For context, I never played the original Demon's Souls, so I don't have a point of reference to make comparisons between the two versions (and, thus, can't really comment in-depth on the artistic/stylistic changes other reviews have mentioned). I will say, however, that it's a shame that the original game's muted colors and muddied presentation have been overhauled for the sake of graphical fidelity, and there's an important conversation to be had about the gaming industry's obsession with remakes that emphasize pixel count over artistic integrity.

When judged on its own merits, I found DS to be flawed but, overall, a good time. As mentioned above, I found the game's presentation to be a bit soulless (ha). From a graphical perspective, everything looks amazing, but the level of polish in the presentation makes the world feel fake. I never really bought that Boletaria is a real, lived-in place; everything felt too video gamey and too crisp. Like I said, I've never played the original DS, but I think other commenters have done a great job discussing how much of From's artistic voice was lost in this remake.

Despite being very light on the lore, I think DS' core story asks some interesting questions and is a compelling analysis of the relationship between systemic power and people. The central mystery - why would King Allant, who ruled over an already prosperous nation, choose to awaken the Old One? - was particularly well-developed, and it's ultimate answer - that Allant, a man who had everything, still felt the need to amass more power to fill an emotional hole inside himself - felt particularly relevant to the current state of the world. While I found the supporting cast to be less memorable than other From games, there were still some compelling moments and interesting ideas: Ostrava's tragic search for answers about his father, the ideological clash between the Old One-worshiping clergy and marginalized magicians, the Golden Monk's oppression of Latria, Astraea's doomed humanitarian mission, and the Monumental potentially allowing the Old One to awaken as a false flag operation to increase the population of its kind, to name a few. Boletaria and the clergy's search for power and dominance over neighboring nations and spellcasters respectively destroyed this world long before the Old One awoke and, considering DS ends with the player character either perpetuating the cycle (the Old One goes back to sleep, the player character becomes a Monumental, and no one learns a thing) or succumbing to the Old One's power sought by so many other characters, the game ends with no indication that things will get better. All of this is to say that DS has a great, compelling story that more than lives up to the rest of From's catalogue.

The game largely plays very similar to many other From games and felt polished the whole way through. I wasn't really a fan of the world tendency system, missed having access to automatically replenishing healing a la flasks, and would've preferred an interconnected world, rather than a series of disparate levels, but DS includes several great areas (with 1-1, 1-3, and the entire Tower of Latria being particular standouts) and a few great bosses (I particularly loved Penetrator, Flamelurker, Astraea, Allant).

By its own merits, DS is a strong video game. I want to end by echoing the sentiment that it's a real shame this game will, likely, render the original DS obsolete, especially when considering the significant artistic vision lost between these two versions. I don't love the industry's current obsession with remaking games and sacrificing artistic vision with graphical polish and, for all this game does well and for the overall good time I had with it, I also hope we don't keep seeing more games with the same design philosophy as this one.

This was my first time visiting RDR and, while I had my share of problems with the game, I definitely understand why this one's so beloved. The world is really impressive and still (mostly) holds up, despite the number of iterations the open world genre has gotten since 2010, and the story does a lot of things right and is a (again, mostly) genuinely well-done deconstruction of Wild West fiction.

With all that said, I think RDR's biggest issue is it's insistence on adhering to arcade-style video game design while also trying to tell a serious story. This game is full of immersion-breaking moments where, one minute, John will be reflecting on his violent past and desire to peacefully settle down and leave his outlaw days behind... and, during the next, he'll be sitting on a minigun mowing down waves of enemies. RDR can't decide if it wants to be a fun romp through the Wild West or a serious story breaking down Wild West romanticism, and the tonal whiplash between these two extremes often left me feeling disoriented and confused. I wish the game had been willing to do away with its traditional mission structure, shooting galleries, and other glaring reminders that I'm playing a video game and fully committed to its storytelling. It felt like Rockstar was worried they couldn't hold their audience's attention without throwing in a shiny action setpiece every half hour.

