Reviews

As a huge fan of the series, I can say that Kingdom Hearts has always kind of been a mixed bag. The best moments of playing a Kingdom Hearts game are usually spent either in combat with a well-designed and intimidating boss or getting swept away in a genuinely touching moment with your favorite Disney characters. This game provides a fair amount of both, but the overall package is probably the least appealing of either of the mainline games and probably Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance as well. 

Gameplay: By game's end I was more and more comfortable with balancing all of the new features -- as many reviewers have noted there are a LOT and some of them are a lot more fun than others, but that's not the main problem. So Sora starts the game roughly the equivalent of a LV20 or LV30 in the original two titles. I'm sure this was to try and avoid the "player reset" problem typical in RPG sequels, but how they try and compensate creates a huge problem. In order to compensate for how strong you are from the get-go, the dev's solution is to just throw a far greater number of enemies at you and give them extra health. This results in long stretches of the early game where the combat is just way too easy and waaaaaay overlong. Wave after wave of enemies and they barely leave a scratch. At about the halfway point the scaling felt like it was starting to even out and there was greater challenge/reward in combat, but it was a major drag getting there. This is undoubtedly the Kingdom Hearts game I died the least in. I can't tell if I love or hate that the end of the game is like 20 boss fights back-to-back? I did it all in one sitting so I guess that's good.

Story: Within the first hour or so after putting that disk in, you know what you're in for. It is very sloppily told. I liked how the Disney worlds were incorporated more actively in the main story. At times the dialogue feels a bit snappier and down-to-earth than previous games, at other times it feels like placeholder dialogue that was vom-ed out when the head writer entered the room and yelled "HURRY UP AND FINISH THE GAME!" The game does what it promises to do by bringing all the plot threads from all the other games together, but does so in the absolute most literal sense and that's it. There were some crowd-pleasing moments that satisfied my inner fanboy. There were moments I wished got more attention. Kairi is suuuuuuuper underserved in this. 

Overall, it is was definitely a good deal more fun than it wasn't, and as I got further in the game I got more and more sucked in as the pieces started working better together. As a fan, the ending was fine. I can see myself following the series into the future, but I would need to see a lot of change. And for the record, FFXV stuck the landing waaaay better.

I picked up Deus Ex recently to fill the emptiness that waiting for Cyberpunk 2077 has given me. I played the original and loved it but only played a bit of Human Revolution as i got it towards the end of the 360 life cycle. The game did a great job of explaining the story so far with a pretty lengthy cutscene and introduced all the main characters.

Early on in my playthrough I started out non lethal and actually carried this out through the entire game, it was really enjoyable actually playing through a game without killing a single enemy. Stealth in this game is handled great, the augments are fun to use and it all works really well together. I have heard the gun combat is a bit ropey but I cannot comment as I didn't use it even once. 

The world, characters and narrative is where Mankind Divided really shines for me. I am a huge sucker for sci fi, dystopia and cyberpunk stuff so right off the bat I was hooked. The storyline is great and the detail in the side quests and how they run alongside the main missions and get more and more detailed as you progress is excellent. Your choices definitely feel like they impact the world around you. However, I would liked the world to a bit more fleshed out with a bit more to do. Prague is a great setting and feels grimy and seedy but I just wish you got to interact with more of it. 

My only other fault is I felt the last mission was a bit rushed and it kind of just ended out of nowhere. However, the complaints are minor and I thoroughly enjoyed this game and am excited to go back and replay Human Revolution. 

I don't think making a follow up to one of the best games ever made is an easy task, not mentioning making a follow up in a very limited machine as the Nintendo DS is, but Hunters makes you miss a lot to play Metroid Prime on Game Cube.

There's a lot to not like and maybe hate in hunters and so little to like, so let's start with the good; the story is cool and interesting, the thing about the hunters, hunt or be hunted is an amazing idea but it just falls so short. Instead, you have a shooting gallery with annoying and super fast targets that also have homing attacks, so you have to make predictions of their random patterns to hit them, maybe it's fun the first time but not the 10th one. Speaking of repeating things, you will do that a lot of times, the thing goes like this; you arrive into one planet, clear some gallery rooms, encounter a hunter, found 3 scattered items in the planet (this is the most annoying part, since requires bad designed backtracking), go to the boss room and kill it, finally escape the planet, not because its exploding or anything but because is some kind of protocol, so you have to rush to your ship before time expires or you have to repeat the process from the start. After that, you have to repeat the process twice on each planet (there are four of them). If the thing was fun I wouldn't have to write this but it feels more like a chore, and the fact that the controls aren't great and that even almost hurt your hands doesn't help one bit.

The level design and environmental design are also awful, long gone are the great levels of Prime or Super, instead you have this gray and generic sci-levels that feels so plain, also as I mentioned, the controls are not good but that didn't stop the developers to add platforming sections, you even can insta-die if you fall, very bold of them.

