2015
"A Masterpiece To Some, Just Good Enough For Me"
I was so excited to revisit this game. From Software has gone ahead and created a whole new subgenre of RPG's focused on atmosphere, difficulty, and general mystery with world building over the last decade or so, and I've never really covered them since I've starting writing reviews. "Bloodborne" has been viewed as their best game outside of the recently released "Elden Ring", and I haven't played this title since its release. Reflecting on this game, I remembered it as something I enjoyed a lot, but there was something tainting this memory that I couldn't quite remember clearly. Having replayed this "beast" of a game recently, I can finally say this - this game's atmosphere is fantastic, but the game itself isn't.
My first game "from" this company (I guess we're doing puns now...) was "Dark Souls", and I along with many others found that title to be strange and completely fresh for its time. I hadn't really played a super difficult game of its style beforehand and immersing myself in that world as a kid got me quite addicted to From Software's style. However, I hadn't remembered a whole bunch from their games, so revisiting "Bloodborne" first was destined to be either a complete treat or a nightmare as unenjoyable as the one within the world of Yharnam. Turns out, it was both!
Yharnam is a decrepit, disgusting, and entrancing city to behold. It's Victorian infrastructure, chaotic layout, and bleak design are already unwelcoming enough, but the sheer horror within its walls, behind its locked doors, and throughout its darkest corners leads to some of the most immersive worldbuilding and visual design in a game I've ever played. It's fantastic! The game is dripping with dread and Lovecraftian horror, but unfortunately it doesn't capitalize on this at all by providing a coherent plot or narrative.
I can't speak on their titles post-"Bloodborne", so I'll say that From Software, in this current era of their studio's life, couldn't write a competent video game story. They had their visual design perfected by this point, but I always found their fragmented storytelling and surface-level character design (not enemy design - that is well-done) to be pointless nonsense. This game is no different, with your personal quest about curing a mysterious disease feeling aimless in nature. About a third of the way through the game though, I thought the gameplay would hold it up enough to compensate, but of course I had to be wrong...
"Bloodborne's" gameplay is different from the "Souls" games in many ways, but it's generally still the same thing yet again. You have high-damage, generally low-health, opponents, and combat is focused on timing, positioning, and attack pattern recognition. It's never been super deep to me personally, but "Bloodborne" tried to shake things up by increasing combat speed and stripping the player of defensive maneuvers outside of dodging. This created a combat system that supported the game's lore, a system that is "bestial" in practice. Unfortunately, I think this scrapped a few things that I enjoyed a lot about the previous games.
The biggest aspect I felt was stripped back in this title is build variety, and I blame this on the weapon design. The dual-mode aspect is neat, but I didn't really find it to be a good replacement for the sheer variety of weapons in a game like "Dark Souls". Each individual weapon has much more depth here than in a game like that, but it's still not very involved - you have a light, heavy, and charge attack, and you can transform it to another mode (an attack in itself when dodging) that will provide a new set of moves. At no point throughout my playthrough did I comment "this has depth", since most encounters lacked a reason to swap between the two modes. All it felt like I was doing was swapping between two weapons, and while this was stylish, it never convinced me it was anything more than that. I see that they wanted the player to view their weapon as something more "unique", but it felt that they simply squished two weapons together to create one versus designing an inherently complex, "fun to use" weapon.
I'll also say that this game suffers from being too long and having too many areas to go through. The whole "Nightmare" zone felt annoying to traverse, and I felt like I was just fumbling around getting to the end of the game. It was frustrating, and really soured my playthrough a bunch. I found boss difficulty to be generally fine, but normal mobs were stupid in combat design. Most enemies are helpless to your attacks, at least until you find those few enemy types that are just blisteringly broken beyond comprehension (looking at you specifically, Winter Lanterns!). It never felt good to interact with most enemies outside of the first third of the game, and this is because I think the combat design in this game just sort of fell apart.
If I have to take my experience with this game as a sign of my enjoyment of the "Souls" series, I will have to say I'm currently concerned of the outlook. Combat in this game felt cheap, with single mistakes being punished heavily, and then it just...didn't. I would leave an area to do something else really quick, or even attempt a fight a few more times, and I would get through 95% of the obstacles I faced. Maybe I'm just getting impatient as I get older (which I don't believe - you should see some of the games I've played through recently for proof), but I don't find much appeal in replaying sections of a game over and over again due to trivial difficulty spikes. I need...more?
That's why I don't seem to want to pin it all on "Bloodborne", but rather on From Software. The atmosphere in this game is fantastic, and for a good chunk of it I was finding it to be a masterpiece. However, this is the same frustration that led to me never beating "Dark Souls" or its sequel as a kid/teenager, and now I was finally able to experience it with a "functional memory". Grinding to increase my fairly uninteresting stats, hunting for incrementally stronger relics in a stupid Chalice Dungeon (an absolutely shlocky game feature), and feeling like I have to cheese an encounter versus figuring out my own path to victory (similar to puzzle games with the genre's, at times, "limited" scope to problem-solving)...
...all of this feels unfun at the end of the day.
I wanted to like "Bloodborne" as much as I felt I used to. Hell, I wanted to love it and praise it as a masterpiece like so many "hardcore gamers". But I can't. It wasn't that fun, and I don't know if I would want to try it again in the future. It has some artistically magnificent aspects, but when you strip it down to a core video game, it's divisive as all hell. I guess I just found myself on that "other" team that couldn't really get it...
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
I was so excited to revisit this game. From Software has gone ahead and created a whole new subgenre of RPG's focused on atmosphere, difficulty, and general mystery with world building over the last decade or so, and I've never really covered them since I've starting writing reviews. "Bloodborne" has been viewed as their best game outside of the recently released "Elden Ring", and I haven't played this title since its release. Reflecting on this game, I remembered it as something I enjoyed a lot, but there was something tainting this memory that I couldn't quite remember clearly. Having replayed this "beast" of a game recently, I can finally say this - this game's atmosphere is fantastic, but the game itself isn't.
My first game "from" this company (I guess we're doing puns now...) was "Dark Souls", and I along with many others found that title to be strange and completely fresh for its time. I hadn't really played a super difficult game of its style beforehand and immersing myself in that world as a kid got me quite addicted to From Software's style. However, I hadn't remembered a whole bunch from their games, so revisiting "Bloodborne" first was destined to be either a complete treat or a nightmare as unenjoyable as the one within the world of Yharnam. Turns out, it was both!
Yharnam is a decrepit, disgusting, and entrancing city to behold. It's Victorian infrastructure, chaotic layout, and bleak design are already unwelcoming enough, but the sheer horror within its walls, behind its locked doors, and throughout its darkest corners leads to some of the most immersive worldbuilding and visual design in a game I've ever played. It's fantastic! The game is dripping with dread and Lovecraftian horror, but unfortunately it doesn't capitalize on this at all by providing a coherent plot or narrative.
I can't speak on their titles post-"Bloodborne", so I'll say that From Software, in this current era of their studio's life, couldn't write a competent video game story. They had their visual design perfected by this point, but I always found their fragmented storytelling and surface-level character design (not enemy design - that is well-done) to be pointless nonsense. This game is no different, with your personal quest about curing a mysterious disease feeling aimless in nature. About a third of the way through the game though, I thought the gameplay would hold it up enough to compensate, but of course I had to be wrong...
"Bloodborne's" gameplay is different from the "Souls" games in many ways, but it's generally still the same thing yet again. You have high-damage, generally low-health, opponents, and combat is focused on timing, positioning, and attack pattern recognition. It's never been super deep to me personally, but "Bloodborne" tried to shake things up by increasing combat speed and stripping the player of defensive maneuvers outside of dodging. This created a combat system that supported the game's lore, a system that is "bestial" in practice. Unfortunately, I think this scrapped a few things that I enjoyed a lot about the previous games.
The biggest aspect I felt was stripped back in this title is build variety, and I blame this on the weapon design. The dual-mode aspect is neat, but I didn't really find it to be a good replacement for the sheer variety of weapons in a game like "Dark Souls". Each individual weapon has much more depth here than in a game like that, but it's still not very involved - you have a light, heavy, and charge attack, and you can transform it to another mode (an attack in itself when dodging) that will provide a new set of moves. At no point throughout my playthrough did I comment "this has depth", since most encounters lacked a reason to swap between the two modes. All it felt like I was doing was swapping between two weapons, and while this was stylish, it never convinced me it was anything more than that. I see that they wanted the player to view their weapon as something more "unique", but it felt that they simply squished two weapons together to create one versus designing an inherently complex, "fun to use" weapon.