It's a real shame too, because when RDR's good, it's really good. I think the story has some pacing issues - the New Austin section goes on for a bit too long and, despite serving as necessary worldbuilding, doesn't really move the plot forward much - but the Mexico arc's meditations on power and, of course, the tragedy of the outstanding third act and epilogue are some great storytelling. John is a wonderfully tragic protagonist, and both his ultimate fate and the fact that his son, who he wanted to grow up free of the influences of John's outlaw past, looks like he's going down the exact same path as his father is bleak and serves as a great bookend to the story's message that, for as much as America changes, it refuses to allow its people to change and grow. I do wish that the secondary characters had been given arcs as fleshed out as John's, and some of the side character goofiness (e.g. Seth, West Dickins) created some weird tonal clash, but overall, RDR's story was well-done. I also wish that the game had explored the indigenous side of manifest destiny in more death - the short arc with Nastas was well-done, and it's tough to tell a complete story about the West without analyzing relations between the settlers and indigenous groups - but that's more personal taste than anything.

The world's a bit empty, but looks surprisingly beautiful; I particularly loved Mexico's vistas. I wish there'd been a bit more incentive to explore the world (maybe some of the better guns are hidden in chests, rather than sold in shops? maybe there's more rare animals to hunt?), but I think the open world holds up really well. The presentation in general was really impressive for such an old game, and the music is really great the entire way through.

Gameplay was fine. Nothing to write home about, but the gunplay was functional, and the dead eye system leads to some really cool, satisfying moments. There's a bit of jankiness to John and the horses (e.g. horses often don't come directly to you when called, John moves around a bit stiffly, etc.), but it wasn't ever any worse than a mild annoyance.

Anyway, RDR's a good time overall! It definitely got me more excited and curious to play RDR2 (which, as I understand, tells the story of how Dutch's gang collapsed), especially if the prequel updates some of the jankier, more outdated systems found in the first game.

I really enjoyed this game! Particularly loved the presentation and creative integration of gameplay into the storytelling: while Lewis' section was the clear, oft-discussed high point, the entire game - from the subtitles, to the unique perspective shifts (what other game would let you play as a toddler, an owl, and Cthulhu within an hour?), to the music and art direction - is oozing with love and creativity. "Edith Finch" also does a great job setting its atmosphere and mood. There's a real sadness hanging over the entire game, despite the pastel colors of the Finch residence, and I was quickly drawn into the story and its mysteries. Each family member's story was really engaging - I can't think of any that were bad, and the best ones will definitely stick with me - and I was really digging this game for the first 90% of its runtime.

I'm not sure if the ending entirely worked for me, however. The game did a great job building tension and intrigue around its central mysteries (is the Finch curse real? what happened to Milton?), but didn't really have any satisfying answers or conclusions; the game ends fairly anticlimactically, in my opinion. I'm warming up to the ending a bit now that I've had a bit of time to reflect on it, and I think "Edith Finch" does a good job concluding its central themes and highlighting the damage that Edie's delusions about the curse and intergenerational trauma has done on this family, but I still wish that there had been a bit more oomph behind the game's final minutes. While many of the family members' stories were emotionally affecting and powerful, the ending didn't do a lot for me, and, in my opinion, a lot of other games have done the whole "don't be preoccupied with death, accept it and make the most of your life" thing better (e.g. Outer Wilds, which tackles a nearly identical theme and has one of the most affecting video game endings I've ever seen).

Despite that, I enjoyed my time with "Edith Finch," and I think a lot of the small stories within it - Lewis' daydreams and tragic choice, Gregory's awful death, the tragedy of Edie and Dawn's relationship collapsing due to their different responses to familial trauma - will stick with me. I'm not sure if this game is worth the usual $20 it goes for, but I picked it up for about $5 during the winter sale and would definitely recommend it at that price!

I really enjoyed the first few hours of Arkham Knight, but found myself getting more and more bored as time went on. Like my god, the amount of filler content in this game (that, importantly, you need to complete to get the true ending!) made me want to rip my hair out. I'm really glad we've (somewhat) moved past the era of making everything a bloated open world game.

It wasn't all bad, though! The gameplay was really pretty good. Physical combat was the best and smoothest it's ever been in this series and, despite all the complaints, I thought the Batmobile controlled well, even if Batmobile combat arenas were a bit overused. The game also looks really good for its age, and, even if Gotham City ended up being a bit of a boring world, I appreciated how different each island looked and felt. The presentation values as a whole were quite strong: as per usual, the vocal performances were great, and the OST was fairly memorable and did a lot of the heavy lifting in setting the mood and tone of each scene.

