Been playing more videogames with everything closed this spring/summer...
Titles Covered: XenoBlade Chronicles, Spore, KOTOR II, Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed 2, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Lost Planet, Amnesia: The Dark Descent.
XenoBlade Chronicles (*****)
This one was worth the wait.
"XenoBlade" became big news in the videogame world several years ago. The massive RPG was set as a spiritual successor to the acclaimed “Xeno” metaseries, and was to release on the Nintendo Wii, a system that didn’t really have another big RPG like this. However, Nintendo originally refused to sell the game in the United States, despite having already translated it into English for the European release. After a massive fan campaign, Nintendo relented, selling a limited number of copies directly through their website. I promptly grabbed one as a birthday present to myself.
I didn’t finish the game until 8 years later.
Why? Well, I found that the text in the game is small and hard to read on a normal 25-inch TV. I’d been able to ignore this in other games, but as you have to be able to read the character sheets and equipment descriptions to play an RPG. Small text in console games had been a continual annoyance for me. It felt like the game designers were expecting us all to run out and buy big expensive HD TVs. This is an especially illogical requirement for the Nintendo Wii, which only does standard definition output (“enhanced” definition was BS). I considered selling the game, but instead set it aside until I had a bigger screen.
I kind of forgot about Xenoblade until recently, when I heard Switch gamers talking about the Definitive Edition. Oh, I guess I should go back and play that tiny-text game on the projector…
First impressions were a bit rough. The graphics have not aged well particularly well. The landscapes look beautiful, but the character textures are pretty muddy. At first, I thought it was a problem with my new projector (on which AV input is an afterthought), but contemporary reviews mentioned the same thing.
And yet, in spite of all that… Xenoblade Chronicles is easily one of the best JRPG’s ever, in the same league as Final Fantasy VI, Chronotrigger, and Skies of Arcadia. It’s that good.
First of all, Xenoblade is a deft combination of open-world and story-focused RPG designs. The worlds are huge and vast and fun to explore. To encourage exploration, the game has over 400 side quests that can be completed at your own pace. Many of these side quests involve fighting a certain number of monsters or collecting a certain number of materials, which is the game’s way of encouraging “random” encounters. Otherwise, only hostile enemies or high-level carnivores attack you. This mechanic basically fixes the traditional random encounter system that JRPG’s have used for decades. If you keep up with most of the side quests, there is no need to grind unless you want to beat all the optional endgame stuff (which made me so over-leveled that I flattened the final boss in less than a minute).
Supporting this layout is a robust and action-packed combat system. The combat is a hybrid system that’s not quite action-based, but not quite turn-based either. You pick one character to move in real time, but regular attacks are automatic. You then can queue up special moves called “Arts” that all have recharge times to prevent over-use. It’s a creative and surprisingly elegant system, and the first of its type that I’ve found completely satisfying. I think this is what Final Fantasy XII and Ni No Kuni were striving for, and didn’t quite achieve.
Compare to previous Xeno games, the amount of story material is substantially less. That’s not a bad thing; I thought Xenosaga Episode I went way overboard with long story scenes. The characters and story in Xenoblade are well-developed, featuring very distinct personalities and extremely creative worldbuilding. There’s a lot going on, but the pacing is established well. It keeps you focused on a long succession of immediate threats throughout the 70-100 hours playtime, until you finally engage the ultimate villain the final act (fortunately, the game has enough time after this shift for it to matter). The only complaint I have is that the dialogue is often redundant, and the ending left a few loose threads, mostly concerning the villains’ motivations.
Xenoblade is a blast. It’s one of the biggest and most enthralling JRPG’s that I’ve played, and one of very few video games that earns a 70-100 hour play time.
Spore (** and a half)
What went wrong with Spore?
This is a question that has spawned many think pieces across the Internet. Back in 2005, famed game designer Will Wright introduced a revolutionary new concept for an “evolving” game that would track the development of life from single-cell organism to intelligent spacefaring race. I remember watching a later trailer (in EA’s 360 theater at E3) and being blown away.
When the game was released in 2008, nobody seemed blown away. Nobody hated Spore, but few seemed to love it. Was the game released too late? Was it undercut by EA’s use of controversial DRM? Yes, and yes, but I think all would have been forgiven if the game had been truly amazing. Instead… it turned out OK. Just OK. Not much better than OK.