I'll also say that this game suffers from being too long and having too many areas to go through. The whole "Nightmare" zone felt annoying to traverse, and I felt like I was just fumbling around getting to the end of the game. It was frustrating, and really soured my playthrough a bunch. I found boss difficulty to be generally fine, but normal mobs were stupid in combat design. Most enemies are helpless to your attacks, at least until you find those few enemy types that are just blisteringly broken beyond comprehension (looking at you specifically, Winter Lanterns!). It never felt good to interact with most enemies outside of the first third of the game, and this is because I think the combat design in this game just sort of fell apart.
If I have to take my experience with this game as a sign of my enjoyment of the "Souls" series, I will have to say I'm currently concerned of the outlook. Combat in this game felt cheap, with single mistakes being punished heavily, and then it just...didn't. I would leave an area to do something else really quick, or even attempt a fight a few more times, and I would get through 95% of the obstacles I faced. Maybe I'm just getting impatient as I get older (which I don't believe - you should see some of the games I've played through recently for proof), but I don't find much appeal in replaying sections of a game over and over again due to trivial difficulty spikes. I need...more?
That's why I don't seem to want to pin it all on "Bloodborne", but rather on From Software. The atmosphere in this game is fantastic, and for a good chunk of it I was finding it to be a masterpiece. However, this is the same frustration that led to me never beating "Dark Souls" or its sequel as a kid/teenager, and now I was finally able to experience it with a "functional memory". Grinding to increase my fairly uninteresting stats, hunting for incrementally stronger relics in a stupid Chalice Dungeon (an absolutely shlocky game feature), and feeling like I have to cheese an encounter versus figuring out my own path to victory (similar to puzzle games with the genre's, at times, "limited" scope to problem-solving)...
...all of this feels unfun at the end of the day.
I wanted to like "Bloodborne" as much as I felt I used to. Hell, I wanted to love it and praise it as a masterpiece like so many "hardcore gamers". But I can't. It wasn't that fun, and I don't know if I would want to try it again in the future. It has some artistically magnificent aspects, but when you strip it down to a core video game, it's divisive as all hell. I guess I just found myself on that "other" team that couldn't really get it...
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
"A Definite Letdown"
Man, this season should have been so much better. They had an easy opportunity to spice up the game by adding new types of minigames, changing the leveling system, increasing the amount of playing vs. watching, and fixing numerous bugs/janky gameplay issues. However, there was little content added, a lackluster battle pass, and pretty much zero additions to the gameplay in order to make it smoother.
There were some minigames that saw removal and frequency reduction very early on, making this feel like a chore of a season to play. After a few weeks I just completely dipped, not caring much about the rest of the battle pass after unlocking the Alien. The new maps were slight improvements on the formula, but the formula already feels like it has run its course.
I'm unsure if I will continue to play this game at the moment. At the time of this review, "Fall Guys" is partially through Season 3, but I don't know what would bring me to check it out besides trying to unlock Spongebob Squarepants (which I likely won't do considering it's a Level 100 unlock - also, I don't play games just to unlock things if they aren't fun to play...). I just find this developer to be too unoriginal with adding content, and the fact that hex-based game modes are the most interesting despite all being the same shows how little fun there really is in this title. There needs to be better minigames besides the crappy races and button mashing ones being added. Hopefully they can improve and I'll come back in the future - or maybe another developer can improve this genre just a bit more by releasing a more creative title.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
Man, this season should have been so much better. They had an easy opportunity to spice up the game by adding new types of minigames, changing the leveling system, increasing the amount of playing vs. watching, and fixing numerous bugs/janky gameplay issues. However, there was little content added, a lackluster battle pass, and pretty much zero additions to the gameplay in order to make it smoother.
There were some minigames that saw removal and frequency reduction very early on, making this feel like a chore of a season to play. After a few weeks I just completely dipped, not caring much about the rest of the battle pass after unlocking the Alien. The new maps were slight improvements on the formula, but the formula already feels like it has run its course.
I'm unsure if I will continue to play this game at the moment. At the time of this review, "Fall Guys" is partially through Season 3, but I don't know what would bring me to check it out besides trying to unlock Spongebob Squarepants (which I likely won't do considering it's a Level 100 unlock - also, I don't play games just to unlock things if they aren't fun to play...). I just find this developer to be too unoriginal with adding content, and the fact that hex-based game modes are the most interesting despite all being the same shows how little fun there really is in this title. There needs to be better minigames besides the crappy races and button mashing ones being added. Hopefully they can improve and I'll come back in the future - or maybe another developer can improve this genre just a bit more by releasing a more creative title.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
"Fun, But Needs Some Change"
I won't lie when I say that the first few weeks of this season were amazing, possibly some of the best gameplay "Fortnite" had ever had at one point. The new goo mechanic being added was interesting, the points of interest got a much-needed remix, snipers were added back into the game, and the birthday event got started with all of its bouncy, goofy music blasting glory. And then the rest of the season slowly trickled on up to a point where I just took a month off of playing the game. What happened with this final chapter?
The Chrome mechanic was very interesting as it added a few different movement techniques and gave the ability to heal passively. However, I found it to be problematic. The wall-shift ability was clunky and always triggered when you moved into any surface with chrome, which really threw off stealthy plays and whatnot. Additionally, the ability to turn into a blob felt more irritating than fun to interact with since this season had way too much burst movement tech, leading to wild fights that felt random and chaotic as all hell. Combat thus felt like it gained equal parts skill and complete luck, and therefore winning felt less sweet than usual throughout the season.
Snipers came back and were balanced horribly. While I can support a one-shot sniper at times, the bolt-action plagued this season (even though I was generally the one dealing the most damage to others). It never feels fun to have smart tactics or movement punished by a lucky shot, and "Fortnite" has never been a game with superb hitboxes/hit registration.
The events were super weak as well - I was really looking forward to "Fortnightmares 2022", and it was pretty much just a minor decoration of the map while Epic tried to peddle numerous skins. I picked up a treat for myself (the Alien skin), but I thought there would be something more gloomy, interactive, and fun to celebrate the holiday.
I really felt mixed with the whole "floating building" trend that populated the map as well. It made the game feel like it was less grounded than ever before, for better AND worse. Verticality became a viable tactic once again, except it was VITAL to have high ground in order to win any game. The zone itself felt more useless than ever before, and the still high loot density/quality made that aspect of the game forgettable. Having a "Rocket League" mini event was fun but didn't really affect much gameplay wise.
I did like some of the new content like the Port-A-Bunker and evolving weaponry, and the return of snipers and more varied wildlife was cool, but there was so much removed in place of this that after a while, it all got pretty stale. The incentives were also very poor with the worst Battle Pass I've seen since coming back to "Fortnite" this year, and I truly think that none of the skins stood out for me.
I skipped out on the season ending event, and with good reason - the game got boring. It was functionally fun enough to play for a while, but then new ideas just stopped releasing while the existing ones showcased a much smaller sense of depth than previous seasons. This likely was due to the impending release of Chapter 4 and all of its crazy additions to the game, which is acceptable, but I expected more out of Epic to put a nice cherry on top of what was undoubtably the most important year of "Fortnite" to date.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
I won't lie when I say that the first few weeks of this season were amazing, possibly some of the best gameplay "Fortnite" had ever had at one point. The new goo mechanic being added was interesting, the points of interest got a much-needed remix, snipers were added back into the game, and the birthday event got started with all of its bouncy, goofy music blasting glory. And then the rest of the season slowly trickled on up to a point where I just took a month off of playing the game. What happened with this final chapter?
The Chrome mechanic was very interesting as it added a few different movement techniques and gave the ability to heal passively. However, I found it to be problematic. The wall-shift ability was clunky and always triggered when you moved into any surface with chrome, which really threw off stealthy plays and whatnot. Additionally, the ability to turn into a blob felt more irritating than fun to interact with since this season had way too much burst movement tech, leading to wild fights that felt random and chaotic as all hell. Combat thus felt like it gained equal parts skill and complete luck, and therefore winning felt less sweet than usual throughout the season.
Snipers came back and were balanced horribly. While I can support a one-shot sniper at times, the bolt-action plagued this season (even though I was generally the one dealing the most damage to others). It never feels fun to have smart tactics or movement punished by a lucky shot, and "Fortnite" has never been a game with superb hitboxes/hit registration.
The events were super weak as well - I was really looking forward to "Fortnightmares 2022", and it was pretty much just a minor decoration of the map while Epic tried to peddle numerous skins. I picked up a treat for myself (the Alien skin), but I thought there would be something more gloomy, interactive, and fun to celebrate the holiday.