But I ultimately found Knight pretty disappointing. A lot of this is due to the game's story. I found the first act (everything up through the end of the ACE Chemical mission) to be incredibly compelling and exciting: Scarecrow and the Knight are fun villains who're constantly interacting with the plot (fixing a major issue I had with City's medley of antagonists) and the stakes are constantly ramping up; the first act climax at ACE was probably the highest point of this entire trilogy. But then it all goes downhill: the second act is fairly sluggish, with most of our time either being spent in a fairly boring damsel-in-distress plotline (which doesn't even really go anywhere; Barbara's fakeout death was a complete slap in the face as it basically nullified the past several hours of story) or dealing with the horribly dumb Joker disease subplot (which, again, doesn't even go anywhere cause Batman ends up just getting over it). The inclusion of Joker wasn't bad, and I appreciated that the game used him as a way to explore some of Batman's insecurities and fears, but surely there's a more interesting character in Batman besides "he's afraid of letting his friends die"? I don't know, Batman's internal struggle was a fairly substantial piece of the game's plot, but it didn't really go anywhere remotely interesting. The third act is a weird mix of partial climaxes: first we take out the Cloudburst and stop the driving external threat in the game (removing what little stakes were still around), then we have the Arkham Knight fight and reveal (which I was fine with! not sure why everyone gets all upset about the Knight being Jason Todd, even if it was the most obviously telegraphed plot twist ever), and then we have the super anticlimactic ending where Batman locks Joker in his mind palace or whatever and then punches out Scarecrow. For a story that spent the previous 20 hours hyping up the fact that this is Batman's final night, the ending didn't feel overly high stakes or dangerous. My initial reaction to taking down Scarecrow was wondering if that was really it. Super disappointing way to close out the trilogy's story which, despite having a lot of problems, was at least trying to be compelling.

This game also should've just been shorter. There was way too much open world bloat: surely there was no need to have us take out a few dozen militia towers AND militia checkpoints AND chase militia cars AND find another 200 Riddler trophies (jfc the Riddler trophies) AND you get my point. This could be somewhat forgiven if this was all optional content (though I don't think bad content being optional excuses it from being bad), but you need to complete all of this to get the true ending! For the record, I still don't know what the true ending is because I got bored of collecting Riddler trophies and wanted to play the infinitely more interesting Soma instead; I'll get back to it soon.

With that said, some of the side content (particularly the DLC missions) was really good. In the base game, I thought the Manbat and Pyg subplots were really good, but the Freeze (and, to a lesser extent, League of Assassins) DLC missions stole the show. Freeze is definitely one of the my favorite characters from this trilogy, so I'm glad he got a good send-off, and I think the League storyline did a good job resolving their role in the past two games (though I still wish these games cared about Talia as a character and explored the consequences of her death even a bit).

As much as I hate to say it, I found Arkham Knight to be a bit of a slog. If the game was as tight and exciting as its first act, this would've been a really good time, but ultimately, I think it overstayed its welcome. I don't regret playing these games, but honestly didn't love this trilogy as much as I was hoping I would, and I'm definitely ready to move onto something else. Final series ranking is probably City < Knight < Asylum; City was an overall smoother experience than Knight, but Knight had some of the highest highs in the series, which bumps it a bit higher.

I never played the Arkham games back when they first came out and, with the Suicide Squad game coming soon(ish), I figured now would be a good time to visit them and see if they still live up to the hype. My thoughts on Asylum are a bit messy but, overall, I can see why everyone loves this game.

I absolutely agree with the prevailing opinion that Asylum's greatest strength is its atmosphere and strong Metroidvania-esque level design. Arkham Asylum is a very compact game world; there's little wasted space, and every bit of the map - from the long, gloomy hallways in the medical facility to the thunderstorm blowing across the asylum's exterior - is incredibly effective at setting the scene and building tension. The world is dripping with character, which makes it really fun to traverse! In fact, I didn't even mind backtracking to pick up the 200-some collectibles (and, in fact, appreciated the fact that the collectibles encourage the player to look at every corner of the game world). While I'm glad the game didn't overstay its welcome, I wouldn't have minded spending more time in its world, and almost wish there was more side content to dig into.

