Honestly pretty amazed at how good this is, I would argue that this is probably the best piece of official Quake content out there.

It manages to differentiate itself from Quake 2 by having a completely different mission structure, as well as higher difficulty, more weapons and even, occasionally, having more atmosphere.

Ruined Earth is probably my all time favourite Quake level and maybe even favourite level from an id Software shooter. It manages to convey a real sense of place and feels so lonely a lot of the time, combined with an awesome use of music and enemies.

This is on top of the many changes brought to Quake 2 through the Nightdive Studios re-release, remaster, port, whatever you want to call it, where they've added brand new enemy AI, new enemies and even new weapons.

If this was the Quake 2 we had back in 1997, I would think that there would be a much greater argument for Quake 2 being the best Quake. Please give this a shot.

In my short review of Sonic Robo Blast 2, I mentioned how I didn't really enjoy Sonic that much and how that game was the most fun I had with anything Sonic related.

That has now changed. I played Adventure 2 and enjoyed it decently enough but this game? I had a blast. Not perfect by any means but this has so much of what I want from a platformer. My only big complaints are that the conditions for ranks are kind of stupid (being point-based rather than time-based) and that the wisps, whilst offering more opportunities for replayability, exploration and speed, don't compliment Sonic's movement abilities very well.

But, to Sonic fans: I am sorry. This game is really good. "Sonic was never good" my ass.

Doom 64 is a mostly praised game, though there are quite a few detractors, and a lot of those detractors say that Brutal Doom 64 fixes a lot of the issues they have with the game by adding in more enemies, "improving" the animations and making the game more difficult. Now, if we're not counting Plutonia, Doom 64 is my favourite Doom game, so this is coming from a place of bias, but I don't believe any of the additions this mod brings improve Doom 64 at all.

Also, no, I will not be talking about SgtMark in this review.

To begin with, the changes SgtMark made to the weapons are meh overall. He adds new sounds and effects which are nice in theory, but a lot of them sound flaccid as compared to the original; while it is more high quality, it doesn't have the kick that the original sounds have. He makes the pistol and the shotgun slightly better, which is nice, but he adds this strange delay to the Super Shotgun's firing animation, on top of not making it automatic, as now you have to press the fire button again after the reload animation is finished. While these changes are small, they become very irritating as the game continues on. The rest of the weapons are handled decently by the standards of this mod, aside from probably the biggest sin of this mod, which is how it turns the Unmaker into the most boring weapon in possibly the entire Doom franchise. Not the worst, but easily the most boring. Instead of being the overpowered, high rate of fire weapon that it was, it becomes this incredibly slow, railgun-like weapon and it sucks. It sounds like shit, feels like shit and is balanced like shit, now there's no reason to use this weapon over the BFG.

Something that also really, really bothers me about the guns in this mod is that they all have recoil, and you can't turn it off. I'm a no vertical mouselook enthusiast, which I won't get into here, but while I can understand wanting vertical mouselook since it's what literally every other fps fan outside of the Doom engine games is familiar with, having it be a necessity is where I draw the line. Doom, and by extension Doom 64, wasn't designed with vertical mouselook or recoil in mind. Recoil adds nothing to the game. Sure, the rocket launcher does have push-back in the original game but that serves to balance this weapon since it's quite powerful, fuck, I wouldn't mind that as an alternative to recoil on some of the other weapons. But having recoil on ALL the weapons makes playing this mod insufferable.

Then there's the added monsters. Doom 64 was never designed with the monsters that SgtMark re-implemented into the game. While not having the complete Doom 2 roster sucks and I would've preferred it if Midway had implemented them in the first place, adding them back in without changing the level design nor properly balancing them around the levels is infinitely worse. The revenants specifically really piss me off since their projectile speed is tied to the same projectiles the Mother Demon uses and they are WAY too slow for these tight corridors. I also don't like how, even though he didn't add the Archvile, he felt the need to rip the Hellhound straight from Blood? I know that it's a scrapped enemy concept for Doom 64 but ripping it straight from Blood? C'mon, Mark. I love Blood, but the Hellhound does not belong in Doom 64.

I also really dislike the effects on the Spectres and Nightmare Imps. Now, the Nightmare Imps aren't exactly the greatest enemies in the world, they're basically just Shotgunners for Imps, but now they're an absolute pain to fight.

While Brutal Doom 64 is far more faithful to the original game than Brutal Doom is to Doom 1 & 2, pretty much all of the changes it adds are either unnecessary or outright make the game worse. I genuinely do not understand what people see in this mod; is it the gore? The "better" sound effects for the guns? It just feels like superficial fluff, there's barely anything this mod has that the original doesn't. I'll take worse sound effects and being less gory over worse balance, worse feeling weapons and more visual clutter any day.

I haven't played Eternal yet but even if the combat in that game is better and anywhere near as good as anyone says, I don't think Eternal can live up to the perfect balance of grit and exaggeration. 2016 has so many things that should be goofy in theory, like the Cacodemons just floating around like little meatballs, watching a Mancubus explode from shoving a part of itself down its throat or watching as this regular sized man rips the limbs off of enemies 3x his size.

But it all just... works. Everything down to the visual design, the music, the general audio design and even the more subtler movements of the Doomguy all work towards making this admittedly dumb setting and story work extremely well. It's more than just a heavy metal album come to life, it's an entire discography.

Doom 2016 holds a special place in my heart. I may prefer Doom 64 for its level design and Plutonia for its challenge and visual variety but 2016 was so influential to my taste in media that I don't know where to begin. It got me into retro shooters, it reminded me of my love for Metroid-like progression and level design, its OST got me into metal, its world led me to finding series I love such as Chainsaw Man and Berserk, its main character got me into series with cool protagonists who don't quip every single second, like John Wick and Samurai Jack.

This one is a bit odd for me since I'm very much a gameplay-first kind of guy but Doom 2016 is so irrationally important to me and my tastes that I have to give it special treatment.

Dropped this game at the last level before the final boss, Ghost Bayou, because I have a rule; if a game has not impressed or satisfied me up until right before the final boss, I'm not finishing it, a single boss won't change my opinion on a game. I think that's a fair mindset to have right? Regardless, I think I should articulate why I wasn't impressed.