Spore is essentially 5 games in one. The first stage is a simple minigame similar to flOw (which itself was literally a class project). Oddly enough, the cell stage best encapsulates the idea of evolution and continual growth. New features for your creature all feel consequential, and it’s rather fascinating to watch the surrounding world gradually “shrink” by powers of ten as your creature gets bigger and bigger. The next 3 stages are simple action/RTS games. They’re OK, but the vast customization options eventually feel unneeded, and the gameplay is pretty straightforward. I mostly played the social/religious track, which becomes a game of “Simon Says” for stages 2 and 3. For stage 4, religious victory just means your gunboats fire off religious music instead of bullets… but it pretty much works the same way. None of this is bad, but it’s basically a series of amusing minigames with cute art design and incredible customization. There’re not tons of gameplay depth, and some of the gameplay features that do exist seem superfluous (stealth/jumping in Creature phase, pets in Tribal phase, and city happiness in Civ phase).
The Space phase is the deepest phase, but it’s also not that much fun. First of all, the Space phase doesn’t feel connected to the themes of the previous game modes. Each previous stage had you controlling something progressively larger (cell->organism->tribe->civ), but the space stage suddenly gives you a lone captain flying around in a single ship. At least the star map is interesting, and it is kind of cool to zoom all the way from galaxy view down to the planet surfaces. But once you get to the surface, it’s a repetitive collection of little missions. Shoot this, scan that, pick up a cow on one planet and take it to another. I guess there’s eventually a terraforming engine, but I started losing patience (and I never really liked SimEarth to begin with). Part of the problem is that there’s no real-world example of a space empire, so the quasi-realism and evolutionary themes of the earlier stages give way to an underdeveloped Star Trek simulator. Perhaps the game should have focused more on a proper civilization phase, and left the Space phase as an amusing epilogue.
Spore isn’t awful but it definitely was a big disappointment. It looked amazing, but the game is more interesting as a concept than as an actual game. Something is wrong when the simplistic cell stage is the most entertaining part.
Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (****)
A long time ago, NOT in a galaxy far away, Bioware released a videogame based on the Star Wars tabletop role-playing game. “Knights of the Old Republic” (KOTOR) won acclaim for its deep combat, moral choice system, interesting quests, plot twists, and setting. Though set long before the events of the movies, it’s not really a “prequel” in a meaningful sense. Nothing in the game sets up the events in the movies, nor is there any apparent difference in the technology level. Instead the “Old Republic” setting is used to create sort of a Star Wars alternate universe, in which the Sith are a prominent military faction (with mostly regular soldiers), and nobody has ever heard of Skywalkers, Empires, or Death Stars. Oddly enough… it works.
The sequel starts off a bit on the wrong foot. After a prologue chapter, there’s a very long segment on a deserted space station filled with malfunctioning robots. It feels like System Shock without the fear factor and clever level design. But hang in there… once you get to your first real planet, the game starts getting interesting. By the end of the game, I was convinced that KOTOR 2 had surpassed the original. The plot is deeper, the characters are more interesting (An evil wookie who’s out for blood? That’s terrifying!), and the bad guys are more original.
KOTOR 2 was also designed as a subversion of the Star Wars universe, questioning whether the Jedi were ever really the good guys, and if the Force has “light” or “dark” sides at all. Maybe the Force is really more like gravity or magnetism: a physical phenomenon with no morality. This questioning of the Star Wars doctrine actually works remarkably well, in contrast to recent efforts in the movie franchise. The moral dilemmas ring true. Especially living through times when hard choices must be made, the game constantly made me think “Well, dang, I might be a Sith!”
Both KOTOR games are big winners, but KOTOR 2 really brought it home for me. The plot is interesting, the role-playing elements are great, and the interface is crisp and clean. Maybe someday we’ll get more Star Wars games like this?
Assassin’s Creed (***)
Back in 2006, I attended E3 (a gaming convention) and waited in a long line to meet the authors of the webcomic “Penny Arcade.” While stuck in line, Ubisoft had a large screen that repeatedly showed a trailer for “Assassin’s Creed.” By the time I got out of that line, I was pretty sick of it. When the game came out a year later, the critical response was mixed, and most people agreed that it wasn’t that great. Oh well… so much for that.
But then, a funny thing happened on the way to Jerusalem… Assassin’s Creed became a HUGE franchise, with sequels coming out left and right. People seemed surprised that I hadn’t played it. Was I supposed to play it? I thought it was bad! I eventually picked up a cheap copy of the original, and only just now got around to completing the game, which has been out for almost 13 years.
Is it good? Is it bad? It’s pretty good. Assassin’s Creed is ambitious, creative, unique, and visually stunning. It’s also repetitive and badly designed.