I really felt mixed with the whole "floating building" trend that populated the map as well. It made the game feel like it was less grounded than ever before, for better AND worse. Verticality became a viable tactic once again, except it was VITAL to have high ground in order to win any game. The zone itself felt more useless than ever before, and the still high loot density/quality made that aspect of the game forgettable. Having a "Rocket League" mini event was fun but didn't really affect much gameplay wise.
I did like some of the new content like the Port-A-Bunker and evolving weaponry, and the return of snipers and more varied wildlife was cool, but there was so much removed in place of this that after a while, it all got pretty stale. The incentives were also very poor with the worst Battle Pass I've seen since coming back to "Fortnite" this year, and I truly think that none of the skins stood out for me.
I skipped out on the season ending event, and with good reason - the game got boring. It was functionally fun enough to play for a while, but then new ideas just stopped releasing while the existing ones showcased a much smaller sense of depth than previous seasons. This likely was due to the impending release of Chapter 4 and all of its crazy additions to the game, which is acceptable, but I expected more out of Epic to put a nice cherry on top of what was undoubtably the most important year of "Fortnite" to date.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
"Absolutely Pointless"
Such a bad expansion for this game, and really disappointing after the generic but fun "The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned". Mad Moxxi is designed in a, let's say, "interesting" way, but there's really nothing about this DLC that's worth your time. The wave defense is very repetitive and frustrating, and it generally feels like filler compared to having something to provide with story or interesting side quests. The loot is very poor quality, and the addition of a locker is never something I found necessary to this game or any others in the future since most of the time you'll find a better gun in no time.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
Such a bad expansion for this game, and really disappointing after the generic but fun "The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned". Mad Moxxi is designed in a, let's say, "interesting" way, but there's really nothing about this DLC that's worth your time. The wave defense is very repetitive and frustrating, and it generally feels like filler compared to having something to provide with story or interesting side quests. The loot is very poor quality, and the addition of a locker is never something I found necessary to this game or any others in the future since most of the time you'll find a better gun in no time.
Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)
"Not A Good Start At All"
"The Elder Scrolls" was never really on my radar until the release of "Skyrim" over a decade ago, and I've only ever played "Oblivion" in addition. I've enjoyed my time with both games, but I was always interested in going back to the franchises' humble beginnings to see if there is any semblance of a spark with those games. Naturally, I found myself playing this title - "Arena" - the canonical, technical, and "spiritual" start to the series.
My god was this awful to play.
The controls are exceptionally poor and make navigating the opening area a complete chore. Combat felt stiff, clunky, and directionless. The presentation of the game was fine, but the audio mixing was all over the place. Creating a character was a complicated and arduous process, and I never quite felt like I understood what stats were important and which were absolutely useless. I also knew the game wouldn't look great, but it really does just look like a jumbled mess of textures and sprites hopping around.
Don't bother with this one. It's a redundant entry nowadays that technically indicates the start of the franchise, but it's just not worth going through its slog of mechanics for a chance of enjoyment.
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
"The Elder Scrolls" was never really on my radar until the release of "Skyrim" over a decade ago, and I've only ever played "Oblivion" in addition. I've enjoyed my time with both games, but I was always interested in going back to the franchises' humble beginnings to see if there is any semblance of a spark with those games. Naturally, I found myself playing this title - "Arena" - the canonical, technical, and "spiritual" start to the series.
My god was this awful to play.
The controls are exceptionally poor and make navigating the opening area a complete chore. Combat felt stiff, clunky, and directionless. The presentation of the game was fine, but the audio mixing was all over the place. Creating a character was a complicated and arduous process, and I never quite felt like I understood what stats were important and which were absolutely useless. I also knew the game wouldn't look great, but it really does just look like a jumbled mess of textures and sprites hopping around.
Don't bother with this one. It's a redundant entry nowadays that technically indicates the start of the franchise, but it's just not worth going through its slog of mechanics for a chance of enjoyment.
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
2017
"Good, But Not Great: Why Games Need More Originality"
I finally got around to completing this highly acclaimed game, and I have to say I'm pretty underwhelmed by the whole experience. What you have here is a totally fine metroidvania that blends pretty specific aspects of From Software's "Bloodborne" with an original cutesy aesthetic, but it just doesn't really do it as well and really loses track of pacing, worldbuilding, and gameplay along the way. It has a fairly decent combat system, good art, and a fantastic soundtrack, but it stumbles into the same issues I found in my time with "Bloodborne" and ultimately showcases some major issues of modern gaming.
I would say the game easily starts strong and starts to deteriorate in quality as you progress through it. The introduction is fairly mysterious and introduces core mechanics well, but there is a major issue with pacing right off the bat. Your character collects skills necessary for advancing in the world far too slowly, and the world itself is tediously repetitive to explore. This becomes far more of an issue the deeper you get into the game, but for now I thought the game was truly something special - especially with the mysteries of the plot itself.
Now I've come to figure out that I like my stories a bit less fragmented and convoluted than some other people. It can occasionally work well, but I think this method distract far too much from the actual events of each plot and attempts to a) heighten other aspects of worldbuilding (atmosphere, theme, etc.) and b) generally cover up some basic, cliche, or poor writing. "Hollow Knight" is a classic example of this method. The second act really starts to unpack the plot of the game, ramping up encounters and giving you more information...and it just leads to nothing that special. You find out there is corruption in this world (obvious from the start), you learn of a being that both liberated and doomed this land (interesting but is a bit standard for this type of theme and is never really built upon more), and you eventually defeat it and gasp take its place for the cycle to repeat itself.
This is fine and dandy and gives people the chance to say "aha, I figured out the plot in advance through subtle hints!". However, I ask these questions:
"What makes my character so special?"
"Why are all of these NPC's I meet so important? What do they add to this plot?"
"What was the point of defeating these bosses?"
Don't mistake this fact - I read all of the dialogue as thoroughly as I could and tried to uncover every nook and cranny for about 80 percent of my time with the game. I just think there isn't really that much detail in this world/plot despite how much the game tries to convince you there is. It's a basic plot, and that's just enough to get me going to the end. But once I got there I reflected on the many frustrations with the gameplay and asked myself if the experience was really all that worth going through.
The platforming in this game is solid, but there were many moments where I thought that jumps didn't register, or wall-grabs didn't quite stick. Combat was similar, with hits not registering and cheap hitboxes being introduced to add more difficulty to the game than necessary. I'm fine with a game being difficult if its mechanics are fleshed out, there is a layer of depth with increased difficulty that allows for dynamic combat/problem solving, and it's not something you can necessarily "solve" after a while. This is sort of a limitation of single-player games since AI is just never really that great on its own to warrant interesting tactics, but there are games that take a step in the right direction by allowing you to experiment and customize your build to be your own - not just something that will get you the victory at the end of the day. "Hollow Knight's" combat is flawed because it is limited in scope, scale, depth, whatever you want to frame it as. There is no real creativity with encounters, more so every enemy is a single type of puzzle that, once you beat, will always play out the same way time and time again. For a short game that is fine, and for a game that doesn't seem to warrant a replay (a.k.a their story comprehension is fairly solid) that is also fine - this game is neither short nor provides a narrative I think players will really understand well upon a single playthrough.
Thus, as time went on, the game got boring. I haven't even mentioned the world design much, so I'll go into that now. The map mixed with the world layout in "Hollow Knight" is one of the worst combinations I have ever seen in what is considered to be "modern gaming". I constantly found navigation to feel monotonous, slow, and repetitive within the framework of the game's progression. There is a lack of detail in your maps to allow you to truly remember what each area looks like, plays like, and what important NPC's or AOI's are there. There has been an addition of fast travel to make it "easier", but the world is frankly too big, the stations too infrequent, and movement too slow.
By the time the third act rolled around, I had mentally checked out. The story was still a basic yet muddled mess, the gameplay was stale with combat feeling repetitive, frustrating, or both, and the navigation of the world made it all so dreadful to get through.
And then I just "beat the game". The plot wrapped up, the credits rolled, and I sat there thinking "Is this it?"
I didn't find this game to be something remarkable the way it has been talked about. It's good, but it suffers from the one of the biggest problems in modern gaming - bloat. So much of this game's content could have been cut, yet the plot would have been nearly identical and the pacing so much smoother. Games need to realize that it's okay to be more compressed and more focused "if they don't have much originality to fill in the gaps". It makes for more consistent and easier to consume products.