To begin with, this game feels cheap. I'm not saying that because this game is old now, I actually mostly play older games, it just felt like it had a very low budget. The visuals, while varied, feel underwhelming considering other titles on the Gamecube. Mario Sunshine, Pikmin 2, Sonic Adventure 2, both of the Zelda games on the console, all of these look and feel far better than this game. It's not something that really affected the game too much but it persisted throughout the entire game with later levels having straight up copy-and-pasted elements.

This directly links into one of my bigger criticisms with the game, that being the perspective. Jumps almost always felt like a gamble in Pac-Man World 2 because it was hard to distinguish how far away other parts of the levels were; this becomes really frustrating in the Ice and Water worlds since that's where the "platforming" is at its most challenging; rarely did a hit or a death feel entirely deserved, since I was always fighting with my own brain on whether I could jump far enough or not.

It really pains me to say this game is mediocre because it started out alright. The first world was nothing to write home about but it did everything it needed to, allows you to get comfortable with the controls, introduces new mechanics as the levels go on and ends with a boss fight that tests your skills up to that point. This was followed by a forest themed world which had an emphasis on bounce-pads; this is fine, so far, nothing revolutionary but it does its job. Levels are filled with various collectables that aren't very challenging to find, however, it felt like the Forest world was much more interesting when it comes to this compared to the rest of the game as it was far more vertical, it felt like you were actually exploring the stage instead of simply being railroaded to the finish line. This is on top of them actually using the roll move for some important platforming which becomes rare in the later parts of the game.

I believe the game peaked at the Ice world, however -- there were some sections I thought were far too unforgiving but, overall -- it does a decent amount of stuff with the ice theme. You have goats, since this is a snowy mountain, ice-cold water that instantly kills you, stalactites fall down upon you, it’s arguably the best looking part of the game. The third level is a bit interesting since it forgoes the ability to dash in favour of an ice-skating section which is probably the most fun level in the game, so much so that it appears to have made it onto the game's box art. It felt so refreshing going from the okay-paced levels into this fast-paced, high-stakes roller-coaster ride, and I was fine with the game changing it up since this was an exception to the platforming and not a change in design.

Or so I thought because then, the game got worse. It really began with the 2nd level of the following world, the fire themed one, where there was a lot of questionable design, such as switches seemingly doing nothing, the vault manoeuvre simply not working with moving platforms and heavily relying on needless backtracking and the only power-up that does anything in the game. This all culminates into what I consider to be the point of no return for this game's quality, the boss against the red ghost, Clyde I believe. The boss is bad, it's literally just the last 2 bosses, which were both copies of each other, except needlessly punishing. It's so emblematic of my feelings towards this game, it does try to mix it up but it completely fumbles due to a lack of originality and, frankly, a lack of effort.

The water world, however, is easily the worst one because it's not even a platformer. The first 2 levels are mediocre as Pac-Man is effectively a missile, or in this case a torpedo, constantly going in one direction with a slow turning speed, combined with the constant assault of projectiles and hazards, turns this once fun platformer into a boring, on-the-rails dodging minigame. But then, for some stupid reason, the game just becomes a shitty Star Fox rip-off after that? Who the hell thought this was a good idea in a platformer of all things? The 3rd level is easily the lowest point of the game because goodness gracious, everything bad about the game comes together. Poor perspective and visual issues? Check. Repetition of areas and level elements? Check. Lack of variety? Check. Removing the dash move for no fucking reason? Check and then some. But the level is also SO FUCKING LONG, I must've been there for about 8-10 minutes- whilst most other levels were shorter than that AND had actual platforming.

By this point, the game had no intention of spicing up its levels or being interesting at all. The final world is still mediocre, with the first two levels doing nothing to impress me and even frustrating me at times, such as in the first one where they introduce collapsing platforms but don’t give you enough time to simply move onto the next one, forcing you to constantly jump; that may sound small but it makes the flow of the level so much more chaotic, it doesn’t feel good to play. Ghost Bayou is just... so boring. You're mostly going along a linear path doing EXACTLY what the game wants you to or else face instant death or an invisible wall, despite other sections of the level being so close to you, whilst also sprinkling in a little bit of pointless backtracking and making the level itself needlessly dark.

A final boss was never going to change my opinion of the game, they never will with any game. My experience with Pac-Man World 2 was that of a dull, dry journey that had me going "oh, this is kinda fun" at its highest moments and had me being angry at its lowest. I can't say that the good outweighs the bad because the good barely even reaches the status of "yeah, it's pretty competent". I hate using this argument because I feel like it's generally bad faith, but I do genuinely believe most of the praise this game gets is rooted in nostalgia, because I simply cannot see how anyone can enjoy a game this cheap and uninspired.

Maybe I'll finish this at a later point but Egg Rock Zone Act 1 is an absolutely terrible level. Yeah, just put precision platforming in a game that's specifically tailored to forgiving platforming, no one will be mad at that.

Even if I do hate that level in particular, this is a really good game, in fact this is actually the first positive experience I've had with a Sonic game. The movement of 2D Sonic always bothered me because Sonic would stop on a dime but would take a while to gain speed, which made platforming feel chaotic. Then you had the fact that you couldn't see too far ahead of you so any obstacles in your way would be hard to see, which created a very conflicted design philosophy of wanting the player to go fast but also not wanting the game to lack challenge, which means that going slower would be better for first time players, which sucks for me personally because I really don't like how Sonic feels when he's going slow.

These complaints aren't here though, the movement feels great (although I'll chalk that up to my extensive familiarity with Doom's movement) and the platforming is mostly forgiving, save the aforementioned level. Each zone is distinct with its own theming and mechanics and those first 5 or 6 zones were an absolute treat. Compile this alongside a variety of different shields (power-ups) that each have their own uses and you have a really solid platformer.

I have other things I want to talk about but seeing how I haven't fully finished the game, I don't think I'm in any position to say anything more. I'm not a Sonic fan, but even I enjoyed this game, so I recommend it.

This review was technically requested by a friend, he'll be reading this so you know who you are. Thanks for supporting this side-hobby of mine.

This review was previously a bit shorter, but I wasn't satisfied by how much I analysed the game so I added a few more sections.

I have found a newly acquired love for stealth games. I haven't played many of them, played the first 2 Thief games and Mark of the Ninja and those latter two games are spectacular. But, perhaps it was a bad idea playing those first since it may have given me a skewed impression of the genre, set my expectations a little too high. I don't think this game is bad, oh no, absolutely not. This game is great and worth a shot if you're willing to put up with certain design choices, but I don't think it's perfect, or at least, some of what it offers isn't what I look for in a stealth game.

