Is Sacred 3 Even A Sacred Game? Peep The Review Here And Ignore That I Said "Peep"

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: PC

Despite never playing the first Sacred, I have a love for Sacred 2. It wasn't an easy love and it was one that we both had to work at, but it exists now and it's very strong. The first time I played Fallen Angel I hated it, but this was partially because I had yet to buy a TV that was capable of handling high-def graphics... so reading text on a screen was extremely difficult. In a game like Sacred 2 this was a huge problem. The second time I tried playing I didn't find the game that exciting, but I enjoyed it more. The third time is when I fell in love. I became head over heels in love with its particular brand of open-world RPG, the complex leveling system, the endless loot and even the humour. Some people felt it was flawed but fun, whereas I think it's one of the best games the genre has seen.

Because of this, I was ridiculously hyped for the next entry in this series. I played Sacred: Citadel to help ease the wait, but it didn't click with me. I didn't know then -- and I wish I did because I would have saved $50 -- that Citadel was a good indication of where Sacred 3 was going. It's not that the game was the same because Citadel is a side-scrolling beat 'em up and Sacred 3 is still a hack n' slash, but one could say the simplicity of Citadel has drifted its way over to Sacred 3.

There's this constant debate within the realm of criticism and people can't agree on whether a franchise should be allowed to change. Wars have been waged (I'm purposely being overdramatic) over whether we should evaluate games based solely on what they are and not on the brand, or if we should take the name into consideration when critiquing it. In layman's terms: should I take into consideration what Sacred 2 brought to the table when reviewing Sacred 3, or should I just write about what Sacred 3 offers?

The answer, in this case, is that I have to take into consideration what Sacred 2 gave me. I can't avoid it. I'm all for series changing and evolving, but do gamers not go to their franchises of choice to have that similar gameplay experience? Unless you're a franchise that is known to constantly reinvent yourself, there are always going to be fundamentals in the games we like that make us go back. I don't want to play a core Metal Gear if there isn't stealth. I don't want to play a core Killzone if it doesn't have that heavy feel that the series is known for. Spin-offs are fine, and the concept of Citadel was okay by me because it was cheap and it wasn't a core Sacred.

That Deep Silver completely shit the bed with Sacred 3 is grounds enough for a mid-year leader for my "Disappointment of the Year" award. It went from what should have been one of my favourite games of the year to what will surely be one of the worst.

I want to get the good out of the way, because even though it's hard to find, it is there. I think that the game is reasonably pretty, with a very colourful aesthetic. We often get dark and gloomy environments in games like this, which is great, so it is nice to see an ARPG that embraces lighter colours and a more "pleasant" atmosphere. The fauna is detailed and the world is lively. Blues, greens, yellows all blend together well to create levels that are, at the very least, nice to look at. It's not that the game redefines graphics, but it is solidly put together and I did notice, and appreciate, the care that they put into creating a world that, like Sacred 2, was a little bit different and more cheerful looking than other games within the genre.

The music is also not bad. It's not great, and it's a bit by the books, but it's serviceable and does what it can to give the game a more epic feel when it needs it. It's orchestrated, and relies pretty heavily on quick chants to get its message across. Think Skyrim but not as good. Hell, it lacks the ability to pull you into its world musically like even a game like Divinity: Original Sin does.

The story follows the same path as the soundtrack, giving us a plot that works fine in moving everything along but I can't see anybody being entranced by what they're giving us. Lord Zane has gotten in bed with demons and is trying to open the gates to the underworld, so the heroes have to band together to put an end to that. It's pretty generic Fantasy storytelling, but if I'm being honest I don't go to action-RPGs for their plot anyway. It'd be nice if something could come along and give us a truly worthwhile plot in the genre, but I have yet to really find anything beyond simply "good."

Like in Sacred 2, the story isn't entirely serious. It's about as lighthearted as a game about opening up the gates of Hell can be without flopping around in parody. There's a lot of humour in here, though I'd argue that it's more of an attempt than anything. There are a couple lines worthy of a chuckle here and there but I'm so sick of hearing my brother's character yell "Sexy!" Hearing the same lines over and over is very grating, and a lot of the lines are cheesy and don't work.

Those are the aspects of the game that I'd deem good, or at least decent, and when that's all the praise I can give something we're in trouble.

I've seen it said a few times that this game should be approached like Gauntlet, but Gauntlet is still fun today due to clever level design and intense action. Despite Gauntlet being better, I do see the comparison. Deep Silver has chosen to strip the game of its open-world elements and give us a streamlined, stage-based game. Instead of traversing the world, finding side-quests and picking up copious amounts of loot, you are simply placed in a stage and are expected to make your way to the end while battling hordes of enemies. It is Gauntlet in that regard.

There are some different types of stages but they all amount to the same thing: you kill lots. There are the story stages, and there are stages where you simply just have to kill all the enemies, and there are wave-based stages where you defeat, you got it, waves of enemies. Even the portals that give longer side-quests still amount to the same thing.

The only thing that could save this set-up would be to have stages with dynamic action set pieces or something. Have a lot of exciting, stressful things happen in a stage to keep you on your toes. Instead, it's mostly just floor traps, which are more of an annoyance than anything, or having to turn a wheel six times while groups of enemies attack you.

This is where it's difficult to separate it from its brand, and the game suffers immensely because of it. Did anybody who anticipated this release want a Gauntlet clone? No, we wanted a huge world to explore, we wanted loot and we wanted a complex leveling system because this is what the previous Sacred gave us.

The sad thing is, I could actually have done without the open-world aspects if they had to strip it away. I wouldn't have preferred it because it was one of the selling points of Sacred 2, but had it gone a more Diablo 3 route where it's always very clear where you have to go, with very minimal exploration... I would have been fine with it. I really just enjoy the genre when done right. We are at a point in gaming where people seem to rage if a game is linear, but I don't mind linear. I've always found these types of games to have tremendous replay value, so I'm okay with only having one direction to go in.

What bothers me is that they've made the game boring and pointless. Hack n' slash is repetitive by nature, yet games like Dynasty Warriors remain fun. However, in the action-RPG I find it difficult to muster up the energy to continue laying waste to entire armies if there isn't something connected to the action. That is always the loot and the leveling.

There isn't any loot in this game. You pick up money, health and energy orbs, and that's it. Laughably, sometimes at the end of the level the treasure chests or enemies will drop health orbs. These don't matter because you're at the end and you gain all your HP back anyway. Without sufficient amount of loot, it's very hard to even care about killing the enemies.