Let’s start with the good. Assassin’s Creed has great core gameplay. The free-running controls are fun and easy to pick up, as are the climbing challenges, which ask you to plot your path like a rock-climber. The idea of “parkouring” your way through an open city while trying to escape an army of guards is really cool. The combat is not as strong as the parkour and climbing aspects, but it does offer a lot of options and generally works. The stealth gameplay also offers interesting options for keeping a low profile. Also, the central historical-fiction premise of the game is quite interesting. You get to explore a richly detailed version of the medieval Holy Land, and fight various minor historical figures (though in real life most of them died in battle). The setting looks beautiful and believable.
As for the bad aspects, Assassin’s Creed presents a massive and amazing world to explore, but doesn’t have enough ideas to fill it. When I visited my first city, I was accosted by a beggar woman who followed me around and tried to block my path. “Ha! What an interesting interaction!” I thought, momentarily impressed by the level of detail in this virtual world. But then it happens again, and again, and again. Every few minutes, beggar women are harassing you, because every city has the same 10 people copy-pasted over and over again. Every city has the same missions and side quests. One of the repeated side quests asks you to pick a fight against many soldiers (you seriously do this dozens of times), which seems completely out of step with the sneaky theme of the rest of the game.
Variety comes from the 9 main assassination missions, but even these could have used more effort. Some of the fortresses are fun to sneak into, but many missions just involve walking to a spot on the map and fighting the bad guy. It’s too hard to sneak in quietly, and too easy to just fight your way through everyone. Moreover, the 6 pieces of information you acquire in the lead-up are often irrelevant or hard to put into practice.
Assassin’s Creed is good enough, but could have been a lot better. Actually, it did get better, both in the sequels and when it was re-skinned and called “Batman: Arkham Asylum.” I recommend playing Assassin’s Creed in order to become acquainted with the series, but if you find it a drag… just skip on to Assassins Creed II.
Assassins Creed II (****)
Holy crap. This is how you bounce back from a pretty-good-but-flawed inaugural entry and loudly announce “Hey guys! We fixed everything!”
Altair was kind of boring? He’s replaced by a new guy who actually has a family and a personality. Animus interludes broke the pacing? Cut down to two in the entire game. Beggars and lunatics were frickin’ annoying? Replaced with funnier minstrels that you can shove away or throw coins at. Constantly tiptoeing around guards got a little tiresome? There’s a new “notoriety” system for keeping them out of your business. The theme-breaking random fights are cut entirely, and the old repetitive missions are relegated to side quests. The rest of the game consists of unique story-driven chapters. Oh, there’s also “Tomb Raider” style dungeons, a home base that you can improve, an economic system, and collectibles that feel relevant since all of them improve your economy.
On top of that, the setting is a lot better. Climbing around the Holy Land got a little monotonous because most of the towers had the same design. The Italian Renaissance gives you much more interesting and memorable architecture to scale. Having visited Italy in real life, it was a fun experience getting to virtually visit cities that I’ve actually walked around… but in a different time period with super-climbing abilities. The 4 different cities are very distinct, and ability to meet recognizable historical figures such as Leonardo Da Vinci is a lot of fun. The game adheres to history closer than the first game. After completing a chapter, I’d often read up on the real events. I was usually more surprised by what was actually real, rather than what was made up.
Flaws? Well, the plot gets pretty long and convoluted. I’m still not sure how I feel about the modern-day aspect of the plot, in which very little happens. Also, the timeline is a bit contrived, due to the need to cover 20+ years of historical events. Nobody convincing ages or moves on with life. Ezio’s mom and sister basically sit in place for decades. Finally, the game was released slightly unfinished, as 2 chapters had to be added as DLC (though they are now included in the “Ezio Trilogy” pack), and the closure of one prominent arc was inserted into the sequel.
Aside from those nitpicks, Assassins Creed II is pretty awesome.
Assassins Creed II.5: Brotherhood (**** and a half)
“Brotherhood” is a direct continuation of Assassin’s Creed II, with very similar game mechanics. It’s also an incremental improvement, with better scenario design, more exciting “set-piece” moments, and smoother graphics. I’ve heard many critics name it the best game in the series, which I would believe. The “tomb raider” segments alone are fabulous and inventive.
Brotherhood is mostly a continuation of the previous game, just more exciting. The plot roughly follows Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Machiavelli himself is the central “mission giver,” and Cesare Borgia is the main villain. The game just centers on Rome this time, though it doesn’t feel smaller than the previous game. There’s also a battle for control of the city, which involves capturing enemy strongholds, building up the economy of the area, and recruiting an army of rebels.
Otherwise, I don’t have much to say about this one that I didn’t already say about the others. It’s a great continuation with a great setting and bigger battles.