First of all, let me say that the sound design in this game is excellent - surprising for a stealth game, I know - but so much of the soundscape sounds borderline perfect. Every footstep and gunshot feels just right, the guns aren't very impactful but they are abrasive, which deemphasises you to not use them; makes sense because this isn't a game intended to be played like a shooter. I played this with EAX 4 Surround sound so perhaps that contributed to how good it sounded, but regardless, it absolutely nails the required feel for sneaking around. Similarly, the soundtrack is great; it wasn't something I was expecting to praise but it has a nice "spy thriller" feel to it, but not an overly played one, like it's purposefully playing off of 80s nostalgia, but subdued enough to the point where it's still pleasant to listen to.

One of the defining aspects of the stealth genre is level design; it's a particular point of praise towards those games that I mentioned earlier, and in my opinion, you can have as deep of a mechanical system as you want, but if you don't have good level design then your stealth game is trash. The core of the matter is giving room for options, letting the player use their toolkit however they please. For example, Mark of the Ninja, my current favourite stealth game, has a level where you need to set fire to a tower in order to draw troops away from a neighbouring building, you do this by letting gas out of the basement, and work your way up the tower allowing the gas to spread through the building via ventilation; in a lesser game it would require you to go through each room one by one and open these ventilation points but Mark of the Ninja plays its cards well. You are block off from progressing via lasers which can be deactivated through destroying their fuse box, as expected from a game as intricately designed as this, however, there are two things which make this segment truly excellent; you always have 2 routes you can go down first and you also have access to smoke bombs, an item which can block lasers and allow you to pass, meaning you have almost total player freedom throughout this portion of the level as long as you have that particular item equipped. This design philosophy of player choice is consistent throughout all of Mark of the Ninja, usually being pretty good with a few high peaks.

So, that's how my current favourite stealth game handles its level design, but how does Chaos Theory fair in this regard? Well, before we get into that we also need to discuss something else, it's a factor that is arguably as important as level design, and you can notice it in that earlier paragraph, it's the tools you have at your disposal; the tools in this game are good, but still kind of limited, the main 2 items you're going to be using throughout this game are the pistol and the machine gun, which may sound strange considering this is a stealth game but what makes these guns interesting aren't the bullets, it's what they’re equipped with. The pistol is equipped with a jamming device which can shut down light sources and cameras; this'll be your most important tool as it's the main way of sneaking past certain obstacles, and the machine gun is equipped with various different kinds of non-lethal projectiles which will be your main source of taking down enemies from afar. This is the basic stealth stuff and it works well here but what I think makes them interesting is the time it takes to switch. Sam is no gunslinger, he takes his time switching between his tools which is not good once you're caught, so therefore it de-emphasises direct combat and playing it like it's a shooter. There are several grenades you can use but the only one I feel is worth mentioning is the smoke grenade, which will obscure the view of anything and allow you to slip past, but this also includes you, so you have to plan your movements in advance; it's good.

However, you can't talk about the equipment of Splinter Cell without mentioning the various vision modes; there's 3 of them, each with a distinct purpose. The night vision goggles are what you'd expect them to be, they allow you to see in dark areas, which is what you'll be seeing through for most of your time with this game as around 60 or 70% of this game is nearly complete darkness. Then there's the thermal goggles which do have a single use case for prolonged use near the end of the game, but I'll save that for later; their main use is to see through soft material such as fabric which is incredibly useful as unlike other stealth games there's no mini-map, you have to keep track of enemies yourself. The last mode is easily the least useful and that's the electromagnetic mode, its only use is to show you where there's electricity being used, which can usually be jammed with your pistol. This can occasionally be used to find generators for certain things and allow you to shut them down permanently but it's very niche and not used often.

The final tool at your disposal that I'll be talking about is the interrogation mechanic; you can sneak up behind enemies, grab them and disable them, but whilst you have them in that hold, you can interrogate them about certain things. This mechanic was present in previous games but wasn't used nearly as much, you can gain intel about where medical supplies are or about the mission itself. It's really only useful on a first playthrough but it does make it interesting as you have to go out of your way to get the information. Another thing this is good for is Sam's personality, it really comes through in these little exchanges and makes him a very charming character. He's by no means deep, but very entertaining. However, there's some missed potential in this mechanic as even though Sam and the guard are talking very clearly, this makes no noise. Now, usually you could chalk this up to "video games being video games" but in the co-op campaign for this game, you can use the in-game voice chat to talk with your friend and it creates noise in-game. I haven't played the co-op campaign (though I want to get around to it at some point) but this is such an awesome idea, why isn't something like this in the main game? Why can't we have tense sections where you're trying to dodge enemies whilst they keep following your voice in the darkness? Why not have certain guards scream when they're being interrogated so the current section is completely flipped on its head? This could've been an incredibly interesting idea but it's just not present at all.

I wanted to talk about the various mechanics because it's essential to the level design, as I believe it's where the main appeal of Chaos Theory's gameplay comes from. Let me give a few examples of this game's design philosophy. The first one is the bank, toted as the best level in the series and I definitely see why. You have different ways to approach the level, with a few distinct paths to take; at the beginning of the level you can either sneak your way in through the front door, juggling multiple mechanics to slip right in, or you can go the more subtle route of repelling yourself from the roof. Once you're inside, you have 2 paths to go down, either the left side or the right side, each of which connects and loops back on each other, providing a smooth gameplay experience no matter the route you take, assuming you know what you're doing. After you've finished your objective you need to head back to a central area of the map where the final part of the level begins, stealing the intelligence you're after, and if you're a keen-eyed player, you'll also spot a laser which, when tripped over, sets the entire facility on alert; the entire level has just been flipped on its head and now you have to use all that you've learnt from the level design to make your way back out. This is on top of being able to simply turn the laser off as you're on your way out of the vault where the intelligence lay, making for a smooth ride out. You can see the aspects of player choice here, having multiple routes as well as certain mechanics which incentivise different approaches, this is what stealth games should be.