The same can be said with the lack of real level progression. Sure, you level up, but it's in a very hollow way. You don't have stats to manage and there's very little customization in anything. You can choose between leveling up your combat arts, your skills or your equipment, but it's so straight-forward that it seems more like a chore than anything. You only have a couple ways to go, and there's no experimentation to see what is best. You'll very quickly find what works and stick with it because there's only a few different combat arts per character. In terms of skills, you are able to level up things like blocking, dodging or reviving. The choice there is whether you want to be able to block or dodge, because you can only have one at a time. This applies to your combat arts as well, though you can actually have two of those equipped at a time. This is a significant departure from the system in Sacred 2, which is almost godly. It's one of my favourite in the genre.

Everything is basically just handed to you. Sure you can level up the amount of potions you can carry, but you are given two at the beginning of every stage so there's no continuity and excitement in managing your resources. 

The combat leaves a little to be desired as well. At first I thought it was interesting for the genre, with something as silly as being able to roll being a plus because there aren't a lot of ARPGs that actually allow you to roll or block. It seems like a novelty at this point, but it's welcome. Unfortunately that wore off really quickly when I realized that it's still the same ol', same ol'. You have a special attack meant to break shields, but that overstays its welcome and just ends up seeming like a way to lazily add difficulty (another sore sport because the difficulty spikes are so uneven and annoying). A long with that you have two combat arts equipped on you, and of course the left mouse button is your basic attack.

Striking your foes is satisfying but it lacks the oomph of a game like Diablo 3. Regardless, it is reasonably fulfilling to lay siege to enemies. 

My biggest problem with the combat is one that I imagine would be fixed by using a controller, but I don't currently have a PC controller (just ordered one last night actually... yes I know you care about that): the controls. You move with WASD, but you attack in the direction that your mouse cursor is pointing. I hate this choice in pretty much any game because it makes it frustrating to attack where you want, or more specifically, dodging is a pain in the ass because logic tells you that you'll roll left when you're facing right, but the game tells you you'll roll right when you're facing left because you were pointing that way. This may seem like a silly criticism to some, but it heavily impacted the game for me.

It doesn't help that sometimes the game just ignores what you want entirely. I was playing as the Seraphim -- because it's Sacred and someone has to -- and she has a move where she jumps in the air and lands where you've pointed and does damage to any enemy close to where she landed. Only sometime she jumps in the opposite direction from where I'm pointing. The first few times this happened I thought I was just terrible but while that is true, it isn't why. It seems that the game incorrectly registers it sometimes. I also found that it didn't really send her exactly where I wanted it to.

Which brings me to the final part of my review, where I nitpick some smaller problems that just made me hate the game more. I had a lot of problem playing online. For one, my brother couldn't seem to join my game when I invited him so I'd have to just join him.

From my experience, and I'm well aware that this could differ for people, the person who was hosting the game seemed to run into issues where if you tried using your mouse to click options it wouldn't click the right one so you'd have to use the arrow keys and enter to be affective. The person joining the game ran into lag and constant yoyoing -- I don't know if this is an actual term but I heard my brother say it and I like it -- and it got frustrating. You'd fly back and forth constantly if you were not the host.

Even quitting out of the game is stupid. When you finally click the option to quit your game on the main menu, you actually have to hit the ESC key again. Why? Why would you do this? Normally in a review I'd ignore this or give it a quick mention in the middle of another paragraph but no, not only does this game not want me to have fun... it doesn't want me to quit either. It's like an abusive husband. Or wife, because we here at On The Gamely believe in gender equality.


It's not that these problems are huge. The yoyoing online was a problem, but these minor problems add up and when they're coupled with how terrible the game in other ways, it just amplifies them.

I hate Sacred 3, and from the looks of things, most people do too. The best that I've seen is that it's okay and when you don't look at it as a Sacred game, it's not too bad. When I first started the game I could have gotten behind that, but after spending some time with it, all I see is a lackluster new entry in a series I love, infested with poor game design.




Rating: 3/10
Verdict: Sacred 3 will crap on fans of the series, but even if one can separate themselves from the brand and look at the game as it is, it's still a very shallow experience. 

This is me right now, in case you didn't guess that.

Why Go Outside When I Can Play Eidolon? This Is The Review

Written By: Tyler

Rating: 8/10
Verdict: It's a slow game with a few technical hiccups, but getting lost in this survival/walking simulator is a pretty rewarding experience. 


I turned on the game, clicked the "Play" option and then the words that were there because of the title screen disappeared instantly and I was left standing -- in first-person view -- on some grass, surrounded by trees, with the whole world ahead of me. I was confused, silent but intrigued. Here is a game that I can respect in the same way as I do games like Minecraft or Terraria for its willingness to just drop the players into unknown territory and let them fend for themselves.

Eidolon isn't an exciting game and it's not one that everyone will take to. I didn't immediately take to it myself, if I'm being honest. It's a walking simulator, and it is labelled as such on its Steam page, and it's all about exploring. You walk through a massive world -- seriously, the scope is huge -- and it's easy to get lost because while certain areas do look different, a lot of it looks similar. You can walk for hours and find very little without guidance, or you might get lucky and hit the jackpot and find a bunch of things in quick succession. There are goals, but the game doesn't indicate them at the beginning, so it's up to you to decide what you want to do.

I say that the game doesn't indicate them at the beginning, but it does do a little bit to push you along if you want it to. As you travel this post-apocalyptic Washington, there are two types of things you can collect: a green shape and a white. The green has plot items, such as notes or even maps. These are all hand-written with their own personalities and piecing them together to uncover the personal and more large-scale narratives is interesting. The game has a feature that will show you the direction of the next piece of information. The white gives you items, such as binoculars, a bow, a fishing rod, etc. These are few and far between so when you collect one it's a big deal.

Some people aren't a fan of this type of gameplay, either. Some will definitely find it boring, and that's completely understandable. It really depends on your philosophy concerning what makes a "game." This may not be enough to warrant your attention. I think it has enough gameplay to keep it interesting.

Sprinkled in to add a little bit of tension to the exploration are light survival elements. You can starve, you get tired, you can get cold and die or you can get injured. Injuries can lead to death if they aren't appropriately dealt with, but there are healing checkpoints scattered throughout the world so death isn't always a bad option.