Assassins Creed II.6: Revelations (*** and a half)
In contrast to “Brotherhood,” “Revelations” is sometimes dismissed as the worst of the series. It’s not. It’s definitely better than the original game, and retains most of the fun game mechanics that made the other sections of the “Ezio Trilogy” so compelling. It is the worst of the trilogy, though.
Why? It might be a question of setting. Constantinople just didn’t stand out to me the same way that Renaissance Italy did. It all looks the same, without clear districts or changes in scenery. It also doesn’t help that I’m less familiar with the Byzantines and Ottomans. There’re more obvious videogame contrivances. You literally spend the whole game finding the secret maps to get the secret keys to open the big vault at the end that had… something from Altair, I think? It felt like a lot of buildup to a gigantic “To be Continued” message.
The gameplay changes are a mix of good and bad. There’s a tower defense minigame is pretty “meh,” and shifts from easy to near-impossible towards the end. The grenades are a better inclusion; they are pretty useful, and have a lot of customization options. In fact, there are too many customization options. I felt like I was missing a lot of content by not exploring more options for bomb-making, but there wasn’t a strong reason to do so. Smoke bombs are really all you need. The best inclusion is the “hookblade,” which does make climbing a little faster and enables you to zipline.
Compared to the original, this is a great continuation. Compared to “Brotherhood,” it’s a step down. Take that for what it’s worth.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (***)
The 7th generation of videogame systems got off to kind of a funny start. It officially started in late 2005 with the release of the Xbox360, but didn’t really have anything worth getting excited about until a year later, when the Wii and PS3 were released and the Xbox360 was finally getting some really big, exclusive games. One of these games was Lost Planet, a 3rd person shooter set on a snowy planet. You could fight on-foot, but also pilot massive mechs (Huh…). Does it still hold up over a decade later?
Well, I enjoyed it more than Gears of War.
Lost Planet is solid, and has a few interesting gameplay features. The most interesting features relate to the snowy setting. Rather than focusing on a traditional health bar, the game has “thermal energy” which continually depletes and most be recharged by killing aliens and collecting their energy. That’s a pretty cool mechanic, and it fits in well with the themes and visuals of the desolate planet.
Otherwise, the game is a pretty standard 3rd-person shooter, except with the switch from on-foot to mech. It’s a cool idea, but the mechs are somehow less fun than they look. Their movements are clunky and so the “boss” battles feel like mostly luck (especially the final battle). Also, the VS suits feel oddly underpowered. I guess this was done in the name of balance, but it takes something away from the core concept.
On the whole, Lost Planet is pretty good. The gameplay is solid and the setting is pretty compelling. However, the story is pretty awful, so don’t get it for anything other than the shoot-em-up fun.
The Evil Within (****)
I already reviewed this one, but replayed it to get in the Halloween spirit and… Man this game is still so scary! And still so good! And the DLC missions are great too, despite having very different gameplay. If I ever get around to a PS4/5, I may need to pick up the sequel.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent (***)
I recently participated in two escape rooms, and found them to be interesting experiences, like an adventure game translated to real life. Amnesia feels a lot like an escape room, specifically the fact that you spend most the game ransacking areas looking for small hidden objects. What are you looking for? In addition to the “key” items that help you progress through the game, you also need to stockpile lantern oil and tinderboxes, as much of the game’s levels are very dark. Besides the fact that you can’t really navigate in darkness, the character slowly goes insane in the dark, blurring your vision more so and making movement more difficult.
The puzzles aren’t terribly complicated, but they are mostly satisfying. Much of the difficulty comes from stumbling around in the dark trying to find the key locations. The game is pretty good about describing the interactive elements in order to steer you away from the wrong solution (“This lock is really strong, stop trying to break it.”) I think I only got complete “stuck” once or twice, which is pretty good for these sorts of games.
The one gameplay element that doesn’t quite work for me is the monsters. You can’t fight the monsters, but have to simply evade them. Huh. I guess running away and hiding in a closet is an interesting mechanic. And you also lose sanity in the dark. Seems to conflict with the previous goal, but OK. And you lose sanity by looking at the monsters. Seriously?! That’s dumb. How am I supposed to figure out their routes and patrol patterns if I can’t watch them from my hiding place? It turns out that the monsters don’t have any patterns. They appear at pre-scripted moments, and then disappear. It’s scary, but kind of dumb.
All in all, Amnesia is pretty good. It’s fun to play, and the “escape room” gameplay is entertaining, as is the darkness mechanic. The game is also very scary and disturbing, even for me. I’d recommend picking it up during a Steam Sale if you like scary games.