But, there's an issue, not with the level itself, but with everything around it, and it's that the game is wildly inconsistent when it comes to maintaining player choice throughout the game. Some levels such as the aforementioned Bank and others such as Displace and the Bathhouse offer a lot of choices when it comes to getting around a level in interesting ways, but then there's others like Seoul, incredibly linear borefests with no variation. The first half of Seoul is fine, linear but not very obtrusive, it has some interesting side-objectives and it's overall a decent break of pace, but then you get to the second half of the mission and it's terrible, absolutely god awful. You're being constantly tracked by this collection of UAVs and you have basically no alternative route to go down, you have to do exactly what the game tells you to do or else you'll be seen and definitely killed. There is an interesting side objective right at the end of the mission where you can carry 2 unconscious pilots to safety and it does offer a unique challenge, but the sincere lack of player choice killed all enjoyment of this level for me. This level is emblematic of what most Splinter Cell games are actually like, not an open, interactive experience, but more of a linear series of moment-to-moment challenges, and to be honest, I'm kind of mixed on that.

On one hand, it turns each level into a sort of puzzle, trying to figure out how to get past the the current obstruction, however, you don’t need to make your game linear to accomplish this; in Bathhouse, there are many challenging obstacles in your way but you always have options and it’s an awesome thrill ride from start to finish. Making it linear only makes the player feel more frustrated as they can’t use their toolkit and navigation skills as much as they would want to. In Displace there are some lasers which block a piece of progress and you could find another way around them, but you can also just pick up a guard’s body and use it to quietly slip through them, undetected. Linearity is just making sure the player encounters these challenges, but having alternative pathways and “solving the puzzle” in different ways will always be more fun.

It's also obvious in Seoul’s 2nd half that they wanted to offer a challenge since this is the 3rd to last level in the game, however just in the next mission, they manage to do challenge in stealth whilst also not taking away the player's options. The previously mentioned Bathhouse is a great level, you start outside and need to get past a technician and two guards, whilst having to deal with a singular, overhead light that illuminates so much area that you barely have enough time to grab the technician; it's easy enough though, you’re more experiences in stealth by this point so something like this is trivial, but then you get into a more linear section where you need to take a guy out quickly before he turns on the lights and spots you; these two sequences are to set the tone of this level, there’s high stakes at every turn and you need to be very careful with your traversal across the map. After this, the level opens up a bit, and you have multiple options when it comes to tackling the next objectives, right up until you meet Shetland. This map doesn’t function so much as a loop like the Bank but more like a double helix, where there are paths which lead into each other but ultimately you’re going in one direction, each with it’s own spin on the combination of lights, guards and occasionally cameras. It puts everything you've learnt to the test and I wouldn’t have been disappointed if it were the last level.

However, there's an issue with this game that prevails throughout the game but becomes really noticeable at this point: inconsistency. Occasionally, a guard would spot me with an audio cue indicating that he saw me, but had his back turned, or how a guard could somehow not see me even though I was completely illuminated, sometimes I couldn't slip past a singular guard without him instantly shooting me despite the fact that I made no contact with him, made no noise and was completely surrounded by darkness. Nowhere is this more apparent than the shower rooms within Bathhouse (showers in a Bathhouse? Who would’ve thought); it's a single set of rooms where steam can occasionally appear and block your vision, and the guards, when interrogated, say that they can't see anything either. This is a lie, as they can see perfectly fine within the steam and will detect you as normal. This is definitely something that has simply aged poorly in Chaos Theory, this was 2005 after all and despite what some people may say, AI was still incredibly underdeveloped in gaming; hell, that's rumoured to be the entire reason why Metroid Dread was never fully developed until 2021, because the technology simply wasn't there to create a believable stalker enemy on the level of the emmis, especially on a handheld device like the DS.

On a similar note to the segment about the AI, I feel as though I should talk about the enemy design, or lack thereof. There are only 5 enemy types in the whole game, 2 of which serve the exact same purpose but are technically different enemies. You have the regular guard, which is the enemy you'll be encountering for 99% of the game and the only one that's almost as used as the guard is the turret, which will appear in certain sections of the game, but I honestly can't remember them being used outside of two sections -- please do correct me if I am wrong about that. I lump the portable turrets alongside the motion detection ones found at the end of the game since they both serve the same purpose. The remaining 2 only ever appear once, the first being the aforementioned UAV which is an interesting enemy in a vacuum but is spoiled by how incredibly linear that level was; in a more open level I think they would've been much more interesting. The other enemy is a guard with thermal vision, which I can only recall being at the end of the Bathhouse level, though once again, correct me if I'm wrong. These enemies aren't "bad" but there definitely could've been more done here. Going back to the Mark of the Ninja comparison, that game had many different enemy types, all of which had unique ways of approaching them and their own weaknesses and strengths, such as the dogs which can sniff you out of hidden areas or the snipers which have an incredibly long range of vision. Perhaps it is unfair to compare them but Thief 2: The Metal Age was released 5 years before this game and that game had way more enemy types and used them much more creatively.

There is one more level after the Bathhouse but I don't have much to say about it, it's a classic linear test of skill, similar to Thief II or Mark of the Ninja's final level. It does its job well and promptly fucks off, though those turrets near the end are dickheads. I think Chaos Theory is a good game, it has some very interesting level design at times and some compelling mechanics, however, some people will say this is one of the best stealth games of all time and also one of the best games of all time. I strongly disagree; this game is great, but it's plagued with issues of the technology at the time and inconsistent level design. I recommend that you play it, and you may even like the linear levels and will put this into your favourites. I hope the in-development Splinter Cell 1 remake takes what this game does well and makes it even better, because the potential for this series is insane.

Wasn't intending to review this game but ever since I finished it I can't stop thinking about it, so here we go.

I am a holder of many hot takes and now I'm adding a new one into the collection: RE5 is better than RE4. Before I get into this game proper, I need to emphasise that you really need to play this with a friend because it is much better, the AI in singleplayer isn't nearly as good as having another human by your side.

To begin with, the inventory system has been drastically improved, as while the Attaché Case wasn't a bad inventory system, it being in an action game just wasn't a good fit for it; constantly stopping and starting, it was a massive pace breaker, alongside some elements such as green herbs and grenades not stacking would mean your inventory would be bloated. RE5's inventory is a straight upgrade, it's much smaller, relegated to 9 slots, but almost everything stacks and you don't have nearly as many menial things such as attachments holding you down, on top of it not pausing the game which creates a lot of tension and emphasises my favourite thing in action games: on-the-fly decision making, which you will need.