I was looking up the butt of a deer.

You can get mushrooms, berries, catch fish, kill animals with your bow (though be careful because some are aggressive and you have to be pretty spot-on with the trajectory of the arrows), and food can go rotten. Don't fear though, because the game isn't about surviving really and it feels like a game mechanic just kind-of tacked on to make it more like a conventional game. Food is everywhere in some form, and I never starved to death. This aspect of the game may give you a little something else to consider besides the scenery, but it's never overbearing or even difficult, because that would detract from the core element of the game: relaxation and discovery.

This isn't a genre that I prefer, but I like all genres because I love games. The idea of simply walking around and uncovering a world, with very little else to do, sounds interesting on paper but is often done so poorly it's boring. Eidolon doesn't suffer from that because of the care put into making the world believable and atmospheric. However, it's not perfect and has a few hiccups along the way.

But then a deer was just standing on the head of its enemy.

Since it was done by a smaller team, it's easy to forgive that the graphics just aren't that great. They're completely serviceable in this context, but the world does feel same-y and a little unpolished. Some of the models used aren't that appealing to the eyes, but I'm not saying that they're bad. The unfortunate reality, at least in my opinion, is that a game like this would benefit greatly from a bigger budget and thus better visuals. Imagine a AAA studio making this game and fantasize the incredible environments that could be created. Some genres are less reliant on top of the line graphics than others. A world in which the only thing you can do is explore puts more emphasis on the visuals than say, an RPG. Ice Water Games done a good job with the resources they have, but it's not one of the prettier indie games I've played. I deem this more of an observation than a criticism though, merely something I threw out there for the readers so they'd know what they can expect going in.

The game also stutters a bit when loading areas, but that's most likely because the world is gigantic. This is forgivable and basically ignorable. The animations of the animals and whatnot could have used some polish as they just go from standing one second to awkwardly on their side the next once you've killed them.

Despite this, it's still entertaining to adventure in this world, because occasionally you will see something like this:

The music plays a bit role in bringing Eidolon to life though. Sometimes it's non-existent, but then a song will slowly work its way into the fold and it'll be gorgeous. Slow guitar will often enter, and a beautiful ambiance permeates Eidolon, putting you at peace with yourself while you explore the world and unearth the stories of the ghosts of Washington. Or just kill animals.

Sometimes the songs are more menacing. I came across one place and instead of the typical pretty tune I was accustomed to hearing, something a little creepier, a little scarier, edged its way into my brain. I was investigating what looked to be ruins, and it was very fitting.

Michael Bell did an incredible job with the soundtrack, and it really does a lot to engulf you in this world.

Eidolon is a great game to those who are willing to give themselves over to it. It meditative, relaxing games where you simply explore an empty, lonely land aren't your thing, then avoid this one. If you are able to get into this kind of thing, there is a lot to love here.

Video Games: The Movie: The Review

Written By: Tyler

Rating: 6.5/10
Verdict: It's an entry-level, unfocused look at video games, but tries to convince us that it's more. Gamers will most likely already be too familiar with what is being said to feel like they're learning anything new because it doesn't add much to the conversation. For those who may not be as knowledgeable on video games, this could be an informative watch despite the lack of depth.


Here on On The Gamely, I cover video games. Once in a while though, I will review something from a different medium so long as it relates to games. I've done a review or two on books that were about games, and now I'm premiering the first ever movie review on this blog. How fitting it is then, that it's a movie about the art form as a whole and not a particular game or aspect of gaming. Unfortunately, it wasn't a great experience.

When Video Games: The Movie starts, we are given a bunch of video game footage. A lot of these games are old, some very old, but it is used to set the tone, to show us where we began. After that, we are given an information dump -- a bunch of statistics on things such as what percentage of each sex plays games, for example. It's dry and it's not really how I would have started a movie that is meant to be a love letter to games.

In fact, the main problem I have with it is that it's basically Video Games 101. Part of the problem is with the director/writer himself, part of it is due to the fact that gaming, at this point, is too huge an industry to generalize in a movie that spans an hour and forty minutes. If it was explicitly stated that the movie is a beginners guide to gaming, then I would have less of a problem, but it gets lost in an identity crisis. Is it an entry level look at games? Or is it meant for the people who probably already know most of what they're talking about -- the gamers? This is a problem throughout.

If you are an outsider looking it, it's probably relatively informative. It touches briefly on what goes into making a game, gives a look of the evolution of games, and there are talking heads discussing how much they love games. It mentions gaming as an art form and the controversies that have plagued the industry for a long time. What gamer can forget all the studies we've had that "prove" that games make kids violent? It's a decent, yet extremely general, look at video games. I never felt like I was learning anything, but I'm sure non-gamers would.

In defense of the movie (yes, against myself), it's extremely difficult to take a subject like this and tackle it effectively. Because video games are a very forward, fast moving medium, it'd be incredibly frustrating to try to make a movie that documents all of that. The movie needed more focus. I would have preferred a movie that dissected certain aspects well rather than one that only briefly mentions topics that need more time than they were given.

The lack of focus extends towards how it's organized. The movie jumps around way too much, trying to juxtapose things that shouldn't be connected. It has a real issue with tone because of that, and it doesn't help that they'll mention something only to go back to it ten minutes later after they've discussed something else. It's not that it's hard to follow, it just messes with the flow of the entire film. The transitions are often messy, and there's very little consistency, which really dampens the overall experience. This is a passion project, and at times this shines through, but it's clumsily put together and has a hard time getting that passion over on its audience.

It's not a terrible documentary, but I wish it was put together better and was more sure of itself. There are moments that just make it feel insecure. This is a problem that bleeds into what I said above -- it doesn't know who it's for. Why should it have to justify gaming if it's meant for the people who already love games? Just go that extra mile and give us the love letter that it teases. If it's not meant for the serious gamer who already has knowledge on the subject, then ride with that.

As it stands, it's just too confused to be a great movie. Despite it's organizational issues and its sometimes dry nature, it manages to land firmly in the "pretty good" category. It is a broad, far-reaching attempt to shine light on something that may be a baby compared to other art forms, but it fails to add any real substance to the conversation. But hey, at least the DLC will fix it... right?

All Arguments Should Be Solved With Rock-Paper-Scissors -- A Divinity: Original Sin Review

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: PC

Rating: 9/10
Verdict: Divinity: Original Sin could use a little bit of polish here and there, and there are some minor design choices that I don't agree with... but despite all that this is a fantastic RPG in the vein of the classic computer RPGs.