"Hollow Knight" combines a lot from beloved games like "Metroid" and "Castlevania" (duh), but it tries to do its own thing by pretty much ripping a bunch of stuff from "Bloodborne" and throwing it in an original 2D world. Yet I just felt like I was playing an unnecessary spin-off of that game with all of the same flaws. Originality is still important, and even if you're celebrating games that came before, at least have something new to add to that discussion.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
I finally got around to completing this highly acclaimed game, and I have to say I'm pretty underwhelmed by the whole experience. What you have here is a totally fine metroidvania that blends pretty specific aspects of From Software's "Bloodborne" with an original cutesy aesthetic, but it just doesn't really do it as well and really loses track of pacing, worldbuilding, and gameplay along the way. It has a fairly decent combat system, good art, and a fantastic soundtrack, but it stumbles into the same issues I found in my time with "Bloodborne" and ultimately showcases some major issues of modern gaming.
I would say the game easily starts strong and starts to deteriorate in quality as you progress through it. The introduction is fairly mysterious and introduces core mechanics well, but there is a major issue with pacing right off the bat. Your character collects skills necessary for advancing in the world far too slowly, and the world itself is tediously repetitive to explore. This becomes far more of an issue the deeper you get into the game, but for now I thought the game was truly something special - especially with the mysteries of the plot itself.
Now I've come to figure out that I like my stories a bit less fragmented and convoluted than some other people. It can occasionally work well, but I think this method distract far too much from the actual events of each plot and attempts to a) heighten other aspects of worldbuilding (atmosphere, theme, etc.) and b) generally cover up some basic, cliche, or poor writing. "Hollow Knight" is a classic example of this method. The second act really starts to unpack the plot of the game, ramping up encounters and giving you more information...and it just leads to nothing that special. You find out there is corruption in this world (obvious from the start), you learn of a being that both liberated and doomed this land (interesting but is a bit standard for this type of theme and is never really built upon more), and you eventually defeat it and gasp take its place for the cycle to repeat itself.
This is fine and dandy and gives people the chance to say "aha, I figured out the plot in advance through subtle hints!". However, I ask these questions:
"What makes my character so special?"
"Why are all of these NPC's I meet so important? What do they add to this plot?"
"What was the point of defeating these bosses?"
Don't mistake this fact - I read all of the dialogue as thoroughly as I could and tried to uncover every nook and cranny for about 80 percent of my time with the game. I just think there isn't really that much detail in this world/plot despite how much the game tries to convince you there is. It's a basic plot, and that's just enough to get me going to the end. But once I got there I reflected on the many frustrations with the gameplay and asked myself if the experience was really all that worth going through.
The platforming in this game is solid, but there were many moments where I thought that jumps didn't register, or wall-grabs didn't quite stick. Combat was similar, with hits not registering and cheap hitboxes being introduced to add more difficulty to the game than necessary. I'm fine with a game being difficult if its mechanics are fleshed out, there is a layer of depth with increased difficulty that allows for dynamic combat/problem solving, and it's not something you can necessarily "solve" after a while. This is sort of a limitation of single-player games since AI is just never really that great on its own to warrant interesting tactics, but there are games that take a step in the right direction by allowing you to experiment and customize your build to be your own - not just something that will get you the victory at the end of the day. "Hollow Knight's" combat is flawed because it is limited in scope, scale, depth, whatever you want to frame it as. There is no real creativity with encounters, more so every enemy is a single type of puzzle that, once you beat, will always play out the same way time and time again. For a short game that is fine, and for a game that doesn't seem to warrant a replay (a.k.a their story comprehension is fairly solid) that is also fine - this game is neither short nor provides a narrative I think players will really understand well upon a single playthrough.
Thus, as time went on, the game got boring. I haven't even mentioned the world design much, so I'll go into that now. The map mixed with the world layout in "Hollow Knight" is one of the worst combinations I have ever seen in what is considered to be "modern gaming". I constantly found navigation to feel monotonous, slow, and repetitive within the framework of the game's progression. There is a lack of detail in your maps to allow you to truly remember what each area looks like, plays like, and what important NPC's or AOI's are there. There has been an addition of fast travel to make it "easier", but the world is frankly too big, the stations too infrequent, and movement too slow.
By the time the third act rolled around, I had mentally checked out. The story was still a basic yet muddled mess, the gameplay was stale with combat feeling repetitive, frustrating, or both, and the navigation of the world made it all so dreadful to get through.
And then I just "beat the game". The plot wrapped up, the credits rolled, and I sat there thinking "Is this it?"
I didn't find this game to be something remarkable the way it has been talked about. It's good, but it suffers from the one of the biggest problems in modern gaming - bloat. So much of this game's content could have been cut, yet the plot would have been nearly identical and the pacing so much smoother. Games need to realize that it's okay to be more compressed and more focused "if they don't have much originality to fill in the gaps". It makes for more consistent and easier to consume products.
"Hollow Knight" combines a lot from beloved games like "Metroid" and "Castlevania" (duh), but it tries to do its own thing by pretty much ripping a bunch of stuff from "Bloodborne" and throwing it in an original 2D world. Yet I just felt like I was playing an unnecessary spin-off of that game with all of the same flaws. Originality is still important, and even if you're celebrating games that came before, at least have something new to add to that discussion.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
1990
"Thanks Konami"
Konami found critical success and some decent sales figures with the first "Metal Gear", so in their heightened wisdom they believed it best to create a sequel to their new IP in the form of "Snake's Revenge". Without the "Metal Gear" tagline being promoted. On the NES. Without the series lead, Kojima.
What could go wrong.
So, this game is utter trash (big spoiler, I know). Every identifiable aspect that made the original "Metal Gear" unique and creative was scrapped in favor of turning the franchise into a stupid "Contra" rip-off and boy did they do a poor job at copying that game! Gone are the stealth mechanics that made the original game somewhat interesting, and instead you aimlessly wander around a jungle dodging searchlights in the beginning of the game.
The controls are super stiff and provide no precision for the number of gunfights you take part in. The story is extremely basic and generic for this era of games. The graphics are just average, with sprites being extremely similar to one another. Hell, even the music takes a dive in quality.
Every aspect of this game is a step-back from its predecessor, and it really deserves no recognition for doing anything other than fuel Hideo Kojima to "take revenge" on Konami and take a huge leap with the franchise following this title's release. With that, I say thank you to Konami - showing us how to p*ss off a game director so much, he spites you by making the franchise into one of the most iconic in the industry to this very day.
Thank God they never again got overly involved with his future work...right?
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
Konami found critical success and some decent sales figures with the first "Metal Gear", so in their heightened wisdom they believed it best to create a sequel to their new IP in the form of "Snake's Revenge". Without the "Metal Gear" tagline being promoted. On the NES. Without the series lead, Kojima.
What could go wrong.
So, this game is utter trash (big spoiler, I know). Every identifiable aspect that made the original "Metal Gear" unique and creative was scrapped in favor of turning the franchise into a stupid "Contra" rip-off and boy did they do a poor job at copying that game! Gone are the stealth mechanics that made the original game somewhat interesting, and instead you aimlessly wander around a jungle dodging searchlights in the beginning of the game.
The controls are super stiff and provide no precision for the number of gunfights you take part in. The story is extremely basic and generic for this era of games. The graphics are just average, with sprites being extremely similar to one another. Hell, even the music takes a dive in quality.
Every aspect of this game is a step-back from its predecessor, and it really deserves no recognition for doing anything other than fuel Hideo Kojima to "take revenge" on Konami and take a huge leap with the franchise following this title's release. With that, I say thank you to Konami - showing us how to p*ss off a game director so much, he spites you by making the franchise into one of the most iconic in the industry to this very day.
Thank God they never again got overly involved with his future work...right?
Final Verdict: 1/10 (Terrible)
"Possibly Palatable, But Sickeningly Unfinished"
Review is only of multiplayer component - Singleplayer, Spec Ops, and DMZ Beta are not included as of writing (Warzone 2.0 will be reviewed separately)
Well, I certainly didn't expect to own this game, yet here I am nearly 50 hours into my time with its multiplayer feeling like a damn fool. I thought I had finally escaped this franchise back in 2018 with the release of "Black Ops 4", but I was roped into playing it again when I helped my brother-in-law get a PS5 bundle which, you-guessed-it, included this riveting experience. He let me have it as a gesture of good will (as in, "I won't play it so take it as a form of payment"), and I found myself trying it out since it was technically "free" for me. I used to play so much of this franchise as a kid and loved it all the way up to "Black Ops II" - then I started to lose interest (and hope) in the games ever getting better. So, what do I think of this year's installment of "Call of Duty" multiplayer?