The difficulty of RE5 is a drastic improvement over RE4, the dynamic difficulty of 4 does make it a very smooth ride from start to finish, but it meant that people like me who wanted more of a challenge couldn't get one consistently as my victories didn't feel entirely deserved; while dynamic difficulty isn't completely gone from RE5, it has been downplayed to a point in which I am comfortable with, since the only things which are effected by it are only some enemy placements and item drops. It's very minor and playing on the Veteran difficulty gave me and my friend a hard but fair challenge and the few dynamic elements never detracted from the core gameplay and that core gameplay is a ton of fun; aside from the previously mentioned inventory system, all the core mechanics from RE4 have been carried over and improved, you can still stun enemies, shoot certain projectiles out of the air and perform context sensitive melee attacks, but then you also have combo strings of melee attacks you can do with your partner, as well as an execution for when enemies are laying on the ground. The melee attacks can now be performed by both players at once to do extra damage, and while that may initially seem like overkill, it is very good for taking out mini-boss enemies, because there are a lot more of them compared to RE4.

This is where the co-op element really comes into play as having 2 people simultainiously making on-the-fly decisions and helping each other adds so much to the combat, a massive improvement over Ashley whom, while not bad (and I'd argue overhated), didn't really add anything to the game. Let me give you an example: it was in the final hours of the game and I was on a raised platform while my friend was down below where a large enemy was, and it was one of the more dangerous large enemies, I had a magnum which will stun any large enemy and open them up for a melee attack, so I shot the large enemy in the head and began a stunlock string of me shooting it and my friend melee attacking it, doing a ton of damage and finishing off the fight. It was such a brilliant sequence of events and it was all intuitive, all my friend had to say was "gimme another one (opening)" and I knew exactly what he was talking about, and I'll say right now, games that have depth in gameplay and have that depth be intuitive is one of my favourite things ever.

Another complaint I had with RE4 was level design, not because of how linear it was, but because of its basic nature; many arenas are just hallways or large circles, there was nothing to manipulate enemy AI or really outsmart enemies, the game is a borderline shooting gallery because of this. RE5 manages to distinguish itself by having way better arena design as a whole, it's really good to the point where it actually made me like cover mechanics when they were used later in the game; it's got more verticality, more space to move around, there's much more room for interesting interactions and decision making. However, that doesn't mean every level is consistent, as many of them also fall into the trap of hallway shooting, and there is an entire turret section chapter which was mediocre; RE5 has lower lows than RE4, but it compensates by having higher highs, as the final hours of the game are great, some of the most co-op fun I've ever had in fact, and chapter 6-3 is such a well design and well paced conclusion that I couldn't think of a more perfect way to end a video game. This is on top of having various open ended sections throughout the game which game you more freedom to explore which I definitely appreciated as they added some much needed variety.

Weapon variety was a big positive of RE4 for me, and I'm glad to say that it's mostly still here, with a few more issues; whilst RE4 had a lot of weapons, each of them had a small amount of customisation to them with attachments, and they're basically all gone in this game, alongside the fact that a lot of weapons in the same class mostly feel the same to use with too few changes to distinguish themselves. This isn't a massive issue however because I think having the inventory be improved over having a little more weapon variety is a worthy sacrifice, and there's enough weapon types and a few select variants that do set themselves apart so that this game isn't lacking in weapon variety, but on that same topic, its enemy variety is pretty good also.

Enemy variety was probably my biggest criticism with RE4, you're fighting mostly the same enemies throughout the entire game and the little variation there is wasn't really that good. RE5 does also have a similar issue but it is far better than RE4, as many enemies have different ways to approach them, such as the aforementioned large enemies, on top of the different enemy types like the townsfolk, the tribal enemies, the tough as nails bug enemies, as well as some ranged enemies among others. I was initially not fond of those ranged enemies but as the game went on, it started to use them in more creative ways and ultimately I came back around on them. All this makes for a gameplay experience that is just far more enjoyable than RE4's gameplay for me, there's so much more going on and way more stakes at play. However, despite having overall better enemy design, the bosses are kind of bad for the most part; uninteresting bullet sponges with little going on, they're not terrible, aside from the 2nd Ouroboros Mass fight (genuine Z tier fight), but the last few bosses were a genuine surprise, they had some unique mechanics and a decent amount going on in them; they're not fantastic but for shooter standards, they are a cut above most of what the genre offers, without a doubt.

However, that's not what makes me give this game such a high rating despite its reputation as one of the "bad resident evils", counting all of this game's pros and cons and I'd think I would feel the same way I do about Quake 4, a competent shooter that has a few bumps in the road, but is overall well designed, and kept my attention from start to finish (for more of my thoughts on that game, read: https://www.backloggd.com/u/mirphy/review/304849/). My affinity for this game would be thanks to its DLC. Lost in Nightmares isn't anything to write home about, it's a throwback to the original Resident Evil games with some neat ideas but it ultimately feels like a fart in the wind dude to repetition and being far too short. Desperate Escape on the other hand is excellent, fucking incredible even. The difficulty curve picks up right where the main game left off, and it just keeps going and going, it's a great experience from front to back, putting everything you and your partner have learnt to the test in an exhilirating rollercoaster ride. It's the perfect example of DLC done right, so much so that I struggle to find a single thing wrong with it.

RE5 and Desperate Escape are, together, a brilliant co-op experience. There's good gameplay, good level design and a lot of content on display, I thoroughly look forward to dumping many hours into the Mercenaries mode. I know this review will not click with a lot of people, and that's fine, but hopefully I've shed light upon how some people can view RE4 in a bad light, and maybe have put the thought of giving this game a 2nd chance into your minds. If I did, I hope that you finish the game feeling,

S A T U R A T E D.

2012 was a dark year for gaming - perhaps a controversial opinion but here me out - Far Cry 3 was released, marking a turning point in Ubisoft's design philosophy, Call of Duty fans were just about to turn on their own franchise, the Wii U released to much criticism and started a dark age for Nintendo, FPS games were still in the "brown and linear" military phase, Mass Effect 3 divided fans, Resident Evil was still in its action phase, I could honestly keep going but I hope you see my point. There were good releases in this year but a lot of the releases are marred with general disappointment and anger. Mark of the Ninja was certainly a highlight for me, as was Prototype 2 and Hotline Miami, but I feel as though one entry in this year that is often overlooked is The Darkness II, developed by Digital Extremes.

The Darkness II is not the best game ever made, nor is it the best game released in 2012, but I do believe more people should appreciate it way more. It’s unfairly compared to games released after it, and those comparisons are very surface level. I highly recommend this game to people who like games like F.E.A.R. or Vanquish; those tactical shooters that don’t let themselves be carried by cover mechanics or regenerating health.