Are you tired of games that hold your hand and tell you exactly where to go, who to see, and even help you wipe your own ass? Enter Divinity: Original Sin, the latest installment in the Divinity series.

In Divinity: Original Sin, you play as Sourcehunters and you're doing what that name implies. trying to rid the world of that pesky Source (not the game engine, though that would be neat considering I got the game on the platform that Valve owns). You begin your tale as two characters that you get to create, and the first main quest you end up doing is investigating a murder. From there, things get deeper and more complex.

Character creation seems like a good place to start. When you start a new game, you have the opportunity to create two characters who will end up interacting with one another throughout the game. There is a good variety of classes to choose from, abilities and traits to choose and statistics to level up. Leveling up ends up being in-depth but not overly so. It never reaches the point where you're confused but some levels allow you to level up three different things, but most levels allow two: abilities and stats. The only problem, at first, with this is that the game doesn't really explain much about things like skills so there's a little bit of trial-and-error involved. Of course, it all becomes clear but that initial creation screen is a little daunting because of it.

There's a reason that you create two characters as opposed to one. You can actually play this game co-op because of this, though that's not something I have done because it seems more like a single-player experience for me. However, I can see how co-op would be fun because the other reason you create two characters is because they end up having conversations with each other and you can choose whether they agree or disagree. Maybe your one character is more violent and goes one way, only to have the other be a voice of reason. Or perhaps they just agree with each other. The joy of Divinity: Original Sin is that not only can you make these choices, but they actually impact the game and your own statistics.

For example, my male first character agreed with the female second character, and "Romantic +1" flashed on the screen. You will see things like this continuously throughout the game, and if you press I, which is your inventory/character screen, you can keep track of what their relationship is. This will provide bonuses or debuffs.

It's important to note that you can develop your character however you see fit, basically. You can put points into anything, but obviously you'll want to specialize in some things to get the maximum effect. You don't put points into learning spells and techniques, but rather you acquire skill books. How many spells you can have of each type is dependent on how much you've leveled up each particular skill. Divinity: Original Sin has a system where you can choose to forget spells in order to replace them with another. But be careful, because these aren't like your first heartbreak -- once they're gone, they're gone, and the remains of that broken alliance will not stay with you. The spells will leave too.

Choice reigns supreme in this game on pretty much all fronts. If there's something you want to do in the game and it makes logical sense in context of the world, then you very well might be able to do it. I'll just give a few examples of some of the things you can do.

• You can't unlock a door because you don't have the key. No problem! Just break it down using your weapon (but be careful because they have levels of durability). Better yet, just use magic to do it.
• You are a kleptomaniac and you're standing in a shop, but there are people all over the place and you're trying to keep a good reputation among the townspeople. Just use your party members to distract the people by getting them involved in conversations and use one character to walk around and loot the place senseless. This is incredibly satisfying.
• There's a troll guarding a bridge, and he wants toll money. You don't have any, so you could intimidate him, reason with him or charm him. This will bring up the funny yet alluring rock-paper-scissors argument system where you have to win a few games of it, unless your charm is infinitely higher than the other person. It sounds silly, but I like it.

Those are just three examples, but it all adds up to a game where you feel like you can influence what goes on around you. Between how you interact with the world and how you level up your characters, it's very easy to feel like you're actually involved in this world.

This choice is a double-edged sword in ways too. There's a brief tutorial at the beginning if you want it, but it probably won't prepare you for what this game has to offer. It gives the basics, but it's all a little disorienting once you begin. The game harkens back to a time where there was very little hand-holding. There won't be waypoints telling you where to go all of the time, and the journal doesn't always tell you where to go so it's best to try to remember what people say to you because if you forget you may not be able to easily find out again.

Once a while something will flash on screen to give you directions, and the journal will on occasion be enough, but there's no denying that this game wants you to pay attention. You can look through previous dialogue but that's just a pain because there isn't an easy way to sort through it. In this day and age where games often lead you along, this could be seen as a refreshing game mechanic to some. I am torn on it, if I'm being honest, and I'm not afraid to lose my gamer-cred by saying this: I don't mind being able to click on a quest and get told where to go.

Luckily though, they've done a pretty good job of making being lost a viable action. It's a beautifully realized, colourful and vibrant world so exploring it is nice on the eyes. It's also not a cinematic RPG so it doesn't take you away from the game.

There are also a lot of quests in this game, and even if you don't know where to go, wander around and you will find a quest. They're scattered throughout the world, and the best part of them is that they're actually fun to do.


That's because they aren't just fetch-quests. Sure, in any game like this there's that element, and I'm okay with it, but there are a bunch of ways to do things a lot of the time, and because the game doesn't hold your hand, there's enjoyment in discovering it yourself. Even the beginning of the main quest, where you investigate a murder, ends up actually being a murder investigation where you walk around, talk to people and get involved. It's not L.A. Noire by any means in the way it handles a crime scene, but for an RPG of this type, it's pretty genius quest design. It doesn't stop there, but I don't like to give away much of games when I review them.

While I don't actually think that the plot is anything innovative or intriguing, it does handle it relatively gracefully with a lot of reading and a sense of humour. Some of the quests are a little silly, and the characters alternate between light-hearted and deadly serious, and this extends to the NPCs as well. There are also funny little touches thrown in here and there, such as your character disguising himself as a rock, or a bush, when he/she is sneaking around.


I have a few minor gripes that I should finally touch on because I've basically been gushing this entire time. The shop system is a lot different than most RPGs which makes an experience we've done a million times feel fresh, but I'm only half into it. You can walk around and barter with anybody in the game that isn't an enemy, and they may have money or they may not. They always have items to sell but it may not be much. It's an amusing take on the economical structure of the world because a lot of people appear to be poor, but sometimes it's annoying walking around town trying to find someone you can sell yourself to.  It'd be nice to just have a go-to hub where you can sell everything once in a while.

The game makes it a little annoying to do mundane tasks such as comparing your inventory when you're shopping. You can't just press the button to scroll to the next one, you have to actually click on the character portrait on the side in order to choose them. Otherwise you could be comparing a weapon that someone is selling with the weapon you're holding, only it's focused on the character you're currently controlling rather than the inventory screen that you have up. The lack of polish in some of the areas of the game add length to the game that shouldn't be there, and having to walk around town trying to find someone to sell things to is not what I call "real" gameplay. It's fluff, it's pretend, it doesn't make playing the game more positive and only extends it in the most superficial way.