(Though I didn't like the free "Justine" expansion, which seemed to sacrifice playability in the name of "theme")
XenoBlade Chronicles (*****)
This one was worth the wait.
"XenoBlade" became big news in the videogame world several years ago. The massive RPG was set as a spiritual successor to the acclaimed “Xeno” metaseries, and was to release on the Nintendo Wii, a system that didn’t really have another big RPG like this. However, Nintendo originally refused to sell the game in the United States, despite having already translated it into English for the European release. After a massive fan campaign, Nintendo relented, selling a limited number of copies directly through their website. I promptly grabbed one as a birthday present to myself.
I didn’t finish the game until 8 years later.
Why? Well, I found that the text in the game is small and hard to read on a normal 25-inch TV. I’d been able to ignore this in other games, but as you have to be able to read the character sheets and equipment descriptions to play an RPG. Small text in console games had been a continual annoyance for me. It felt like the game designers were expecting us all to run out and buy big expensive HD TVs. This is an especially illogical requirement for the Nintendo Wii, which only does standard definition output (“enhanced” definition was BS). I considered selling the game, but instead set it aside until I had a bigger screen.
I kind of forgot about Xenoblade until recently, when I heard Switch gamers talking about the Definitive Edition. Oh, I guess I should go back and play that tiny-text game on the projector…
First impressions were a bit rough. The graphics have not aged well particularly well. The landscapes look beautiful, but the character textures are pretty muddy. At first, I thought it was a problem with my new projector (on which AV input is an afterthought), but contemporary reviews mentioned the same thing.
And yet, in spite of all that… Xenoblade Chronicles is easily one of the best JRPG’s ever, in the same league as Final Fantasy VI, Chronotrigger, and Skies of Arcadia. It’s that good.
First of all, Xenoblade is a deft combination of open-world and story-focused RPG designs. The worlds are huge and vast and fun to explore. To encourage exploration, the game has over 400 side quests that can be completed at your own pace. Many of these side quests involve fighting a certain number of monsters or collecting a certain number of materials, which is the game’s way of encouraging “random” encounters. Otherwise, only hostile enemies or high-level carnivores attack you. This mechanic basically fixes the traditional random encounter system that JRPG’s have used for decades. If you keep up with most of the side quests, there is no need to grind unless you want to beat all the optional endgame stuff (which made me so over-leveled that I flattened the final boss in less than a minute).
Supporting this layout is a robust and action-packed combat system. The combat is a hybrid system that’s not quite action-based, but not quite turn-based either. You pick one character to move in real time, but regular attacks are automatic. You then can queue up special moves called “Arts” that all have recharge times to prevent over-use. It’s a creative and surprisingly elegant system, and the first of its type that I’ve found completely satisfying. I think this is what Final Fantasy XII and Ni No Kuni were striving for, and didn’t quite achieve.
Compare to previous Xeno games, the amount of story material is substantially less. That’s not a bad thing; I thought Xenosaga Episode I went way overboard with long story scenes. The characters and story in Xenoblade are well-developed, featuring very distinct personalities and extremely creative worldbuilding. There’s a lot going on, but the pacing is established well. It keeps you focused on a long succession of immediate threats throughout the 70-100 hours playtime, until you finally engage the ultimate villain the final act (fortunately, the game has enough time after this shift for it to matter). The only complaint I have is that the dialogue is often redundant, and the ending left a few loose threads, mostly concerning the villains’ motivations.
Xenoblade is a blast. It’s one of the biggest and most enthralling JRPG’s that I’ve played, and one of very few video games that earns a 70-100 hour play time.
Spore (** and a half)
What went wrong with Spore?
This is a question that has spawned many think pieces across the Internet. Back in 2005, famed game designer Will Wright introduced a revolutionary new concept for an “evolving” game that would track the development of life from single-cell organism to intelligent spacefaring race. I remember watching a later trailer (in EA’s 360 theater at E3) and being blown away.
When the game was released in 2008, nobody seemed blown away. Nobody hated Spore, but few seemed to love it. Was the game released too late? Was it undercut by EA’s use of controversial DRM? Yes, and yes, but I think all would have been forgiven if the game had been truly amazing. Instead… it turned out OK. Just OK. Not much better than OK.