To begin with, the game looks... alright? Not off to a good start, but I believe this game has aged fairly well graphically; it's not a pretty game but I don't believe it's supposed to be, the story follows Jackie Estacado, a Mob Boss who contains within him a powerful and corrupting force known as "The Darkness", and the game is in general "Dark". The grungy visuals, while not always pleasant to look at, do help keep the game's tone consistent. Plus, the game does have a lot of visual variety, going from DIY hallways to open scrapyards and even some marble based architecture from time to time.

The story is a major complaint for many people, as it is apparently a step down from the first game. I will be completely transparent, I have not played the first game, but I would like to defend this game quickly: while the story is probably a step down, I don't feel like prioritising story in a game that is clearly action focused is the best way to experience it. While they are valid criticisms, this game should still be taken on its own merits, because there are two factors in determining if a sequel is good; is it functionally good and is it contextually good?

If a series is going to go in a new direction, as long as that direction is good, I'm fine with it. For example, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night takes a very different direction from the "Classicvania'' titles of old; rather than being a linear series of hallways with impressive art and simple but engaging combat, Symphony of the Night spices things up by adding various elements from Zelda titles, namely progression. The new direction does pay off, as the game - alongside Super Metroid - paved the way for an entirely new genre, Metroidvania. While it is a little sad that Classicvania titles became much more scarce after SotN's release, we can still appreciate the Metroidvania titles for what they bring to the table. If this game were just a shallow slog then yeah, I'd probably understand people's grievances more. But this game is much more than the Call of Duty clones it's lumped in with, and I'd like to articulate why.

Now, how exactly do we review a game based on action? Well, I think these parameters should be fine: Depth, pacing, level design and enemy design. First, let's define what "Depth" means. Depth is a term thrown around a lot when talking about various forms of media, not just video games and whilst depth can be more easily defined in other mediums, it doesn't really have a "set in stone" definition for video games. One interpretation of depth is "adding new elements to influence decision making", for example, adding a new enemy type that can only be taken down once a certain requirement has been met, like taking out a weak-spot. However, another interpretation is "adding meaningful options to change how you get from point A to point B", and which could be adding a new weapon that changes how you approach a scenario, for example, a shotgun vs a sniper rifle; this definition is different because one is adding a new element that limits options, but adds variety, and the other one adds another option. I think arguments could be made for both of these definitions and I personally lean more towards the latter, but it's not like that entirely matters because The Darkness II actually does both of these things.

For starters, it frequently introduces new enemies into the various combat encounters, such as enemies that teleport or have shields. The shield guys in particular are hard to deal with because you usually have to damage the shield before you can rip it off, but once you do, you can use it for yourself and on top of that, you can use it as a projectile; that's actually one of the biggest parts of this game, being able to throw stuff at enemies on top of using guns. This singular system, the ability to remove the protection of enemies and use it for yourself, is already a showcase of the depth this game has to its combat.

While we are at this point, I think it's time I address a personal grievance, not with this game, but with its genre, I strongly dislike tactical shooters. The gameplay loop isn't inherently bad or shallow, it does have depth as "good" tactical shooters give you the ability to outsmart the enemy through flanking and manipulating AI. The issue with a lot of tactical shooters can be boiled down to one, singular, fundamentally flawed mechanic: regenerating health. This is a big problem because it heavily lowers the stakes in combat, you don't have an opening to flank the enemies and outsmart them? Don't worry, you can just hide behind a chest high wall and gain all of your health back, and then play a game of whack-a-mole and continue onto the next area. That's not to say that simply removing this mechanic somehow fixes this, it also relies on good enemy design and arena design, but removing it and replacing it with health packs and/or incentivising movement to avoid damage is a better playing experience, because it encourages movement and motivates you into using the game’s various mechanics. The Darkness II does have regenerating health, however it's used sparingly, as it only regenerates up to a certain threshold. The way you replenish health in this game is by consuming hearts and executing enemies, which is good because both of them encourage you to go out and get back into the fight rather than laying back and waiting for things to miraculously get better. This allows the tactical gameplay to shine through and is overall a more gratifying gameplay experience than most tactical shooters, in my opinion.

But why go for these options, why not pick off enemies at a distance and then move onto the next combat arena? There are two more reasons for this aside from the one I listed, the first one being the light mechanic; The Darkness cannot maintain itself whilst it is in the light, meaning you lose out on all your special powers that come with it. It also comes with the caveat of blurring your vision - now, in most games, I don't like restricting player vision, because there isn't much challenge to be had in it. Vision is so integral to gaming that once you take it away, you're kind of fucked and it doesn’t really feel like it’s your fault. I think there is a little bit of that in this mechanic, but it's used much more tastefully, as if your vision weren’t blurred, then taking out lights would be trivial and the mechanic would basically be useless. Plus, the light mechanic rewards spatial awareness, which then, in turn, puts you into the mindset best suited for a tactical shooter.

The second reason is ammo, because this game purposefully restricts ammo - not to the extent of something like Doom Eternal though. If you only shoot people and don't use any of the other mechanics, you'll start to run out of ammo much quickly and you'll be left scrambling for resources, and the game incentivises you to go head first into combat because of this. For one, enemies drop ammo upon death, which you can only pick up during fights once you start playing more aggressively, but there are also ammo stashes placed around the levels, which, one again, encourages movement and smart play.

Another way you can replenish ammo is the execution mechanic. Now, I hear a lot of people compare this game to Doom 2016, and I guarantee this is the only reason why. Sure, Doom 2016 is generally a better game but I think the comparison is surface level; for one, the executions in Doom 2016 only served to replenish your health, and while that is also true for The Darkness II, once you've upgraded yourself enough, you get access to 3 other types of execution, those being ammo replenish, ability replenish and creating a shield, which you can use for protection or as a projectile, as previously stated. This leads into my first complaint with this game, however, and that's the issue of progression in the skill tree. You level it up through "dark essence", which you collect by just generally playing the game. The problem is that it takes way too long to level up; it took over 2 playthroughs for me to finally max out the skill tree. It's okay if you're willing to stick with the game, but frustrating nonetheless.