Keep in mind that those criticisms are extremely light and do very little to detract from my own enjoyment. I just found that sometimes inventory management was more of a chore than it should have been.

I purposely left the combat until the end because it could be the best part of the game. It is turn-based, and not unlike what we've seen before in that regard, but the developers have put a lot of effort into making each battle its own entity, rather than just a series of "blah" encounters.

You have your bar at the bottom, and they all have cool-down periods. You have so many action points per turn, which can be preserved and added to the next turn, and everything takes up an amount of points. Obviously AP is key in combat, and as a side-note, you can equip weapons that are above your level but your AP usage will be higher because of it.

The game allows you to manipulate the elements in fascinating ways. Here's a very basic scenario to explain what I mean. I'm in combat, and it's an area that has a lot of fire on the ground. Not wanting to be inflicted with a burning status (which will take away my HP each turn, much like poison), I cast a rain spell that puts out the fire and allows me to walk on it freely. In the process I've just made myself, my team and the enemies "wet," which is also an ailment. The enemies were on fire before but now they are normal, and there was one particular enemy who would have exploded once hit but the rain put out his fuse, rendering him useless. Not only have I made the enemies less dangerous, but if I use a shock spell I will inflict more damage because, as you know, if you blend water and electricity together... unfortunate things happen.

Before I learned to settle all disputes with Smash Brothers, I used Rock-Paper-Scissors.

That's just one example of what can happen, but it's something that makes battles interesting. If you decide to play Divinity: Original Sin, be prepared for this kind of thing to happen. Also be prepared to be frozen, tripped, poisoned, lit on fire, and a host of other things in your playthrough, because the enemies are nasty. Be smart, and use the environment to your advantage, and you will survive.

As you can see, if you've put yourself through reading my crap, Divinity: Original Sin is one of the best RPGs of the year. So far it's probably the most complex. Though the story isn't outstanding, and there's a lack of polish in some miniscule ways, it's a compelling, addictive RPG that is easy to sink a lot of hours into. Just be prepared to work for everything you accomplish because while the game isn't crushingly difficult, it likes to slap you around a bit.

The Wolf Among Us Episode 5: Cry Wolf Review

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: PC

Rating: 9/10
Verdict: Season 1 of The Wolf Among Us concludes like it should, like a good TV show would, even if the watch-more-than-you-play aspect of the game might be off-putting to some people.

Here we are: after months and months we have the final episode in the first season of The Wolf Among Us, the Telltale Games series based on the acclaimed "Fables" comic book series. You play as Bigby, the Big Bad Wolf, and what started as an investigation into the murder of Faith has snowballed into something that threatens the very well-being of Fabletown. I have no intention of giving away key plot points in this review, so don't worry.

If you've been following my reviews for every other game in this series, outside of four which I actually forgot to play until two days ago, you'll know that I basically say the same thing about every new installment, which is this: amazing story, but these games will never get 10s out of me because of the core gameplay mechanics, which are simplistic at best.

Is someone going to tell him that there's something wrong with his left eye?

Let's talk about the good first, though, because this has consistently been one of the best told and most interesting story in games since they started. From the very beginning, Telltale Games have done a wonderful job keeping up a story with lots of twists and turns that, outside of a hiccup or two, has moved along at a brisk and brilliant pace. The very premise of The Wolf Among Us is one I'm in love with, despite not giving myself to the comics (yet). I absolutely love seeing the dark versions of all the fables we grew up on thrust into these situations.

The weakest link the series was episode four, which didn't hit as hard as it should. We are normally given a great cliffhanger to keep us clamoring for more, but episode four left us cold. It's not that I didn't want to continue, because I knew that episode five would start off with a bang do to the circumstances that episode four left us in. It wasn't even a terrible ending, but it felt more like a bridge to a cliffhanger rather than a true cliffhanger. It just wasn't a great place to stop.

However, episode five rectifies that by being the best in the series, which any season finale should aspire to do. The action is quick and intense right from the beginning. There are a lot of scenes that build tension tremendously. Episode four was a little light on letting you control the action, even by The Wolf Among Us standards, but episode five fixes that too. It has some of the most exciting action in the entire series, and it's extremely satisfying.

Speaking of satisfying, it also has the best scene in the series so far. After all this build, we are treated to something that was a long time coming and it lived up to the hype. Obviously I won't spoil any of it, and I hate being so vague because I just want to gush, but I'll let you experience the entire episode for yourself if you haven't already.

Just a regular night.

This episode pulled at my heartstrings more than any episode before it, and it's nice to see that even at the very end they left us with a choice and a plot point that makes us scratch our head and ponder it until season two starts. 

It's true, that even when you're playing this series you're not really playing, and it's with that that I level the same criticism I always have: more gameplay is needed. I'm a very open-minded gamer, and I have praised tons of games with the gameplay is light. I loved Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain, and I haven't given The Wolf Among Us lower than an 8 on any of the episodes. 

However I will always feel that the core element of video games that make them special, and superior to all other art forms, is that they are interactive in the purest sense of the word. Before we had great graphics and advanced technology, we had the ability to control the action on the screen, regardless of how simplistic it was. 

I know that this is what Telltale Games does, and in this case I praise their ability to craft an engaging and intelligent story, but the gameplay consists mostly of some quick-time events and making dialogue choices. The fights allow you to click on the screen to interact with objects, but these are clearly laid out and the choices are minimal. It's better than nothing but it's not the most compelling thing ever. 

Admittedly, there's a great deal of choices to be made, so the game does a pretty good job of keeping you busy with that. Your choices do matter, and because of this I often second guessed my choices and thought as hard as I could about them in the limited time frame that I had to make them. I think more games should have the depth in dialogue that this series has. I want to feel like I've impacted things with the decisions I make, and The Wolf Among Us has done a great job of giving me that feeling of accomplishment throughout the entire season.

Still, it's hard for me to shake that feeling that with a little more gameplay I'd be immersed in the experience. It doesn't have to be much because each episode is short, but it would be appreciated. I have enough faith in them that they could have created a conventionally fun game while retaining the elements that make this series special. I don't think they'd ruin it with crappy game mechanics.