Spore is essentially 5 games in one. The first stage is a simple minigame similar to flOw (which itself was literally a class project). Oddly enough, the cell stage best encapsulates the idea of evolution and continual growth. New features for your creature all feel consequential, and it’s rather fascinating to watch the surrounding world gradually “shrink” by powers of ten as your creature gets bigger and bigger. The next 3 stages are simple action/RTS games. They’re OK, but the vast customization options eventually feel unneeded, and the gameplay is pretty straightforward. I mostly played the social/religious track, which becomes a game of “Simon Says” for stages 2 and 3. For stage 4, religious victory just means your gunboats fire off religious music instead of bullets… but it pretty much works the same way. None of this is bad, but it’s basically a series of amusing minigames with cute art design and incredible customization. There’re not tons of gameplay depth, and some of the gameplay features that do exist seem superfluous (stealth/jumping in Creature phase, pets in Tribal phase, and city happiness in Civ phase).
The Space phase is the deepest phase, but it’s also not that much fun. First of all, the Space phase doesn’t feel connected to the themes of the previous game modes. Each previous stage had you controlling something progressively larger (cell->organism->tribe->civ), but the space stage suddenly gives you a lone captain flying around in a single ship. At least the star map is interesting, and it is kind of cool to zoom all the way from galaxy view down to the planet surfaces. But once you get to the surface, it’s a repetitive collection of little missions. Shoot this, scan that, pick up a cow on one planet and take it to another. I guess there’s eventually a terraforming engine, but I started losing patience (and I never really liked SimEarth to begin with). Part of the problem is that there’s no real-world example of a space empire, so the quasi-realism and evolutionary themes of the earlier stages give way to an underdeveloped Star Trek simulator. Perhaps the game should have focused more on a proper civilization phase, and left the Space phase as an amusing epilogue.
Spore isn’t awful but it definitely was a big disappointment. It looked amazing, but the game is more interesting as a concept than as an actual game. Something is wrong when the simplistic cell stage is the most entertaining part.
Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (****)
A long time ago, NOT in a galaxy far away, Bioware released a videogame based on the Star Wars tabletop role-playing game. “Knights of the Old Republic” (KOTOR) won acclaim for its deep combat, moral choice system, interesting quests, plot twists, and setting. Though set long before the events of the movies, it’s not really a “prequel” in a meaningful sense. Nothing in the game sets up the events in the movies, nor is there any apparent difference in the technology level. Instead the “Old Republic” setting is used to create sort of a Star Wars alternate universe, in which the Sith are a prominent military faction (with mostly regular soldiers), and nobody has ever heard of Skywalkers, Empires, or Death Stars. Oddly enough… it works.
The sequel starts off a bit on the wrong foot. After a prologue chapter, there’s a very long segment on a deserted space station filled with malfunctioning robots. It feels like System Shock without the fear factor and clever level design. But hang in there… once you get to your first real planet, the game starts getting interesting. By the end of the game, I was convinced that KOTOR 2 had surpassed the original. The plot is deeper, the characters are more interesting (An evil wookie who’s out for blood? That’s terrifying!), and the bad guys are more original.
KOTOR 2 was also designed as a subversion of the Star Wars universe, questioning whether the Jedi were ever really the good guys, and if the Force has “light” or “dark” sides at all. Maybe the Force is really more like gravity or magnetism: a physical phenomenon with no morality. This questioning of the Star Wars doctrine actually works remarkably well, in contrast to recent efforts in the movie franchise. The moral dilemmas ring true. Especially living through times when hard choices must be made, the game constantly made me think “Well, dang, I might be a Sith!”
Both KOTOR games are big winners, but KOTOR 2 really brought it home for me. The plot is interesting, the role-playing elements are great, and the interface is crisp and clean. Maybe someday we’ll get more Star Wars games like this?
Assassin’s Creed (***)
Back in 2006, I attended E3 (a gaming convention) and waited in a long line to meet the authors of the webcomic “Penny Arcade.” While stuck in line, Ubisoft had a large screen that repeatedly showed a trailer for “Assassin’s Creed.” By the time I got out of that line, I was pretty sick of it. When the game came out a year later, the critical response was mixed, and most people agreed that it wasn’t that great. Oh well… so much for that.
But then, a funny thing happened on the way to Jerusalem… Assassin’s Creed became a HUGE franchise, with sequels coming out left and right. People seemed surprised that I hadn’t played it. Was I supposed to play it? I thought it was bad! I eventually picked up a cheap copy of the original, and only just now got around to completing the game, which has been out for almost 13 years.
Is it good? Is it bad? It’s pretty good. Assassin’s Creed is ambitious, creative, unique, and visually stunning. It’s also repetitive and badly designed.
