraces visibility, stronger level design, and tighter controls more often in the future - otherwise, it will just remain as a popular yet niche collection.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
The third game in the series, and I found this one to be arguably worse than the first game. The visuals and music are stellar as to be expected, but I found the level design to have taken on a fat decrease in quality. These things feel overly convoluted and contain a lot of problematic platforming, and I still question the necessity of these types of levels (ex. underwater, pinball) in a "Sonic" game. Very diverse with mechanics, but nothing feels fleshed out nor fun to interact with.
The controls felt loose and imprecise yet again, and you somehow having to react to enemies that you can't even see has not proven to be fun in the slightest. No clue what this is here for besides those willing to replay for mastery, but for someone trying to go through and enjoy the game, it kills the pacing. Pacing is equal in many parts to enjoyment in these games; thus, my enjoyment also fell.
I don't really have much else to say besides the fact that I'm disappointed yet again. I feel like I should think "one" of these titles are good at some point, but it hasn't happened so far in the "Classic Sonic" era and I'm unsure when it will happen. All I can say is that I hope the series embraces visibility, stronger level design, and tighter controls more often in the future - otherwise, it will just remain as a popular yet niche collection.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)