There are many more things that add to the depth of this game, first of which being the 2 abilities you obtain, Swarm and Gun Channelling; Swarm is a crowd control ability, it releases a Swarm of presumably bugs that stun a couple of enemies, which can be integral for getting out of a tight spot; Gun Channelling, however, is a little overpowered. For about 3 seconds, it allows you to see and shoot enemies through walls with increased damage and doesn't use up any ammunition. I don't use it very regularly, but it could be seen as a fallback option. This is on top of a unique "Black Hole" mechanic, where certain enemies will drop a Black Hole that can be used as a crowd control option.

This all culminates into a combat system that is both unique and doesn't lack on options, everything you need to finish the combat arenas are at your disposal (provided you've put the time into maxing out the skill tree). But, speaking of those combat arenas, how are they? Well, they're decent, good but not great. Believe me, this is no F.E.A.R. when it comes to arena design or enemy design. It is fairly consistent but some of them just devolve into hallways with a little bit of space. However, they do serve the game well enough, on top of doing the Half-Life thing of spreading various objects such as exploding barrels or projectiles for you to use all over the levels.

There is, however, one part of the game that does certainly bother me: the difficulty. Now, once you're in the "fun zone", playing aggressively and using all the mechanics you have at your disposal, the game can be quite challenging, but oftentimes you can still feel as though you are too powerful. I bring up those linear hallway sections again as they are the main culprits of this. It would be awesome if this game was challenging on top of being fun and deep, but it is inconsistent to say the least. At the end of the day, I will take an easy game that has a lot going on rather than a hard game that is incredibly shallow. Sometimes, fun is more important than difficulty.

But only sometimes.

I hope I've communicated how good this game's combat really is. As stated before, many people write this game off as a "Call of Duty clone" or a "lesser Doom 2016" but I don't think that's doing this game justice. Yes, the story is worse than the first game and it does have a heavier emphasis on action; however, when taken on its own merits, The Darkness II, ironically, manages to stand out in the dark age of FPS games.

Initially, when I saw a few people really didn't like this game, I thought they were exaggerating, how the game's fighting mechanics weren't that great and the level design was kinda balls.

Nah, they were right. Nothing particularly bad about this game, but calling it a Metroidvania is an insult to the genre. It's extremely linear, the platforming is okay and the fighting mechanics were alright up until the later game where it starts throwing a bunch of bullshit at you. Also the final boss sucks. I'm not gonna give this bore-fest a proper review.

I finished this game the other day and ever since I've been collecting my thoughts about it. It's odd, usually when I finish a game, I have a concrete opinion on it, I've seen basically everything the game has to show me and my memory is usually pretty good, so I'm able to form a full opinion pretty quickly, which is also why I don't like leaving games unfinished. But Galaxy 2 is different, in my opinion, it doesn't really feel like a whole new game. Its development started out as an expanded version of the original game called "Super Mario Galaxy More" but later became its own thing, it's an innovative sequel on the same engine, similar to Doom II: Hell on Earth, Thief 2: The Metal Age and Far Cry 4. But, similar to games that follow this philosophy, I feel as though it doesn't quite live up to the original. Let me explain.

I like the original Galaxy for a few key reasons. For one, it was incredibly consistent. Before putting down the game I had gotten around 90 stars, I didn't bother to do the purple coin missions, though I may go back now, and I think that the motion control levels are pretty terrible; trust me, I actually like motion controls (more on them later). However, I did like a vast majority of those 90 stars. I don't think many of the levels were particularly excellent but the fact that the only ones I disliked were ones based around poorly implemented mechanics is a testament to how consistent the general gameplay is.

This is also mostly true for Galaxy 2, with some caveats. Level design is pretty good across the board, to explain how great it is, I'll use two examples: Fluffy Bluff Galaxy and Melty Monster Galaxy. Fluffy Bluff Galaxy begins with a small, but open area filled with shallow water, and within that water are various coins and star bits to collect; this is important as this Galaxy's main gimmick is the Cloud Mushroom, and the Cloud suit will disappear upon contact with water. Having the area be open is also a plus because, anyone who has ever watched or read a review of Mario 64 will know what I'm about to say, it allows the player to get familiar with the unique mechanics, this being how the Cloud Suit making Mario much more floaty as well as giving him placeable platforms, giving Mario significantly more distance and height. After this, Mario is either lead onto a large cloud platform or up onto a cliffside, with some cloud platforms along the side, but even if the player fails at platforming up these cloud platforms, the area below is mostly solid ground, so there is little reason to worry about falling down. This cliffside stops at a bottomless ravine which would kill any player if they fail to cross, with a couple of cloud platforms along the way, so therefore, these elements incentivises the use to the cloud suit to pass. However, players with a keen eye will notice that a well timed long jump can make it across the already placed cloud platforms, which creates some level of a skill gap. After a pretty mediocre section where we collect launch star pieces, we reach another section with a bottomless pit, however now we have platforms that disappear into the wall after a certain amount of time. This further incentivises the use of the cloud platforms whilst also adding a sense of urgency, which is then finished off by another pretty bland section that's basically just a repeat of the section with the ravine. This is level design 101, introducing a mechanic and then increasing the stakes as you go along the level.

If you couldn't tell, the game has an issue with levels becoming redundant after a while, where they figuratively repeat sections; not every level suffers from this but there is another thing to praise about the level design. Going back to that large cloud platform from the beginning of the level and feeding the Hungry Luma 100 coins (which rewards players whom had explored the open area below) we gain access to a brand new area, which is a 2D section with moving platforms. The moving platforms are important since it asks more of the player with their timing and tests their knowledge of the Cloud Suit more closely, whilst also utilising different mechanics than the primary star to do so. This is what I like to call "tree-like" level design, and it's most prominent in 3D Mario game, where you have a singular mechanic taken in one direction for one star, but taken another way with another star, and it is a major strength of the Galaxy games.

But Galaxy 2 doesn't just offer tree-like levels with branching evolutions of its ideas, it also features level design that does continuously innovate and expand upon its core ideas within singular stars. Melty Monster Galaxy star 1 is probably my favourite star in the entire game for just how good the level design is. We start off at a very basic pull star section with Lava Monsters attempting to damage us and in turn, kill us, lava and these "melty monsters" are this level's main mechanics; it's not too hard and even if you are hit, you can fairly easily pull yourself back to safety. We then blast off with a launch star, where we come across a trope of the Mario series: rising lava. It comes in waves and isn't too difficult, but it still requires a tiny bit of skill and patience to cross. This leads into a section without that rising lava (more on that later), replaced with rotating platforms which float like icebergs upon lava, but they only start rotating once you start moving on them, which is then intertwined with those lava monsters from early; this keeps the level fresh and interesting whilst also going back to the central mechanic. This then leads into an entirely different section with tornados, seen before in a previous game, where once you spin you activate a sort of "helicopter" form and slowly descend to the surface below, which happens to be lava. Once again, fresh and interesting. The final section involves a bunch of those lava monsters acting similar to the rising lava from before, in one final test of patience and platforming skill, where you have to traverse small planetoids, all with their own gravity, and then eventually break the star free whilst under constant pressure from the lava monsters.