First off, I need to get this off my chest - "F!ck Activision/Blizzard". They are a terribly run company that has poor morals and that tries to manipulate its customers, with every release being a shoddy, microtransaction filled experience and/or being wholly unfinished in multiple ways. With the news in the past few years regarding their scummy business practices towards employees, it really put the cherry on top of them being the worst company in the industry (in my humble opinion).
Now regarding this game's multiplayer - it is downright addicting and can be fun in flashes (mostly the former). The guns can feel cool to use at times, the graphics are generally solid, and the audio design of weapons sounds nice. However, just about every other aspect of this mode sucks complete *ss, and Infinity Ward does itself no justice with their combination of laziness and incompetence when fixing many of the issues they themselves presented into the experience.
Let's go over some of the issues I've faced with the PS5 version: graphical issues in the "gunsmith" editor; stuttering in various sections of the game; massive lag spikes while on a wired (and consistently great) internet connection; inability to use killstreaks mid-match; inconsistent weapon damage between firing range and in-game; massive amounts of texture pop-in; and much, much more that I daresay have forgotten over the last month and a half of play. Sound bad right? Yet we haven't even gotten into the actual MECHANICS that are flawed in this game!
There is very poor desync in the servers that lead to people abusing the movement mechanics of the game (hopping around corners being a big example). This results in you dying to someone that may not even be looking in your direction nor firing on your screen. The incredibly short time-to-kill doesn't help in this department. Additionally, killstreaks are all over the place in terms of balance. You have a Counter UAV that can be shot down with a quarter clip of bullets and a Juggernaut that can barely withstand a few shotgun blasts, yet a VTOL warship can take four full rocket blasts before crashing (the crash can still kill you as well). Weapons are no better - the entire Battle Rifle class so far feels redundant, yet SMG's and AR's plague multiplayer due to their incredibly high base stats.
The audio design outside of guns is also horrible. Some sounds won't trigger such as objective points appearing/being captured, and the footstep audio is downright broken. It's a complete sham that this game was a nominee at The Game Awards 2022 for "Best Audio Design" when it's one of the worst aspects of the game by far.
The community is extremely toxic as well. There is rarely a game where someone isn't lobbying insults left and right, which (despite what people may tell you) was NOT as common in 2009's "Modern Warfare 2". Slurs are commonplace, but reporting does nothing to change anything. Cheating is also pretty popular - not the worst in a game I've played, but certainly common enough to make you question the point of skill-based matchmaking being implemented in the game if the reporting system and anti-cheat are ignored/broken.
However, the worst part about this game are the maps and spawn points. This collection of maps is the worst I have seen in an FPS - period. Maps contain no logic in route running, are visually uninteresting, and contain truly awful spawn points. This has been theorized to be because of the new "squad spawn" system, but there are even dumber factors at play here. You will die to an enemy, and 90% of the time spawn in a position close by with a "chance" to revenge kill them. The other 10% of the time you will instantly spawn killed. It plays awfully and is a big reason why I have trouble enjoying my time with the game.
There are many, many other issues with the game that you can find out about through YouTube or by visiting the game's Reddit page, and most are pretty valid complaints (though some fanboys will defend it to their heart's content). Honestly, I don't really know why I keep playing it. I'm at a weird time of my life right now where I want something simple to play, by myself, without a need to feel like I have to beat anything. Yet I chose a game that is buggy, unpolished, and downright not that fun to play. Despite wanting to play it more than many other games in my library at the moment, I just will Not Recommend it.
The team at Infinity Ward doesn't communicate with the playerbase about bug fixes. Multiplayer is still buggy and unpolished, unfun to play, and lacks meaningful content. Yes, there are many hours to sink into this "experience", but I would suggest just avoiding the trap and playing a quality game. Lord knows I need to quit this one, and it only took me finishing this review to realize that I think it sucks.
Can it improve? Certainly.
Will it improve? Who knows.
Will it matter?
I think you already know how far-gone Activision/Blizzard are. Unless the company is completely restructured top to bottom, there really isn't any hope left for them. Not when they keep releasing buggy, unfinished games while neglecting their workface, disrespecting their playerbase, and corrupting the industry.
After this rant about a clearly underwhelming game, I guess that leaves me with one final thing to say...
How will EA manage to top this!?
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
Review is only of multiplayer component - Singleplayer, Spec Ops, and DMZ Beta are not included as of writing (Warzone 2.0 will be reviewed separately)
Well, I certainly didn't expect to own this game, yet here I am nearly 50 hours into my time with its multiplayer feeling like a damn fool. I thought I had finally escaped this franchise back in 2018 with the release of "Black Ops 4", but I was roped into playing it again when I helped my brother-in-law get a PS5 bundle which, you-guessed-it, included this riveting experience. He let me have it as a gesture of good will (as in, "I won't play it so take it as a form of payment"), and I found myself trying it out since it was technically "free" for me. I used to play so much of this franchise as a kid and loved it all the way up to "Black Ops II" - then I started to lose interest (and hope) in the games ever getting better. So, what do I think of this year's installment of "Call of Duty" multiplayer?
First off, I need to get this off my chest - "F!ck Activision/Blizzard". They are a terribly run company that has poor morals and that tries to manipulate its customers, with every release being a shoddy, microtransaction filled experience and/or being wholly unfinished in multiple ways. With the news in the past few years regarding their scummy business practices towards employees, it really put the cherry on top of them being the worst company in the industry (in my humble opinion).
Now regarding this game's multiplayer - it is downright addicting and can be fun in flashes (mostly the former). The guns can feel cool to use at times, the graphics are generally solid, and the audio design of weapons sounds nice. However, just about every other aspect of this mode sucks complete *ss, and Infinity Ward does itself no justice with their combination of laziness and incompetence when fixing many of the issues they themselves presented into the experience.
Let's go over some of the issues I've faced with the PS5 version: graphical issues in the "gunsmith" editor; stuttering in various sections of the game; massive lag spikes while on a wired (and consistently great) internet connection; inability to use killstreaks mid-match; inconsistent weapon damage between firing range and in-game; massive amounts of texture pop-in; and much, much more that I daresay have forgotten over the last month and a half of play. Sound bad right? Yet we haven't even gotten into the actual MECHANICS that are flawed in this game!
There is very poor desync in the servers that lead to people abusing the movement mechanics of the game (hopping around corners being a big example). This results in you dying to someone that may not even be looking in your direction nor firing on your screen. The incredibly short time-to-kill doesn't help in this department. Additionally, killstreaks are all over the place in terms of balance. You have a Counter UAV that can be shot down with a quarter clip of bullets and a Juggernaut that can barely withstand a few shotgun blasts, yet a VTOL warship can take four full rocket blasts before crashing (the crash can still kill you as well). Weapons are no better - the entire Battle Rifle class so far feels redundant, yet SMG's and AR's plague multiplayer due to their incredibly high base stats.
The audio design outside of guns is also horrible. Some sounds won't trigger such as objective points appearing/being captured, and the footstep audio is downright broken. It's a complete sham that this game was a nominee at The Game Awards 2022 for "Best Audio Design" when it's one of the worst aspects of the game by far.
The community is extremely toxic as well. There is rarely a game where someone isn't lobbying insults left and right, which (despite what people may tell you) was NOT as common in 2009's "Modern Warfare 2". Slurs are commonplace, but reporting does nothing to change anything. Cheating is also pretty popular - not the worst in a game I've played, but certainly common enough to make you question the point of skill-based matchmaking being implemented in the game if the reporting system and anti-cheat are ignored/broken.
However, the worst part about this game are the maps and spawn points. This collection of maps is the worst I have seen in an FPS - period. Maps contain no logic in route running, are visually uninteresting, and contain truly awful spawn points. This has been theorized to be because of the new "squad spawn" system, but there are even dumber factors at play here. You will die to an enemy, and 90% of the time spawn in a position close by with a "chance" to revenge kill them. The other 10% of the time you will instantly spawn killed. It plays awfully and is a big reason why I have trouble enjoying my time with the game.
There are many, many other issues with the game that you can find out about through YouTube or by visiting the game's Reddit page, and most are pretty valid complaints (though some fanboys will defend it to their heart's content). Honestly, I don't really know why I keep playing it. I'm at a weird time of my life right now where I want something simple to play, by myself, without a need to feel like I have to beat anything. Yet I chose a game that is buggy, unpolished, and downright not that fun to play. Despite wanting to play it more than many other games in my library at the moment, I just will Not Recommend it.