Let’s start with the good. Assassin’s Creed has great core gameplay. The free-running controls are fun and easy to pick up, as are the climbing challenges, which ask you to plot your path like a rock-climber. The idea of “parkouring” your way through an open city while trying to escape an army of guards is really cool. The combat is not as strong as the parkour and climbing aspects, but it does offer a lot of options and generally works. The stealth gameplay also offers interesting options for keeping a low profile. Also, the central historical-fiction premise of the game is quite interesting. You get to explore a richly detailed version of the medieval Holy Land, and fight various minor historical figures (though in real life most of them died in battle). The setting looks beautiful and believable.
As for the bad aspects, Assassin’s Creed presents a massive and amazing world to explore, but doesn’t have enough ideas to fill it. When I visited my first city, I was accosted by a beggar woman who followed me around and tried to block my path. “Ha! What an interesting interaction!” I thought, momentarily impressed by the level of detail in this virtual world. But then it happens again, and again, and again. Every few minutes, beggar women are harassing you, because every city has the same 10 people copy-pasted over and over again. Every city has the same missions and side quests. One of the repeated side quests asks you to pick a fight against many soldiers (you seriously do this dozens of times), which seems completely out of step with the sneaky theme of the rest of the game.
Variety comes from the 9 main assassination missions, but even these could have used more effort. Some of the fortresses are fun to sneak into, but many missions just involve walking to a spot on the map and fighting the bad guy. It’s too hard to sneak in quietly, and too easy to just fight your way through everyone. Moreover, the 6 pieces of information you acquire in the lead-up are often irrelevant or hard to put into practice.
Assassin’s Creed is good enough, but could have been a lot better. Actually, it did get better, both in the sequels and when it was re-skinned and called “Batman: Arkham Asylum.” I recommend playing Assassin’s Creed in order to become acquainted with the series, but if you find it a drag… just skip on to Assassins Creed II.
Assassins Creed II (****)
Holy crap. This is how you bounce back from a pretty-good-but-flawed inaugural entry and loudly announce “Hey guys! We fixed everything!”
Altair was kind of boring? He’s replaced by a new guy who actually has a family and a personality. Animus interludes broke the pacing? Cut down to two in the entire game. Beggars and lunatics were frickin’ annoying? Replaced with funnier minstrels that you can shove away or throw coins at. Constantly tiptoeing around guards got a little tiresome? There’s a new “notoriety” system for keeping them out of your business. The theme-breaking random fights are cut entirely, and the old repetitive missions are relegated to side quests. The rest of the game consists of unique story-driven chapters. Oh, there’s also “Tomb Raider” style dungeons, a home base that you can improve, an economic system, and collectibles that feel relevant since all of them improve your economy.
On top of that, the setting is a lot better. Climbing around the Holy Land got a little monotonous because most of the towers had the same design. The Italian Renaissance gives you much more interesting and memorable architecture to scale. Having visited Italy in real life, it was a fun experience getting to virtually visit cities that I’ve actually walked around… but in a different time period with super-climbing abilities. The 4 different cities are very distinct, and ability to meet recognizable historical figures such as Leonardo Da Vinci is a lot of fun. The game adheres to history closer than the first game. After completing a chapter, I’d often read up on the real events. I was usually more surprised by what was actually real, rather than what was made up.
Flaws? Well, the plot gets pretty long and convoluted. I’m still not sure how I feel about the modern-day aspect of the plot, in which very little happens. Also, the timeline is a bit contrived, due to the need to cover 20+ years of historical events. Nobody convincing ages or moves on with life. Ezio’s mom and sister basically sit in place for decades. Finally, the game was released slightly unfinished, as 2 chapters had to be added as DLC (though they are now included in the “Ezio Trilogy” pack), and the closure of one prominent arc was inserted into the sequel.
Aside from those nitpicks, Assassins Creed II is pretty awesome.
Assassins Creed II.5: Brotherhood (**** and a half)
“Brotherhood” is a direct continuation of Assassin’s Creed II, with very similar game mechanics. It’s also an incremental improvement, with better scenario design, more exciting “set-piece” moments, and smoother graphics. I’ve heard many critics name it the best game in the series, which I would believe. The “tomb raider” segments alone are fabulous and inventive.
Brotherhood is mostly a continuation of the previous game, just more exciting. The plot roughly follows Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Machiavelli himself is the central “mission giver,” and Cesare Borgia is the main villain. The game just centers on Rome this time, though it doesn’t feel smaller than the previous game. There’s also a battle for control of the city, which involves capturing enemy strongholds, building up the economy of the area, and recruiting an army of rebels.
Otherwise, I don’t have much to say about this one that I didn’t already say about the others. It’s a great continuation with a great setting and bigger battles.