Combat and gameplay is a bit hit or miss. I loved the predator rooms and, just to compliment the level design one last time, appreciated how many different environmental tools each room gives you. The basic combat foundation is strong - I particularly started to enjoy myself once I realized that Asylum is more of a rhythm game than anything - but can feel a bit barebones and clunky. I'm playing through City right now and think that the more fluid movement system and larger arsenal of combat tools improves the combat experience significantly. Movement, in general, feels really bulky and awkward; I get that Batman's a big guy, but walking around the world with him got frustrating after a while: he didn't respond the way I wanted him to, and moves annoyingly slowly if you're not crouching.

The story was ehhhh. There's some great voice performances - Mark Hamill's Joker, in particularly, sounds like he's having a great time, and there's no one better suited to voice Batman than Kevin Conroy - and the plot moves along at a brisk pace, but clearly exists primarily to shuttle the player from combat arena to iconic villain to combat arena. I think Asylum's a bit of a mess thematically, though, which hurt the experience: the story is primarily centered around the illegal experimentation being performed on the asylum's inmates, and clearly wants to discuss the inhumane ways that incarcerated people are often treated (as seen through the fact that the entire mess is kicked off by Dr. Young's immoral experiments with Titan, the fact that Amadeus Arkham/Sharp are framed as wrong for treating the asylum's inmates violently), but it never really goes anywhere with these ideas? This doesn't even touch on the fact that Batman, the guy who goes out at night and beats up the mentally ill, is exclusively framed heroically, despite absolutely contributing to the problems the game frames as wrong. I'm totally fine if a piece of Batman media - particularly one like this, which is pretty far removed from reality and definitely leans into the goofiness of Batman and many of his nemeses - doesn't want to explore issues of policing, the treatment of the mentally ill, etc., but I feel letdown that the game brought these topics up... and then just kinda ignored them. Lots of missed potential. Outside of this, pretty much the entire cast is one-note, and the ending is really anticlimactic and disappointing.

I also had a lot of issues with the way Asylum portrays its female characters. The entire game feels as if its shot from the male gaze, for lack of a better descriptor: the camera's constantly ogling its skimpily dressed women, and the whole thing feels gross. There are ways to write and frame characters that embrace their sexuality, but this wasn't it.

Other small notes: as many other people have brought up, the boss fights kinda suck. I didn't hate the Titan henchmen fights, but some variety would've been nice (especially because the other boss we do get - Poison Ivy, Titanized Joker - aren't that great). The environmental bosses - Scarecrow and Killer Croc - absolutely rule, though; I thought sneaking through Croc's hideout, in particular, was genuinely tense and frightening: absolutely the peak of the game. I don't really remember any standout pieces from Asylum's OST, but everything fit well and helped build the abovementioned atmosphere.

Overall, I enjoyed my time with Asylum. While I don't think this game is a 10/10 masterpiece, especially because better iterations of the same formula have been released since 2009, I can appreciate how iconic this game has become, and I see why people love it so much.

A really interesting, unique game! I picked this one up because I was craving another Outer Wilds-esque mystery game and, while I don't think it hits the insane highs of the former, I still had a great weekend playing Obra Dinn.

Obra Dinn is largely centered around figuring out what happened aboard the titular abandoned ship. I really enjoyed the central gameplay loop: the nonlinear storytelling effectively builds tension and intrigue, and, due to effective pacing of clues, I always felt like I was making progress and never felt too stumped or frustrated. There's nothing more satisfying than finally being able to put a name to a recurring face due to some obscure environmental detail (piecing together most of the topmen's identities using the different patterns on their socks and shoes was an insanely cool moment), and Obra Dinn has some wonderful reveals, despite it's short length (the early kraken reveal got me instantly hooked, and the first scene where the mermaids attacking the ship was one of the best video game tonal shifts I've seen in a while). I love games that take full advantage of video games' interactivity when telling their stories, and loved the fact that Obra Dinn told its story in a way that couldn't work in any other medium. This is the first mystery/detective game I've ever played that genuinely makes you feel like a deductive genius as you play it.

But with that said, I was let down by the ending. We spend the entire game building towards Chapter 8: why is this specific chapter separated from the rest of the game? What happened in the Obra Dinn's lazarette? It took me around 7-8 hours to solve the rest of the game, and a not-insignificant chunk of that time was spent theorycrafting about this mystery. Maybe my expectations were just too high, but I found the eventual reveals to be fairly boring. There weren't any groundbreaking discoveries that we hadn't more or less pieced together earlier in the game, and this highly anticipated moment ended up just functioning as connective tissue for the far more interesting kraken attack and mutiny. While I don't think the poor ending takes away from how tight and well-told the rest of the game is, it really sucked to end the game on its lowest note.