Everything else is the game is handled well. The visuals, as always, feel like a comic book and the little touches breathe life into the characters and the city. Outside of a few wonky parts, like cars moving incredibly awkwardly, they did a good job with this. 

As a whole, this season has been very rewarding even with the hang-ups of minimal gameplay -- though I am aware that some people aren't bothered by this at all -- because we have very capable people behind the story, which is where a game like this has to shine. Fortunately for us, it does. If you haven't played it yet, pick it up now and play through it because even all the episodes together would end up being less than fifteen hours. Give yourself to it, appreciate what it's offering.

Resisting The Urge To Dig Myself A Grave With A Shovel Joke (Dammit) -- A Shovel Knight Review

Written By: Tyler
Platforms Available On: PC, Wii U, 3DS
Platform Played On: Wii U

The first of many badass encounters.

Rating: 9/10
Verdict: A love letter to the past, but also a game that forges its own identity, Shovel Knight is an 8-bit inspired platformer that reaches beyond its humble roots and gives us a game that mentions the past but doesn't rely or get lost in it.


Releasing games inspired by the classics of the 8-bit era isn't anything new within the indie community. The indie scene is flooded with nostalgia, and you can't go five seconds without tripping over something that harkens back to the past. Shovel Knight is no different in that regard, being a game that is very much entrenched in the days of yore, but not trapped in them.

Let's just get this out of the way, because this is what you're here for: Shovel Knight is awesome. There will probably be very few games this year that bring me greater joy than this unassuming little platformer about a knight with a shovel who is trying to save Shield Knight from the evil Enchantress. Mario, yes, but that's not where it ends. The levels look like Mega Man, you can use your shovel and bounce off enemies and objects like in Duck Hunt. The world map is ripped right from Mario 3. The references are numerous, but like I said in the first paragraph... Shovel Knight owes to them but isn't defined by them.

Despite how obvious the influences are, the game forges its own path ultimately, and that's something a lot of indie games lack when calling to the past. It's one thing to make us go "aha" when we spot a reference, but that overstays its welcome. The better route is to make us go "aha" but then follow that up with making us go "wow" because the game has its own identity.

Shovel Knight has simplistic controls. Use a button to jump and another to swing your shovel. Press down while you're in the air and you can use it as a pogo stick. Press up and the attack button and you use your spell. If you're playing on Wii U you can either press a button to call up your inventory or use the screen on the gamepad, which is what I do. That's about it, but the game doesn't need anymore because the foundation is so solid, the levels so well-designed, that what might appear as a limitation these days is a strength. You don't get bogged down at any point.

All games need clever world/level/stage design, but platformers need it more than most genres, and Shovel Knight has it in spades. Every level has its own motif, whether it's something a little more trippy, or it being dark with only lightning lighting the way, or a level that uses air in interesting and dynamic ways, the game is always throwing something new at you.

Enemies are placed in interesting areas, and if you're not careful you might jump over to a ledge only to get hit off because that particular enemy is placed for that sole reason... the game assumes you'll get careless and make that jump without thinking, and a lot of people probably will. There are times that your platforming skills are truly tested, as the game consistently throws new types of jumps at you. The game is hard, but -- to the dismay of some retro-gamers -- it's not impossibly hard, which I'm completely fine with. I had a nice challenge throughout the whole thing.

Each stage ends with a boss, of course, and like the rest of the game there's a lot of variety to them. Since all the characters are knights with different specialties, such as the Tinker Knight, Specter Knight, Polar Knight, etc, they all have their own method of attacking and you have to adapt to that. The battles are fast, and if you sit back they will probably eat you up. I tended to lose on the first fight but won on the second more often than not. 

I have a confession, and yes I've chosen until the middle of the review to say this: I actually am glad we've moved on from the past in a few ways. Namely, I hate redoing levels over and over just because I died. I welcome checkpoints. I did my time, so now once I beat a section I beat it and I don't want to go back until my next playthrough. Shovel Knight has a bunch of checkpoints throughout each level, and each time you die you lose money where you died and you can go back and collect it. This is an interesting play on what we know and love.

Part of the identity of the levels is the excellent soundtrack. Each level has its own, and the soundtrack itself has 48 songs. All of which are great. As I write this review I am listening to it, and each song fits the mood of the stage, transporting you into that world with its usage of chiptune. Yeah, it's another homage to the 8-bit era, but it's extremely well composed with a variety of different moods and atmosphere. Some of it is victorious, some of it is darker, some of it sounds incredibly urgent.

You don't level up in the game, but you can buy different spells such as a fireball, a green orb that bounces around, a powerful blast, and much more. There's a good variety of spells in Shovel Knight, especially when you consider that it's not an incredibly long game. More on that in a second.

You can also spend your money on giving yourself more life, upgrading your shovel with a few different abilities like an homage to Zelda where your shovel shoots something across the ground when you have full life. There are also a bunch of armor upgrades, all of which with their pros and cons, except for the gold armor which I don't think really changes your stats but makes you do a flip when you jump. Plus you look stylish and that's all I really want.

As of writing this review, the game is $15 and I feel like I got every penny nickel worth. I completed the game in roughly five and a half hours but I didn't get everything. Besides the main stages, there are side stages and side boss battles, along with the many dream sequences in which you fight enemies until the Shield Knight drops and you catch her. I don't know why I love this so much, but I think the numerous campfire scenes add to the experience. It's a nice touch. There's also a new game plus after you beat the game, which allows you to keep your old equipment but ups the difficulty.

Shovel Knight is special. It's one of the best platformers of the last ten years, at least, and it's a good price. If you're looking for a retro-inspired game that offers more than just nostalgia, then pick up Shovel Knight because while it does have the novelty of you playing as a knight with a shovel, it has an abundance of excellent level-design, lovable characters, great boss battles and amazing music.

Well, It's No Fight Night: The EA Sports UFC Review

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: Playstation 4

If you're wondering, then yes, Jon Jones is pooping out the EA Sports logo.

Rating: 6.5/10
Verdict: There's a good foundation present here, but EA UFC stumbles in a bunch of ways and is just not the MMA game I want or gamers deserve at this point.



I'm a big fan of Mixed Martial Arts, and believe that it's one of the most unpredictable sports in the world. I have played the crap out of the last bunch of MMA video games, including EA's own EA MMA. I felt that EA MMA had a good foundation for future games if they decided to make more. Sure enough, they acquired the rights to develop a UFC game... and I feel almost the exact same way that I did towards EA MMA. It's a pretty good game, with some great elements, but it also has some terrible aspects that hold it back from being the first truly great MMA game. Yes, I said it: there hasn't been a great MMA game.