There are two endings in this game, but I rushed to the first one because the last boss fight is as tedious and annoying as the others (you have to kill some red targets in order to make appear the real target then shoot it and hope that you make some damage before randomly shields itself again, sometimes you can hit it like 1/4 of its HP and other times like 1/10 no kidding, its hard because is not challenging but because is so annoying), I really love Metroid but this game is not worth it, it's annoying, boring, unpolished and almost unfinished, I won't recommend it even to Metroid fans because it's just a Troy horse seriously, hopefully, a good developer takes some of the ideas used in this game and apply them to a better product.

Batman Arkham Origins is a good Batman game, but a terrible Batman: Arkham game. Strip away all of the trappings and you have a game that is trying desperately to copy and ride on the coat tails of one of the best entries in the Batman: Arkham games: (and in my eyes one of the best comic book video games ever made) Batman: Arkham City. The game is set on Christmas Eve five years before the events in Arkham Asylum. Batman has only been active for two years and has already upset the criminal element in the city. In response to this, Black Mask puts a bounty on Batman’s head attracting the attention of nine assassins. Batman must survive the night and stop the reign of terror that the assassins have decided to unleash on Gotham to lure him out and kill him. This sounds like a simple premise, but the game quickly decides to go “all out” and doesn’t try to do anything different with the established Arkham formula. The story shines when Corey May (Assassin’s Creed) and the other writers get creative and focus on the game. But when they decide to try and explain things that occur in future games….well they break canon…..seriously….Arkham Origins diminishes if not outright contradicts the story in Arkham Asylum on so many levels. The dialogue is good, and there is a progression to the game, but the game also sloppily sidelines many of the main players in the game and either confine them to cameos (the Penguin), side missions (Deadshot, Shiva, and others), or outright forgets about them until the end of the game (Firefly). The game also attempts to depict the first time many of these characters interact with Batman and each other. Some work (Barbara Gordon, Jim Gordon) some don’t (the Joker, Bane, and others). The game shoe horns the Joker into the game and does absolutely nothing with him of significance. Bane is clearly inspired by his depiction in The Dark Knight Rises, which isn’t bad, but is so uncreative to me. And what is done with the character in the game is outright pathetic, pandering petulant writing. There are some emotional beats that just don’t stick. If the game would have tried to stay within its means and tell an authentic Batman story first instead of trying desperately to tie everything into the Arkhamverse then maybe the game would be more enjoyable. The side missions are okay, but there are too many objectives in them and not enough satisfying payoffs (the Enigma mission is best to be skipped…the end result simply isn’t worth it).There is also a scene that hints at a future game not necessarily involving Batman that will probably never see the light of day. The voice acting is okay. Nolan North returns as the Penguin. Roger Craig Smith (Ezio Auditore) voices Bruce Wayne/Batman and does a good job. He’s no Kevin Conroy, but he’s not bad. Many veteran voice actors fill out the cast rather well. Troy Baker delivers an uninspired, kind of pathetic, impression of Mark Hamill’s Joker. Sorry, Baker did nothing with this role and as I suggested….the Joker was not needed in the film. Now I would have thoroughly enjoyed the game if the Red Hood (the Joker before his fall into the chemicals) was in the game and you witness his fall into the chemicals and the ending of the game hints at the Joker to come. The game didn’t use that distance to hint and set up these relationships that emerged in future games. No, it just hit the ground running and sloppily tried to explain parts of the Arkham universe that didn’t necessarily need to be explained. The graphics are very dated to 2013. There is a bland dullness to textures and the environment that lacks that gothic unique design that Rocksteady put into their games. I will praise the Christmas setting and what is done with it aesthetically, musically and otherwise. But like most of the game, it is very uninspired in regard to graphics and design. Character designs are kind of dull and are taken from other things besides the art department being creative. Batman’s costume is a hodgepodge of various influences from the Nolan Batman films to the New 52 costume. I don’t have an issue with it….but seriously…..be creative. Cutscene graphics are good, however I experienced a lot of lag and desynchronized sound both when I played the hard copy of this game and when I played it on Playstation Now (it was actually better to play the game on Playstation Now, and I know the difference between buffering or lagging connection to the content on Playstation Now and lagging sound that is in the game itself). I do remember that this game was/is plagued with bugs so there is that to acknowledge. Lastly, the gameplay is so dull and routine that it’s both frustrating and familiar. Batman is too agile for his antics and its difficult to see this Batman doing the things he does and seeing Batman being more contained in Arkham Asylum. The gadgets and abilities that Batman does in this game seem to contradict with the other entries in the franchise and once again, it seems like a retooled, repurposed, unimaginative version of Arkham City.Ultimately Arkham Origins is a competent game, but it is so offbrand and outright insulting to the Arkham series that it diminishes the fantastic games that Rocksteady made. I know that this game is considered to be canon….but I just ignore it.
Rating: 3/5

Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is chronologically the first game in the rebooted Wolfenstein series from Machine Games. Machine Games cobbled together elements from previous entries but overall the story is unique and original to this new series. The year is 1946, in a final attempt to bring down the Nazi war machine, William “B.J.” Blazkowicz and Agent One are tasked with retrieving documents that give the weak and desperate Allied Forces a chance to end the Nazi war efforts by destroying a secret Nazi weapons compound and killing a leading Nazi figure (General Wilhelm “Deathshead” Strasse). To find these documents, BJ has to acquire them from Nazi commander and archaeologist Helga Von Schabbs. To do this BJ must infiltrate Von Schabbs’s ancestral home (Castle Wolfenstein) and put an end to her own devious plans. The game combines elements of Wolfenstein 3D and Return to Castle Wolfenstein into one game. So the events in those games are largely considered to be non canon now. The rebooted Wolfenstein series from Machine Games has quickly become one of my favorite shooters. In fact, I have neglected most of the usual annual first person shooters (Call of Duty) because this series is infinitely better in my opinion. The game is an alternate history series (which I am also a big fan of) and combines a lot of elements from previous entries in the series ( a cable car set piece) and even pulls inspiration and themes and tone from Inglourious Basterds and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Machine Games seems to focus more on the science fiction elements and not embrace the more occultic elements that have been a part of the franchise. This game, however, toys around with more of the possibly occultic elements of the series, but kind of like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, magic is just a form of science that we don’t understand. The gameplay is similar to The New Order, but some of the technology is lacking and is consistent with the advanced 1946 setting and not the 1960 setting of The New Order. The guns and gunplay is fantastic. The setting and set pieces are fun and the game encourages diversity in how the player goes about the areas. The story is a little bare bones and I would prefer that the story would have been more prominent, but this game is still so much fun.
Rating: 4.5/5

Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption 2 is a colossal disappointment, and surely not a masterpiece. “Red Dead Redemption 2 is a masterpiece. 10/10…” wrote just about every video game critic on the internet. What? Has everyone been brainwashed? With all of the extremely high critical acclaim, it was natural for me to go into Rockstar’s RDR2 with extremely high expectations. What I was met with was an aggravating, boring, mess of a sequel. This is what everyone has been freaking out about? Are you kidding? What has the gaming community’s taste gone to? I cannot properly judge the entire game because I have not had the time to complete it yet, but I’ve already spent a great deal of time with its tedious introduction. The following criticisms are based off of what I’ve picked up in the first two chapters alone.

Let’s start by saying this: Red Dead Redemption 2 is great… for an interactive movie. That’s what a large portion of this game feels like: a cinematic experience over a gaming experience. Rockstar decided to make RDR2 a prequel to the first game. The first Red Dead Redemption didn’t involve much plot. You are given the protagonist, John Marston, and introduced to the hunted antagonist, Bill Williamson. It gets a little more complicated later, but it was generally simple. RDR2 heavily involves its innumerable characters, especially at the beginning of the game. The first chapter is nothing short of a long, dragging, no-fun zone.

There’s about five minutes of legitimate gameplay in the first mission. If you decide to watch the uninteresting cutscenes, then a great deal of time is spent watching them, and then riding your horse. Then the game gives you about 5-10 minutes of what would be considered fun: taking down enemies. Then it is time to loot and travel back to your camp again to repeat the same process. This introduction leaves a bad first impression that doesn’t improve much.

Back to the first point: RDR2 is fundamentally an interactive movie. Rockstar does not care much about the player at all. Rockstar tries to make you care about their characters. Character development and an interesting plot are great when you’re watching a movie or TV show, or reading a book, but Rockstar does not seem to understand that this is a video game. A player picks up their controller to have complete agency over their character. RDR2 has barely any, and it is so tedious with its brief animations, constant cutscenes, conversing NPCs (non-playable characters), and method of traveling that playing it feels more like a movie you have to press a button to once a minute to keep it running.

The purpose of spending lengthy amounts of time on your horse is to get a sense of the map, and to admire the beauty of the game along with its abundant amount of detail that Rockstar littered throughout it. This is something many critics and fans have been praising emphatically: the detail. Detail is enjoyable, but much of it serves no purpose other than just gazing at it. It’s not wrong for a game to look beautiful, but players still misunderstand that Rockstar failed to create an engaging experience by combining beauty and detail with enjoyable gameplay (the fact that the "cinematic camera" exists doesn't help). The characters, detail, and gameplay are all incoherent with one another in RDR2.

Another factor that bruised Rockstar was realism. This explains every single brief animation and unnecessary task. At one point in the 2nd chapter, a message pops up on the screen telling the player that they should shave their character’s beard because it’s getting too long. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what video games have come to, this is what everyone is praising. Red Dead Redemption 2, the video game meant to be watched, the video game meant to mimic our boring lives.

RDR2 also disappoints in comparison to its predecessor in some ways. The controls are much more restrained and harder to handle than the loose, breezy controls of the first one, as well as the unnecessary addition of convoluted inventories for your items and practically useless horse commodities. Simple equals better, Rockstar.

Rockstar spent so much time polishing detail, writing characters, and worrying about realism that they forgot to make a fun gaming experience. Rockstar is not the only game developer who includes these elements in their games, but Rockstar stressed them so much in this game that they failed at making it fun to play. Again, I have not played it the entire way through, nor is the whole game like this, but it did not leave me with a good first impression. I only hope that the game improves, and that I have the patience to push through the tedious sections to complete it. And keep in mind that this is just my opinion. I am clearly in a really small minority.