Most everything outside the story worked really well for me too. I think the minimalist, black and white art style perfectly fits the mood and story and, especially when coupled with the constant creaks and rain, go a long way toward building the Obra Dinn's oppressive, eerie atmosphere. The OST, similarly, really added to the more dramatic memories and was a joy to listen to (with Soldiers of the Sea, Chapter 6's theme, being a standout). There are a few minor quality of life annoyances that got on my nerves as I got further into the game - re-entering memories could be a real pain (especially if you're looking for a memory nestled a few bodies deep a la Chapter 4) and, in general, I wish the process of moving through memories was a bit more streamlined, and I wish the game required you to get more than 3 identities correct before confirming your answers (as this lead to me accidentally confirming a few lucky guesses I would've rather deduced on my own) - but none of this significantly dampened my experience.

As a whole, I really loved Obra Dinn. I think it's a triumph in video game and nonlinear storytelling and a worthy entry in the "games where your progress is based on your personal knowledge of the world" sub-genre.

I had an overall positive experience with FF16, but I also can't help but be disappointed that I didn't love this game as much as I thought I would. Despite having a lot of interesting ideas, I feel like the game never came together in a satisfying way. I've got a lot of thoughts about this game, so here comes my stream of consciousness rambles.

Positives first: FF16 has phenomenal presentation values. Everything looks beautiful, I thought the entire cast gave really strong vocal performances (with Clive's VA being the standout), and I never ran into any of the performance issues other people have been talking about. I really enjoyed the OST as well, but wouldn't have minded a bit more diversity in the boss themes. I also really enjoyed the combat system: once you unlock multiple Eikons, I had a lot of fun mixing and matching different abilities together. The itemization leaves a lot to be desired, but I'm not too upset about the lack of RPG elements, to be honest. The gameplay loop worked for me. I think the big spectacle fights against the other Dominants and more challenging hunts generally did a good job of bringing the best out of the combat system; while a few of the bosses (Titan) went on a bit too long and had a few too many phases and HP, the game absolutely peaks during these moments. A few of my personal standouts include the Typhon, Bahamut, final Barnabas, and final Ultima fights, and if the game was always even nearly as good as these peaks, it'd be the easiest 5/5 of my life.

But the storytelling and character writing ultimately let the game down. This is especially disappointing because there's a lot of genuine promise here: the game opens incredibly strong, I was really into the story through the entire first act (more or less up to the 5 year timeskip), and there's a lot to like about many of the characters. However, the deeper I got into the story, the more the cracks started to show. After the timeskip, the game falls into a loop of run errands around the hideaway -> travel to a new village and help the town ally with busywork -> do a story mission and Eikon fight -> repeat... and only the third part of that loop is actually fun. These pacing issues also bleed over into the side quests; while I enjoyed these more than most people seemed to (the moment-to-moment gameplay for the side quests wasn't the most exciting thing, but I enjoyed the little character moments and worldbuilding they gave us), the game has an awful habit of slowing to a crawl by forcing you to complete side quests to progress (if I have to collect another ship part for Mid, I will lose my mind) or dumping a bunch of side quests onto the map right as the tension should be increasing (lost my mind when they gave us literally a dozen new quests right before the final battle). There's a really great 20-30 hour game in here if you just chain together the story missions with minimal connective gameplay in between, but as it is, the story is just filled with busywork and fetch quests.

I was also disappointed by most of the character writing. I found Clive to be pretty likable and I liked a lot of the ideas his arc revolved around, but he's not given anything interesting to do as a character after coming to terms with his role in Joshua's "death" (i.e. the 25% mark of the story). The game tries to shoehorn in some moments where characters beg Clive to stop being so self-sacrificial near the end, but none of this is really developed or explored, so it didn't do much for me. Clive could've worked (though I honestly think the story works better with Cid - or someone like him with a closer connection with many of the antagonists - as the protagonist), but the script needed to give him more to do. Maybe he could've been challenged more on his choice to destroy the Mothercrystals? Maybe we could've explored his transformation from first act Clive to Cid rather than pushing all that development into a timeskip? Enough has been written about how terribly this game treats Jill, so I don't have much to add, but it's atrocious that the character with the second most screentime is given as little to do as she is. Genuinely cannot think of a secondary protagonist done as dirty by the writers as she is. Like surely she has more value to the plot than just pining for Clive and silently standing around in the background of every scene? I liked Joshua well enough, but, while he's given more lines and presence, I think he suffers from the same issue as Jill: the script doesn't give him anything overly meaningful to do. We spend most of the first two acts building intrigue around his mission and research into Ultima, but none of it really amounts to anything: all the big Ultima reveals get dropped by Ultima himself during the Stonhyrr mission. The ending clearly wants us to feel something for Joshua, but it fell flat to me because he hadn't really done anything since the opening hours.