The first thing that has to be talked about, and the element of the game that deserves the most praise, is the visuals and presentation. It looks and feels like a UFC event and EA has seemingly taken great care to give fans of the UFC a game that produces an authentic UFC experience. Before the fight it has the classic screen where it shows the two fighters, it has Bruce Buffer, it has all the aesthetics.

In the cage, it's more of the same. The character models are gorgeous, and you can see the sweat, veins and blood realistically rendered. When the fighters get hurt, it shows on their face. When they put a lot of force into their own attacks, it shows. People limp when you hit them with a well placed kick to their legs, but as a whole, the collision detection is a bit spotty. Sometimes they do something really silly like spin around crazily when they get hit, but that's pretty rare. For the most part, the models react as realistically as is possible at this point in gaming.

The only problem I have with how the fighters react is that sometimes you hit them with a big shot that should at the very least make them take a step back... but they don't. EA didn't want to make a game where everybody is getting knocked out in the first round, because that would cheapen the MMA experience. That's been a problem of previous games. As unflashy as decisions are, they're a natural thing in combat sports, so people should go to decisions more often than we have in previous MMA games. The only problem is, people can eat an inhuman amount of blows in order to raise the possibility of decisions. It is very possible to end it in the first round, especially on easier difficulties, but in my experience some fights should have ended quicker than they did. Sure, some people have better chins and can go to war for much longer, but sometimes this is just excessive.

When you turn on the game, the annoyance starts. You are forced to do a basic tutorial before you even get to a menu. I know games often include tutorials when they begin, but they're usually implemented in a less frustrating way. However, that's not where my main gripe is. My main gripe is that you go into the Career mode and you have to do another tutorial. Leave me alone! If I want to not understand the game, then let me be confused!

There isn't a lot to do outside of the Career mode, but let me quickly touch on the other things you can do before I go more in-depth about that. You can choose to "Fight Now," which is just an exhibition match where you can pit your created fighters against real fighters, against other created fighters, or put real fighters against real fighters. I imagine it's probably tradition for a lot of people to pick your favourite fighters and pit them against the ones you hate. Or, relive old feuds like I do.

Such as this one... only in my world, Nick Diaz pounded on GSP. I even took him down.

You can also choose to fight online, but in my experience it was extremely laggy. Normally my connection is fine so I don't know if it was on my end or what, but I can only report on what I experience.

You can do the challenges, but those are just tutorials to help you learn how to play. They have all these tutorials but there's no easy way to just look up how to do something in-game. As far as I know, you have to go to their site.

But outside of those things, there's not a lot you can do. You can't create tournaments to play against the computer, so you either just fight now or start a career.

The career is about what you'd expect if you have played a UFC game before, but it's not nearly as interesting as the previous UFC game. In the previous game, you could at the very least choose your fights, choose to fight in Pride, etc. Hell, even Fight Night had a much better career mode. In comparison, EA Sports UFC seems basic and because of this, it seems more repetitive. You are given fights, you get fans, you train, you level up your character and you buy him moves with the points you earn in training. These points are also used in raising your attributes, where are separated into stand-up, ground and submission tiers. This is all stuff you've done before, but I do like the way that this game allows you to allocate your points... it's very Fight Nightish and I love Fight Night.

There's also something called "Abilities," which is basically just game planning. You choose up to five different things to boost your character, such as making his punches hurt more or losing less stamina. I like this more than the way the previous UFC game handled game planning, and I feel that as a whole, it's much easier to develop a fighter that stands a chance against the computer.

One thing that EA MMA had that I wish they would have included in this one is the ability to do the training once and then just simulate the same results, so you didn't have to constantly do the same thing in order to get points. I get it: mixed martial artists are constantly grinding to improve, but as a game mechanic, I've always disliked this aspect in combat sports games. You can skip the training but you won't get the points, and EA MMA did a wonderful job in rectifying this by allowing you to get an A in training and just simulate those As over and over.

I wish they copied the other UFC games by allowing you to level up individual things like submissions, strikes or transitions. It really gave me a sense of pride to say that this particular submission was a death trap. Instead, the moves you can acquire are laid out in a more streamlined -- thus, better -- way and you can easily choose which ones to learn, and you get them instantly. For as complicated as they make the controls -- more on that later -- I actually felt like this game suffered from the same thing that EA MMA did, though not quite as much: there actually isn't enough variety to separate your CAFs (created fighters) from one another. In previous MMA games, I never made a fighter that was like another one of my fighters, but in this one, that would be a lot more likely.

My experience with the career was an intense love affair that got really stale at the end. You start at TUF -- The Ultimate Fighter, which is a tournament of sorts that the UFC has been using for years now -- which is actually a neat way to start. You fight your way into the house and then you fight the other people in the house. The bullshit meathead "let me bang bro" drama is not included in the package which is nice, though now I wonder if playing an MMA Life Simulator would be fun.

Anyway.

After you win TUF, you fight on the undercard with hopes of getting to the main card. In between fights, you're constantly bombarded with video packages explaining things like submissions, UFC debuts, KOs, etc. You're also force-fed fighters constantly congratulating you on winning... sometimes to humorous results like seeing the same fighter twice in a row, or a fighter calling you up to say good job after you just beat his ass. Or maybe someone says, "Hey, it's Ronda Rousey again" when they've never talked to you before in your life. Even though you can skip all of these, I actually hate that they're included at all. I understand that EA's m.o. these days is to give you a look into the life of these athletes, but I just want to play a game.

The career was fine up until a certain point. I slowly built my way up to a championship, but I fought the same few real fighters over and over. I was a welterweight, and I never got to have wars with people like Nick Diaz, or Carlos Condit. I am forgiving of this, but it got really terrible when all the real fighters retired and I found CAFs over and over. It was the Arlovski/Sylvia era all over again as I pummeled the same few guys repeatedly, just getting bored and sloppy as time went on. It makes sense that fighters would retire, but this put a damper on the entire thing.