Assassins Creed II.6: Revelations (*** and a half)
In contrast to “Brotherhood,” “Revelations” is sometimes dismissed as the worst of the series. It’s not. It’s definitely better than the original game, and retains most of the fun game mechanics that made the other sections of the “Ezio Trilogy” so compelling. It is the worst of the trilogy, though.
Why? It might be a question of setting. Constantinople just didn’t stand out to me the same way that Renaissance Italy did. It all looks the same, without clear districts or changes in scenery. It also doesn’t help that I’m less familiar with the Byzantines and Ottomans. There’re more obvious videogame contrivances. You literally spend the whole game finding the secret maps to get the secret keys to open the big vault at the end that had… something from Altair, I think? It felt like a lot of buildup to a gigantic “To be Continued” message.
The gameplay changes are a mix of good and bad. There’s a tower defense minigame is pretty “meh,” and shifts from easy to near-impossible towards the end. The grenades are a better inclusion; they are pretty useful, and have a lot of customization options. In fact, there are too many customization options. I felt like I was missing a lot of content by not exploring more options for bomb-making, but there wasn’t a strong reason to do so. Smoke bombs are really all you need. The best inclusion is the “hookblade,” which does make climbing a little faster and enables you to zipline.
Compared to the original, this is a great continuation. Compared to “Brotherhood,” it’s a step down. Take that for what it’s worth.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (***)
The 7th generation of videogame systems got off to kind of a funny start. It officially started in late 2005 with the release of the Xbox360, but didn’t really have anything worth getting excited about until a year later, when the Wii and PS3 were released and the Xbox360 was finally getting some really big, exclusive games. One of these games was Lost Planet, a 3rd person shooter set on a snowy planet. You could fight on-foot, but also pilot massive mechs (Huh…). Does it still hold up over a decade later?
Well, I enjoyed it more than Gears of War.
Lost Planet is solid, and has a few interesting gameplay features. The most interesting features relate to the snowy setting. Rather than focusing on a traditional health bar, the game has “thermal energy” which continually depletes and most be recharged by killing aliens and collecting their energy. That’s a pretty cool mechanic, and it fits in well with the themes and visuals of the desolate planet.
Otherwise, the game is a pretty standard 3rd-person shooter, except with the switch from on-foot to mech. It’s a cool idea, but the mechs are somehow less fun than they look. Their movements are clunky and so the “boss” battles feel like mostly luck (especially the final battle). Also, the VS suits feel oddly underpowered. I guess this was done in the name of balance, but it takes something away from the core concept.
On the whole, Lost Planet is pretty good. The gameplay is solid and the setting is pretty compelling. However, the story is pretty awful, so don’t get it for anything other than the shoot-em-up fun.
The Evil Within (****)
I already reviewed this one, but replayed it to get in the Halloween spirit and… Man this game is still so scary! And still so good! And the DLC missions are great too, despite having very different gameplay. If I ever get around to a PS4/5, I may need to pick up the sequel.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent (***)
I recently participated in two escape rooms, and found them to be interesting experiences, like an adventure game translated to real life. Amnesia feels a lot like an escape room, specifically the fact that you spend most the game ransacking areas looking for small hidden objects. What are you looking for? In addition to the “key” items that help you progress through the game, you also need to stockpile lantern oil and tinderboxes, as much of the game’s levels are very dark. Besides the fact that you can’t really navigate in darkness, the character slowly goes insane in the dark, blurring your vision more so and making movement more difficult.
The puzzles aren’t terribly complicated, but they are mostly satisfying. Much of the difficulty comes from stumbling around in the dark trying to find the key locations. The game is pretty good about describing the interactive elements in order to steer you away from the wrong solution (“This lock is really strong, stop trying to break it.”) I think I only got complete “stuck” once or twice, which is pretty good for these sorts of games.
The one gameplay element that doesn’t quite work for me is the monsters. You can’t fight the monsters, but have to simply evade them. Huh. I guess running away and hiding in a closet is an interesting mechanic. And you also lose sanity in the dark. Seems to conflict with the previous goal, but OK. And you lose sanity by looking at the monsters. Seriously?! That’s dumb. How am I supposed to figure out their routes and patrol patterns if I can’t watch them from my hiding place? It turns out that the monsters don’t have any patterns. They appear at pre-scripted moments, and then disappear. It’s scary, but kind of dumb.
All in all, Amnesia is pretty good. It’s fun to play, and the “escape room” gameplay is entertaining, as is the darkness mechanic. The game is also very scary and disturbing, even for me. I’d recommend picking it up during a Steam Sale if you like scary games.
(Though I didn't like the free "Justine" expansion, which seemed to sacrifice playability in the name of "theme")