I liked a lot of the secondary allies more: Dion is by and away the best character in the story and deserved more screentime, Cid adds some much-needed charisma to the main cast before he dies, and a lot of the hideaway's residents (Gav, Mid, Byron, etc.) are likable and fun. The villains are a different story: everyone is either killed before they can really develop into anything interesting (Benedikta, Hugo, Anabella) or end up being complete nothing characters (Barnabas, Ultima). So many plot threads surrounding the villains are set up but ultimately go nowhere: the Sanbreque plot with Anabella is the worst example of this (despite being set up as a central antagonist and the reason for most of Clive's suffering, she doesn't really do much of note and leaves no impact on the overall plot), but it also hurts the Waloed plot (Barnabas' introduction near the start of the game sets him up as a Dominant supremacist, which could be interesting and help round out the game's otherwise surface level exploration of slavery and oppression, and I was really disappointed when all that promise was dropped to make him Ultima's puppet). While I suppose the central Ultima conflict fits with the story's emphasis on fighting for freedom from oppressive systems, I found him to be a fairly generic JRPG villain (something something "free will is bad" something something "obey me because I created you") and couldn't really get invested in him. I know that killing god is a Final Fantasy trope, but surely he could've been a bit more inspired.

FF16's trying to say a lot and commentate on a lot of big issues - magic and the Blight are clearly a metaphor for climate change and our over-reliance on fossil fuels, a lot of time is spent exploring the Bearers' plight and the horrific outcomes of societal prejudice, there's a surprisingly radical throughline discussing the necessity of violence against oppression, etc. - but, ultimately, doesn't say anything interesting or new (and, in the case of slavery, ends up contradicting itself by attempting to paint Rosaria - a nation which upholds the enslavement of Bearers - as superior because the royal family was "nicer" to those they enslaved and giving Clive - a man who spends nearly half his life enslaved, and should be intimately familiar with the atrocities that come with that experience - a strange mini-arc where he is seemingly surprised to learn about the horrors of slavery). There's so, so much interesting and important content to explore with the thematic concepts FF16 wanted to introduce, and I don't think this story did its ideas justice. While I'm not expecting a dissertation, I really think the story would've benefited from discussing some of the more subtle outcomes of oppression against minority groups or drawing more attention to the really bad consequences of Clive destroying the Mothercrystals.

Close all this off with an ending that, while compelling and spectacular in a vacuum, felt wholly undeserved after the previous 50 hours. FF16 wants to have a cathartic, satisfying climax but, once I looked past the hype as hell final boss fight and music, it all just felt empty, flimsy, and undeserved; the heart that was needed to make the ending truly work just wasn't there. I think this is also an effective microcosm of the story as a whole; I won't pretend there aren't great moments or that I didn't frequently get swept up by the flashing colors, swelling score, and spectacular bosses, but the game just feels a bit hollow. I really, really wanted to fall in love with this story, but ultimately couldn't look past the severe structural issues, disrespectful character writing, and general lack of heart.

I had a few other issues that didn't really fit above: despite the world looking absolutely beautiful, the exploration is super lame (there's absolutely no point to looking around at the world because all you'll find are common crafting materials that you already have 2000 of or weapons that are worse than what you're already carrying) and I wish the enemy variety had been better. Running around the world made me wish I was playing Xenoblade again.

But with all that said, I still put 70 hours into this game, will probably get around to doing a Final Fantasy mode playthrough at some point, and definitely felt something when the game ended and the credits rolled, so I certainly wouldn't say I had a bad time. Reading back over all this, I realize my review seems pretty negative, and I went back and forth between 3 and 3.5 stars for quite some time, but there's a lot of promise and a lot of good. FF16 was just so close to being something great, and I'm just let down that the writers weren't able to pull everything together in an interesting, satisfying way.