The team at Infinity Ward doesn't communicate with the playerbase about bug fixes. Multiplayer is still buggy and unpolished, unfun to play, and lacks meaningful content. Yes, there are many hours to sink into this "experience", but I would suggest just avoiding the trap and playing a quality game. Lord knows I need to quit this one, and it only took me finishing this review to realize that I think it sucks.
Can it improve? Certainly.
Will it improve? Who knows.
Will it matter?
I think you already know how far-gone Activision/Blizzard are. Unless the company is completely restructured top to bottom, there really isn't any hope left for them. Not when they keep releasing buggy, unfinished games while neglecting their workface, disrespecting their playerbase, and corrupting the industry.
After this rant about a clearly underwhelming game, I guess that leaves me with one final thing to say...
How will EA manage to top this!?
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"A Forgotten, Niche Classic"
Blizzard used to try when it came to making their games - a novel idea, I know. With the recent drama involving their company and their disappointing output of games over the last five years, I found it fitting that destiny stated I should play one of their most classic titles - "Starcraft", remastered five years ago to try and propel it into a modern era of gaming. Now I wouldn't consider myself a fan of the RTS genre nor one that is very well-read in many of its most prominent titles, but I know that this game is one of those that top a "must-play" list for it. So, I decided to test my chances at liking this game.
The plot for this game is cool enough, though I found it to be too much of a mixture of dull at times and slightly overcomplicated. There are three factions to see the events of the story through - the Terrans, Zerg, and Protoss. I only found myself getting through half of the Terran campaign before giving up, though I do admit that the story has a decent amount of depth, intrigue, and narrative having watched a summary on YouTube afterwards. Unfortunately, I didn't experience this myself due to not enjoying the gameplay that much.
The gameplay here is fine at times, but I found myself irritated by many things. Navigation felt clunky, even with the inclusion of the mini map to quickly click to wherever you need to be. Additionally, grouping characters was inconsistent and really required a certain distance between them to trigger, which meant small changes in combat couldn't quite be completed in a timely manner for a beginner. Lastly, units loved to disobey orders and find the longest possible route towards an objective, something which became annoying with trying to micromanage multiple things at once (especially during times missions). These annoyances made the inevitable combat more cumbersome than needed, and I already found the idea of automated combat to feel a bit boring.
The visuals are solid, and the soundtrack is repetitive but catchy. My really gripe with the game was that I personally just didn't find it that fun to play. I didn't feel rewarded from successful attacks and messing up meant replaying an entire section of the game that I already found repetitive, cumbersome, or frustrating. I decided to not continue to the expansions (rare for me) as they seemed to just add more of the same in terms of gameplay.
There is a classic game to experience here for sure, but I didn't find it super fun as a non-RTS fanatic nor engaging enough to convince me to become hooked into the genre. I think for RTS fans this is a must-play, as its presentation quality is high for its time of release and it provides some context for one of the most influential games in the genre, let alone the medium. For casual gamers, I would advise looking into the game before playing to see if it is worth your time - the genre has pumped out some consistent titles over the years, but it is also one that is tough to get into. This one is almost as good as it can get for a game in a genre I'm not particularly interested in, especially being a game that I just couldn't enjoy at the end of the day.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
Blizzard used to try when it came to making their games - a novel idea, I know. With the recent drama involving their company and their disappointing output of games over the last five years, I found it fitting that destiny stated I should play one of their most classic titles - "Starcraft", remastered five years ago to try and propel it into a modern era of gaming. Now I wouldn't consider myself a fan of the RTS genre nor one that is very well-read in many of its most prominent titles, but I know that this game is one of those that top a "must-play" list for it. So, I decided to test my chances at liking this game.
The plot for this game is cool enough, though I found it to be too much of a mixture of dull at times and slightly overcomplicated. There are three factions to see the events of the story through - the Terrans, Zerg, and Protoss. I only found myself getting through half of the Terran campaign before giving up, though I do admit that the story has a decent amount of depth, intrigue, and narrative having watched a summary on YouTube afterwards. Unfortunately, I didn't experience this myself due to not enjoying the gameplay that much.
The gameplay here is fine at times, but I found myself irritated by many things. Navigation felt clunky, even with the inclusion of the mini map to quickly click to wherever you need to be. Additionally, grouping characters was inconsistent and really required a certain distance between them to trigger, which meant small changes in combat couldn't quite be completed in a timely manner for a beginner. Lastly, units loved to disobey orders and find the longest possible route towards an objective, something which became annoying with trying to micromanage multiple things at once (especially during times missions). These annoyances made the inevitable combat more cumbersome than needed, and I already found the idea of automated combat to feel a bit boring.
The visuals are solid, and the soundtrack is repetitive but catchy. My really gripe with the game was that I personally just didn't find it that fun to play. I didn't feel rewarded from successful attacks and messing up meant replaying an entire section of the game that I already found repetitive, cumbersome, or frustrating. I decided to not continue to the expansions (rare for me) as they seemed to just add more of the same in terms of gameplay.
There is a classic game to experience here for sure, but I didn't find it super fun as a non-RTS fanatic nor engaging enough to convince me to become hooked into the genre. I think for RTS fans this is a must-play, as its presentation quality is high for its time of release and it provides some context for one of the most influential games in the genre, let alone the medium. For casual gamers, I would advise looking into the game before playing to see if it is worth your time - the genre has pumped out some consistent titles over the years, but it is also one that is tough to get into. This one is almost as good as it can get for a game in a genre I'm not particularly interested in, especially being a game that I just couldn't enjoy at the end of the day.
Final Verdict: 4/10 (Below Average)
1987
"A Shoddy Beginning"
While not generally considered to be a true start to the franchise, "Metal Gear" is in fact the first to adorn the MGS lineage. A simple but important game for the stealth genre, it saw a decent bit of success despite Konami's involvement in trying to destroy its creation (sounds familiar, doesn't it?). I played this one through the PS3 "Metal Gear Solid: The Legacy Collection", and I have really one thing to say about it - this game sucks big time.
Now this is through the lens of someone playing the game more than thirty years after its release, but I just think it's an awful experience. The sprite work is fine, and the story isn't too shabby for such an old-school video game, but the gameplay is atrocious. There is a severe lack of player direction, and the gameplay loop is trash. The game is also punishingly difficult and downright cheap, making modern "difficult" games like those by From Software look like a cake walk. The game just has an irritating progression loop and limiting controls, and the ideas of the genre are here but nowhere near a level of refinement that I personally think signifies a complete title.
You can only save at specific checkpoints within the game, even if the PS3 port tries to fix this with a quicksave system (which doesn't work). Finding a checkpoint would already be annoying enough if the game wasn't two things - brutally difficult and unfair, and unbelievably hard to navigate.
Enemies can easily spot you and there is not enough room to navigate the screen as a simple Solid Snake sprite. Additionally, they do copious amount of damage to you despite combat being a necessity in many sections. Items are scarce and hard to locate, and the game outright forces you to take damage during many sequences (an early one being an obnoxious gas room where you are only allowed to equip one piece of gear at a time).
On top of this, there is no map. This means having to either make notes of where you are in the world (which is not ideal considering most of the map looks the same) or having a strategy guide open next to you (I personally don't believe in these things since they don't really revolve around competent game design if you're forced to utilize one). I died early and often, and the lack of checkpoints via no navigation, high difficulty, and cheap mechanics made this a bad experience.
Overall, just skip this one. Nothing in the story is that important for future titles, and the gameplay isn't really what is becomes later in the franchise anyhow. It's a relic of the past that was already niche enough at release, but now it has just aged like milk.
Final Verdict: 2/10 (Bad)
While not generally considered to be a true start to the franchise, "Metal Gear" is in fact the first to adorn the MGS lineage. A simple but important game for the stealth genre, it saw a decent bit of success despite Konami's involvement in trying to destroy its creation (sounds familiar, doesn't it?). I played this one through the PS3 "Metal Gear Solid: The Legacy Collection", and I have really one thing to say about it - this game sucks big time.
Now this is through the lens of someone playing the game more than thirty years after its release, but I just think it's an awful experience. The sprite work is fine, and the story isn't too shabby for such an old-school video game, but the gameplay is atrocious. There is a severe lack of player direction, and the gameplay loop is trash. The game is also punishingly difficult and downright cheap, making modern "difficult" games like those by From Software look like a cake walk. The game just has an irritating progression loop and limiting controls, and the ideas of the genre are here but nowhere near a level of refinement that I personally think signifies a complete title.
You can only save at specific checkpoints within the game, even if the PS3 port tries to fix this with a quicksave system (which doesn't work). Finding a checkpoint would already be annoying enough if the game wasn't two things - brutally difficult and unfair, and unbelievably hard to navigate.