This star shows everything great about Galaxy 2, it's got a lot of variety and it's consistently fun to play. But, there's two issues with this level. For one, see how there are many mechanics that are just placed in and never brought up again? Yeah, Galaxy 2 does this a lot. It's not bad, it stops levels from getting repetitive, but it also results in a lot of the mechanics feeling shallow. Perhaps this is simply because I've been spoiled by Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze which continuously innovates upon mechanics whilst intertwining them with entirely new ones, but I definitely think more could've been done in Galaxy 2. The second issue is, do you notice how I only mentioned the first star? That's because the 2nd star of Melty Monster Galaxy is easily one of the worst. Why? because Galaxy 2 has a major issue with theming, as many secondary stars are just trivial minigames that have barely anything to do with the primary star, and nowhere is this more evident than Melty Monster Galaxy Star 2, where it's essentially just a challenge course with the rock mushroom. It's a fun level and pretty good for grinding star bits, but how the fuck is this related to the first star? Why would you put a minigame involving a power-up that was barely present in the original level? Of course, it was in the original level, but it was only present in a "hidden" section where you play... bowling. Do you see the problem here? Both of the negative points with the galaxies I've analysed can be lead back to one central problem: consistency. The game really does have some great levels but they're placed alongside these underwhelming levels that have little to no theming, and/or are just rip-offs of galaxies from the first game. But this sadly isn't the only issue with this game.

The progression in Galaxy was also another highlight of that game. I have not finished Mario 64, and that's because I don't like that game's progression. While levels were generally open, I didn't like a lot of them, and felt that only about half of the levels were competent, for one reason or another, but because of its consistency, Galaxy 1 comes out on top. I mention this because the progression is basically the same as 64, you can only play a select few levels at a time before fighting a boss and moving on, and only when you have reached a certain amount of stars can you progress. In Galaxy 1, it's way more lenient, so it doesn't feel like a chore getting those last few stars. There's 119 stars to obtain before you fight Bowser for the last time, and you are only required to obtain 60 of them to actually fight him. It's not that much less than the 70 of 64, but it's a welcome change nonetheless.

This is where my third complaint with Galaxy 2 lies, the progression isn't as good as the first game. This was an issue with Mario at the time, because ever since NSMB Wii, the series had begun to simplify itself to a very severe degree, some may argue that it started with the first NSMB game but that's not important; the progression goes like this: You must complete one star in a Galaxy in order to progress forward. This, of course, once again raises the issue of consistency, as if there is a level you don't like, you will still have to play it regardless. This was an issue solved by 64 and Galaxy (which was apparently absent in Sunshine but I haven't played that one yet) by having your progress be dictated by how many stars you have, and you're pretty much free to do what you want in that case. Thankfully, the game doesn't have any particularly bad level which would warrant this sort of criticism, the closest one I could think of is "Rolling Coaster Galaxy" from World S, which forces you to use motion controls. It's thankfully very short and isn't very difficult, I beat it on my frist try, but to some people it may be a much bigger issue, and because of that, I think it would've been better if they retained the structure of Galaxy 1.

From my previous statement, it would be reasonable to infer that because of the motion control levels, getting 100% in Super Mario Galaxy 2 would be tedious. This is true, but motion control levels were also present in Galaxy 1 and they were still pretty bad, and there is another major issue, but for the sake of being fair, I'll go into why the motion control levels are so bad. Simply put, the technology wasn't there at the time. The gyroscope in the original model of the Wii remote wasn't very advanced and really could only pick up on whether you were waggling the controller, which is why waggle was used so frequently in Wii titles, they literally couldn't do much else. "Wii Motion Plus" was supposed to be an answer to this, but it came near the end of the Wii's lifespan and, as far as I could tell from my research, it isn't compatible with Wii games outside of a few select titles; I say this because Wii Motion Plus specifically has to be calibrated, and Galaxy 2 has no such feature (plus there is also a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_Wii_MotionPlus). This is completely fucking baffling to me, Galaxy 2 was released a whole year after the launch of the Motion Plus accessory and a few weeks after the release of the "Wii Remote Plus" which had Wii Motion Plus built in. Similar to the Classic Controller on the Wii and the Wii U Pro Controller (to a lesser extent) it seems Nintendo has a habit of just straight up not using its technology for absolutely no reason. Okay, maybe you don't want to alienate consumers by making them buy more things with the console they already brought, but why make it in the first place then? Even if it does help the motion controls , they still feels like shit, which only furthers the point that the technology wasn't there at the time.

Okay, this has been very conflicted so far but I would like to mention, up until you defeat Bowser, this game is pretty much on par with the first game, and for those first 6 worlds, I recommend this game regardless. However, the straw that broke the camel's back on whether this game was better than the first game comes after you've defeated Bowser, in the post game. It's terrible. Now, the first game was also tedious to 100%, simply because of the motion control levels, but this game takes it way too far. In the first game, once you've defeated Bowser, you unlock some purple coin missions; they're basic collectathon missions but they add some good variety to the game. In Galaxy 2, you have the green stars. Fuck the green stars. They are the most blatant, most unashamed form of padding I have ever seen. Okay, re-using levels for stuff like prankster comets is fine, it is a form of padding but at least they add something new with new challenges and sometimes adding entirely new elements to levels; the green stars however are way too excessive and don't add nearly enough to the game to warrant there being so many of them. They're basically how stars in Mario 64 worked, where you collect one, get kicked back to the level select, and are forced to go back and find more of them in the exact same level. They're very bad for the game's pacing and they make getting 100% a chore.

I've been pretty harsh on this game but that's only because its shortcomings are really major considering the expectations I had going into this game. This is heralded as one of the best platformers of all time, and I kind of see it, but even if I do think most of the game is pretty good, I can't say I think its praise is entirely deserved. I do overall recommend this game, but don't do the post game if you don't want to, because it's not good.