Enemies can easily spot you and there is not enough room to navigate the screen as a simple Solid Snake sprite. Additionally, they do copious amount of damage to you despite combat being a necessity in many sections. Items are scarce and hard to locate, and the game outright forces you to take damage during many sequences (an early one being an obnoxious gas room where you are only allowed to equip one piece of gear at a time).
On top of this, there is no map. This means having to either make notes of where you are in the world (which is not ideal considering most of the map looks the same) or having a strategy guide open next to you (I personally don't believe in these things since they don't really revolve around competent game design if you're forced to utilize one). I died early and often, and the lack of checkpoints via no navigation, high difficulty, and cheap mechanics made this a bad experience.
Overall, just skip this one. Nothing in the story is that important for future titles, and the gameplay isn't really what is becomes later in the franchise anyhow. It's a relic of the past that was already niche enough at release, but now it has just aged like milk.
Final Verdict: 2/10 (Bad)
1997
"A Game With A Legacy - And Flaws"
"Fallout" has a reputation as a memorable and exciting new take on the RPG genre. With its dark, depressing, yet strangely humorous world and rugged angle at player choice and impact, as well as its countless amounts of dialogue freedom of direction (for the most part), it does stand out clearly from many more limited titles of the time. However, other aspects of this game have aged poorly, or maybe never were that good to begin with, which puts a damper on what would have been a truly fantastic title with what it does correctly.
The poor stands out from the jump - the combat. This system of turn-based combat is incredibly slow, cumbersome, and unsatisfying to interact with. It seems the system is based around true randomness a la the modern "XCOM" titles, and thus there are many cases early on where you'll miss point-blank attacks despite holding a weapon you're skilled with. To top it off, the turns are slow between characters, thus you end up in a sluggish battle for what feels like ages far too often. I was really bummed out to engage in combat honestly, since every time it would turn into a slog that I just wished would end sooner.
To add insult to injury, this game contains an old-school, non-automatic save system where you essentially have to save-scum everywhere in order to progress. Now I'm not a hater of this system in particular, rather I just find it to not fit with the incredibly slow pacing of this title. While going through a long dialogue exchange only to get blasted out of nowhere by saying the wrong thing "is" immersive, it creates a barrier of fun for me with the gameplay.
Now this title's main two flaws are pretty bad in my book, but it has a lot to like as well. The world is rich and immersive, with a stunning ambient soundtrack and multiple great vocal performances for the sparse characters that end up actually speaking. The lore is awesome, and as a fan of the newer "Fallout" games it seems like this was even stronger back in the older titles. Most importantly though is the story, which plays out in an incredibly rich and creative way. It's a really memorable experience for this stuff alone...but unfortunately there's still gameplay to get through.
The difficulty of combat is also a big problem. While I understand the complaints of the newer games with their easier takes on gunfights and consequence, I feel the older games went too far in the opposite direction. It "does" add to the role-playing aspect, but it also makes me groan whenever I get trapped in a situation where I either forgot to save or lost too much health due to wonky combat luck. Thus, a repeat of sections ends up being required, and it feels like a chore more than anything.
I really hope that if a new title is released, the developers take a look at what the original title did with its atmosphere, story, lore, worldbuilding, and creativity with characters and setting. I do think there should be a return to this style of game as well, but with many quality-of-life additions. This game just ended up far too frustrating and slow paced, and I never found myself wanting to play it much. I can respect it for what it provided and how it changed the RPG genre, but I damn well can't attempt to play it anymore (this was my third or fourth time attempting to really get into it).
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"Fallout" has a reputation as a memorable and exciting new take on the RPG genre. With its dark, depressing, yet strangely humorous world and rugged angle at player choice and impact, as well as its countless amounts of dialogue freedom of direction (for the most part), it does stand out clearly from many more limited titles of the time. However, other aspects of this game have aged poorly, or maybe never were that good to begin with, which puts a damper on what would have been a truly fantastic title with what it does correctly.
The poor stands out from the jump - the combat. This system of turn-based combat is incredibly slow, cumbersome, and unsatisfying to interact with. It seems the system is based around true randomness a la the modern "XCOM" titles, and thus there are many cases early on where you'll miss point-blank attacks despite holding a weapon you're skilled with. To top it off, the turns are slow between characters, thus you end up in a sluggish battle for what feels like ages far too often. I was really bummed out to engage in combat honestly, since every time it would turn into a slog that I just wished would end sooner.
To add insult to injury, this game contains an old-school, non-automatic save system where you essentially have to save-scum everywhere in order to progress. Now I'm not a hater of this system in particular, rather I just find it to not fit with the incredibly slow pacing of this title. While going through a long dialogue exchange only to get blasted out of nowhere by saying the wrong thing "is" immersive, it creates a barrier of fun for me with the gameplay.
Now this title's main two flaws are pretty bad in my book, but it has a lot to like as well. The world is rich and immersive, with a stunning ambient soundtrack and multiple great vocal performances for the sparse characters that end up actually speaking. The lore is awesome, and as a fan of the newer "Fallout" games it seems like this was even stronger back in the older titles. Most importantly though is the story, which plays out in an incredibly rich and creative way. It's a really memorable experience for this stuff alone...but unfortunately there's still gameplay to get through.
The difficulty of combat is also a big problem. While I understand the complaints of the newer games with their easier takes on gunfights and consequence, I feel the older games went too far in the opposite direction. It "does" add to the role-playing aspect, but it also makes me groan whenever I get trapped in a situation where I either forgot to save or lost too much health due to wonky combat luck. Thus, a repeat of sections ends up being required, and it feels like a chore more than anything.
I really hope that if a new title is released, the developers take a look at what the original title did with its atmosphere, story, lore, worldbuilding, and creativity with characters and setting. I do think there should be a return to this style of game as well, but with many quality-of-life additions. This game just ended up far too frustrating and slow paced, and I never found myself wanting to play it much. I can respect it for what it provided and how it changed the RPG genre, but I damn well can't attempt to play it anymore (this was my third or fourth time attempting to really get into it).
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
"A Solid Jump To Free-To-Play"
With this game moving to a FTP system, I finally found an opportunity to try it out once and for all. While the first few weeks were really fun, the consistency started to lessen as the season progressed. While new modes were added, very few were super fun and added much to the experience.
This season had a cool enough season pass, but the variety of game modes was really, really low. This made completing challenges a chore and many of the rounds were just unfun to play for many reasons still listed in my main review of the game. No doubt is this game easy to pick up, but there are such limited mechanics that matches end up playing out super predictably in one single factor - a lack of control being the reason you or others lose. Crossplay was an alright addition, though it feels sort of late with its implementation.
Besides what's listed above, there really wasn't much else that special about this season. It's a fine reboot for the game in a sort of way, but I see a lot of the community complaining about how the game is trending back towards the quality that plagued it during its earlier days. Unfortunately, I feel the same way despite finding this to be a fun enough season overall.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
With this game moving to a FTP system, I finally found an opportunity to try it out once and for all. While the first few weeks were really fun, the consistency started to lessen as the season progressed. While new modes were added, very few were super fun and added much to the experience.
This season had a cool enough season pass, but the variety of game modes was really, really low. This made completing challenges a chore and many of the rounds were just unfun to play for many reasons still listed in my main review of the game. No doubt is this game easy to pick up, but there are such limited mechanics that matches end up playing out super predictably in one single factor - a lack of control being the reason you or others lose. Crossplay was an alright addition, though it feels sort of late with its implementation.
Besides what's listed above, there really wasn't much else that special about this season. It's a fine reboot for the game in a sort of way, but I see a lot of the community complaining about how the game is trending back towards the quality that plagued it during its earlier days. Unfortunately, I feel the same way despite finding this to be a fun enough season overall.
Final Verdict: 7/10 (Good)
"Girl Power!"
Being the first spin-off in the "Uncharted" franchise leads to a lot of pressure to deliver, and "Uncharted: The Lost Legacy" takes that pressure and throws it to the side in effortless fashion. Chole Frazier and Nadine Ross provide a nice 1-2 punch as the two lead protagonists of this story, and the tradition of delightfully cartoonishly evil villains continues with Asav taking center stage. While it's a short adventure, it manages to be fast-paced, fun, and helps build upon some mechanics from "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End".
The visuals here are once again spectacular and honestly compete with those in the previous game in some segments. Large vistas dominate the background and serve as nice breathers to the general chaos in the foreground throughout the adventure. The rest of the presentation is once again consistent and top-notch.
Gameplay has some improvements that make it a smoother experience than "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End". Stealth is massively improved with the addition of silenced weapons, and the arenas just feel tighter yet more diverse with approach points. The large open-zone section in the middle of the game also feels great and helps to tie the adventure together while providing a bit of an improvement to the Madagascar section of the previous game.
There are some things that hold this game back, mostly tied to the quality of the story and characters. It's a very simple plot and mostly focuses on character actions yet again, but I felt that Chloe could have had just a bit more personality throughout this one. As for Nadine Ross, I think she is a fine buddy to go on an adventure with, but her personality is as flavorless as an opened La Croix can that's been sitting out in the hot sun. She just isn't written well, and even though there is factually more to her in this title, I just never cared much for her at all.
This game also does a great job in changing up what types of protagonists we get in this industry for AAA releases. Chloe and Nadine play well off each other, and it's pretty fun to control two badass chicks looking to harass the sh*t out of an insecure, testosterone-fueled, and maniacal main villain. Despite what some gamers might "complain" about, none of this is presented with "wokeism" or in any way where it's trying to shove it down your throat.
I think the game reaches its climax right at the end, which is refreshing to see from an "Uncharted" title. I think it's the best setpiece in the series, though I can settle for it being considered top three for sure. It feels like it went over the top in all of the best ways, and I hope that the tone of future games considers to be fun, fresh, and look to experiment with character leads and new gameplay mechanics.
If future spin-offs are of this quality, then I am totally on board. This game is actually right there with "Uncharted 2: Honor Among Thieves", and I consider it just a bit better. Controversial opinion, I know, but I think this game provides a lot of the same levels of novelty with a slightly worse story but with better gameplay. I can definitely Recommend it to fans of the series!
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
Being the first spin-off in the "Uncharted" franchise leads to a lot of pressure to deliver, and "Uncharted: The Lost Legacy" takes that pressure and throws it to the side in effortless fashion. Chole Frazier and Nadine Ross provide a nice 1-2 punch as the two lead protagonists of this story, and the tradition of delightfully cartoonishly evil villains continues with Asav taking center stage. While it's a short adventure, it manages to be fast-paced, fun, and helps build upon some mechanics from "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End".
The visuals here are once again spectacular and honestly compete with those in the previous game in some segments. Large vistas dominate the background and serve as nice breathers to the general chaos in the foreground throughout the adventure. The rest of the presentation is once again consistent and top-notch.
Gameplay has some improvements that make it a smoother experience than "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End". Stealth is massively improved with the addition of silenced weapons, and the arenas just feel tighter yet more diverse with approach points. The large open-zone section in the middle of the game also feels great and helps to tie the adventure together while providing a bit of an improvement to the Madagascar section of the previous game.
There are some things that hold this game back, mostly tied to the quality of the story and characters. It's a very simple plot and mostly focuses on character actions yet again, but I felt that Chloe could have had just a bit more personality throughout this one. As for Nadine Ross, I think she is a fine buddy to go on an adventure with, but her personality is as flavorless as an opened La Croix can that's been sitting out in the hot sun. She just isn't written well, and even though there is factually more to her in this title, I just never cared much for her at all.
This game also does a great job in changing up what types of protagonists we get in this industry for AAA releases. Chloe and Nadine play well off each other, and it's pretty fun to control two badass chicks looking to harass the sh*t out of an insecure, testosterone-fueled, and maniacal main villain. Despite what some gamers might "complain" about, none of this is presented with "wokeism" or in any way where it's trying to shove it down your throat.
I think the game reaches its climax right at the end, which is refreshing to see from an "Uncharted" title. I think it's the best setpiece in the series, though I can settle for it being considered top three for sure. It feels like it went over the top in all of the best ways, and I hope that the tone of future games considers to be fun, fresh, and look to experiment with character leads and new gameplay mechanics.
If future spin-offs are of this quality, then I am totally on board. This game is actually right there with "Uncharted 2: Honor Among Thieves", and I consider it just a bit better. Controversial opinion, I know, but I think this game provides a lot of the same levels of novelty with a slightly worse story but with better gameplay. I can definitely Recommend it to fans of the series!
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
"A Great, Yet Gutted Collection of Adventures"
This package takes the great experiences of "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End" and "Uncharted: The Lost Legacy" and increases their fidelity even more. Unfortunately, Naughty Dog decided not to translate this to the multiplayer of either game (even the Survival modes were shorted), making this an enjoyable but emptier version of these titles.
There isn't too much to say with this remaster collection. For the single-player it ends up being the definitive version to experience both titles. For multiplayer, it does nothing. Thankfully I own the older versions and upgraded digitally to the new ones, meaning I can have the best balance between the two. Unfortunately, many new players (just like the Nathan Drake Collection did before) will miss out on the unique multiplayer components that this series has always had to offer.
Smooth, 60 FPS performance mode is wonderful, but all versions of this game frankly look great on an OLED. The texture work is tightened up making the image clear and crisp wherever you go in the story. Load times are incredible as well, barely taking a few seconds to boot up to where you were in your last session! I can Recommend it if you are a huge fan of the series and want the definitive version of the single-player experience OR if this is your first time playing the campaigns for either of these games. Besides that, it's not really much of a "must-buy".
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
This package takes the great experiences of "Uncharted 4: A Thieves' End" and "Uncharted: The Lost Legacy" and increases their fidelity even more. Unfortunately, Naughty Dog decided not to translate this to the multiplayer of either game (even the Survival modes were shorted), making this an enjoyable but emptier version of these titles.
There isn't too much to say with this remaster collection. For the single-player it ends up being the definitive version to experience both titles. For multiplayer, it does nothing. Thankfully I own the older versions and upgraded digitally to the new ones, meaning I can have the best balance between the two. Unfortunately, many new players (just like the Nathan Drake Collection did before) will miss out on the unique multiplayer components that this series has always had to offer.
Smooth, 60 FPS performance mode is wonderful, but all versions of this game frankly look great on an OLED. The texture work is tightened up making the image clear and crisp wherever you go in the story. Load times are incredible as well, barely taking a few seconds to boot up to where you were in your last session! I can Recommend it if you are a huge fan of the series and want the definitive version of the single-player experience OR if this is your first time playing the campaigns for either of these games. Besides that, it's not really much of a "must-buy".
Final Verdict: 8/10 (Great)
2019
"A Decent Physics Fighter Demo"
I didn't really expect "Shady Knight" to be such a short and sparse experience, but it managed to still contain some cool ideas and gameplay sections. Unfortunately, it also contains no plot, repetitive gameplay, and minimal art/level direction. The star of the show here is the interesting physics-based combat, but I feel that things could have been fleshed out more with a longer experience.
The combat here is pretty cool! You get the choice between running with a Sword or Bow, and there is a one-hit-kill meter for the player to avoid attacks. If you take a hit, you have to restart the entire level. It definitely goes for a more extreme difficulty curve, and I wish there were more ways to experiment with other skills or weapons. The movement is also pretty diverse for the amount of content in the game and flying around with a super powerful Bow is fun.
Besides the combat, there really isn't much to this game. The enemy diversity is really low, the levels are not interesting to play through aesthetically, and there is only one instance where you fight a "boss" and get to test your skills. I think this should have had more work put into it, and if a full game was released, I would hesitate to play it unless there were more mechanics on display. I still would Not Recommend it unless you really enjoy physics-based melee combat with high reliance on movement, as well being okay with an instant-death gameplay loop.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)
I didn't really expect "Shady Knight" to be such a short and sparse experience, but it managed to still contain some cool ideas and gameplay sections. Unfortunately, it also contains no plot, repetitive gameplay, and minimal art/level direction. The star of the show here is the interesting physics-based combat, but I feel that things could have been fleshed out more with a longer experience.
The combat here is pretty cool! You get the choice between running with a Sword or Bow, and there is a one-hit-kill meter for the player to avoid attacks. If you take a hit, you have to restart the entire level. It definitely goes for a more extreme difficulty curve, and I wish there were more ways to experiment with other skills or weapons. The movement is also pretty diverse for the amount of content in the game and flying around with a super powerful Bow is fun.
Besides the combat, there really isn't much to this game. The enemy diversity is really low, the levels are not interesting to play through aesthetically, and there is only one instance where you fight a "boss" and get to test your skills. I think this should have had more work put into it, and if a full game was released, I would hesitate to play it unless there were more mechanics on display. I still would Not Recommend it unless you really enjoy physics-based melee combat with high reliance on movement, as well being okay with an instant-death gameplay loop.
Final Verdict: 5/10 (Average)