I do like how they handle your own retirement though, because there's a longevity bar that fills up as time progresses. Once it's done filling, Dana will tell you you're done and that's that. It's a much better system than having a set number of fights, because it adds to the realism. If you're a balls-to-the-wall fighter who takes a lot of damage (like Shogun), you will suffer from this. If you're basically an MMA Floyd Mayweather, then you'll last longer. I got almost fourty fights out of my CAF.

Speaking of which... he's the guy on the left and this was taken when I was the reigning champ. You just haven't heard of Schmidt yet...

I think this is the first combat sports game in a long time that I probably won't go back and play through again as a different style. I didn't play it on a hard difficulty so I know I'd get less points if I did, but on the default difficulty, by the end of it I was a 100 rating. I just lack the interest to go back and do this again.

Once you get to the actual fighting EA Sports UFC is littered with flaws... some of them bigger than others, but some are little things that every MMA game should have by default. The problems I mentioned above about having legendary chins is true, but there is more to it.

My biggest problem since the demo has been that at times, it plays more like what a non-MMA fan thinks MMA would be since it's "martial arts." The movesets of some fighters is ridiculous and they do things they shouldn't be doing. It's like EA wanted to make it as flashy as possible, and they helped make this possible by having a stupid modifier system. What was broken about the way EA handled striking in their previous game, or the way the modifiers worked in other games? Nothing. Not a damn thing. But yet EA decided to add an awkward extra modifier (R1) which was just a poor idea. We don't need a million different strikes, because MMA fighters don't have them either, unless they're Jon Jones or Anderson Silva. Why is Gus doing crazy kicks? He's a textbook boxer. Why does everybody have a suplex that nobody does that is ripped straight from pro-wrestling?

The controls leave a little to be desired. In trying to give us a game where we can have more variety -- which I still say was handled fine in previous games because not every MMA fighter attemps anaconda chokes -- they've made the controls a little too complicated. Now that you can choose different limbs when attempting a submission, you have to hold a button, press the direction and then do a quarter turn, instead of simply hitting R3 in previous games. That's just one example. The controls are serviceable but they weren't broke in previous games, so they didn't need to be fixed.

Speaking of submissions, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the system in this one. I actually liked the EA MMA system because limb submissions were a battle of button-mashing vs stamina management which I felt made sense. They also had chokes where you had to hit the "sweet spot." There was variety but the mini-games never took me out of the action. I despised the submission system in the previous UFC game, but not as much as I hated the submission game in the UFC game prior to that one.

In EA Sports UFC, they wanted to simulate how submissions go in real-life. They wanted different stages, and they wanted the mini-game to reflect that. If you're attempting a submission, you press the right stick in the same direction that you opponent does in order to stop him. When an L flashes on the screen, you press the left stick in that direction to "lock in" the sub and proceed to the next level. It sounds more complicated than it is, and I get that submissions have different levels to them, but this doesn't factor in that sometimes submissions happen really quickly. Why is every guillotine choke taking me three or four different levels? Why is a minute battle? Guillotine chokes often get locked in almost instantly. Five seconds later, the guy has passed out. It's not a terrible sub system, but they would have been better just re-using or tweaking the EA MMA one.

While the stand-up/clinch is fine (outside of sub-par controls) the ground game is still where EA needs to improve. EA MMA had a functional system in place, and EA Sports UFC is better, but it's still a little silly at times. For example, if you are mounted fully, you can press a button and you lift your opponent up and use a butterfly guard to push them off. This happens so rarely in MMA it's laughable. The ground game is still focused on turning your right stick in quarter circle turns, so they haven't changed it a lot, but they just need to evolve it and allow more positions. The ground game should be dynamic and complex. Like EA MMA, there's a good foundation there and I have hope for the next game in the series.

From my experience, the AI is a little too aggressive, but I guess it's a video game. You aren't going to get the really technical battles from a video game at this point, so for the most part the AI was fine... except this one fight where I fought BJ Penn and he literally spammed takedowns: 76 to be exact. I know people will complain about the AI, but honestly, it's decent. They don't appear to do anything really stupid, even on the easier difficulties. AI is one of the hardest things about making a game so I am generally pretty lenient with it.

EA Sports UFC is not a bad game, it just hasn't found its legs yet. This is their second MMA game, so perhaps it should have been better, but I have no doubt that the third will be much better because the mechanics are solid and they just need to build on it effectively.

I Won't Mention The Lack Of Gay Marriage, Oops... A Tomodachi Life Review

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: 3DS

Oooooooh!

Rating: 8/10
Verdict: It's pretty light on the "life simulator," but in small bursts it's an extremely funny, silly game that is sure to make you laugh a bunch of times.



Tomodachi Life is another Nintendo game that tries to go beyond the social norm of gaming and offer us an original, memorable and quirky experience. In my opinion, people should go out of their way to try to play these types of games because you often find the diamonds in the rough this way. But is this game a gem or a dud?

In Tomodachi Life, you are tasked with creating Miis and looking after them. You help shape their personality and even their voice -- the voices are robotic and silly but it fits perfectly within the context of the game. You have to feed them, clothe them, help them cultivate relationships, and watch them do plenty of strange things. Yes, it's like Sims meets Animal Crossing, but it's not really as deep as either or compelling. With that said, Tomodachi Life is not at all a bad game and there's a lot to love here if you're willing to give yourself over to the weirder side of things.

This is probably the biggest laugh I had in the game.

The main complaint that you'll hear almost unanimously across the board is that the game is repetitive and it loses its novelty fairly quickly. I can't even argue that, because if you play the game more than fifteen minutes per sit down, you'll often find yourself wondering what you can do next. The game isn't as demanding as Animal Crossing, and the experience is light. You have very little control over how your town develops, outside of creating Miis or solving problems, but the requisites for how to attain everything in town is clearly laid out for you. There just isn't a lot to do at any given time, but it's actually not a bad way to kill a few minutes a bunch of times a day.

There is a level progression system, which is a nice addition but what it offers is minimal. You level up your Miis but giving them gifts, feeding them, clothing them, giving them life and relationship advice, and when they reach a new level you have the choice of giving them a new interior for their apartment, a catch phrase, a song, a gift or pocket money. That's really about all there is to it but I'm still glad they put it in there because even though it's simplistic, it does give you the feeling that you're doing something with these people.

On the flip side, if you give Miis bad advice and they get their heartbroken, prepare to do the materialistic thing and give them gifts until they feel better. A black cloud will literally appear above their head as they mourn their broken heart. The Miis seem to proclaim their love for one another on a fairly regular basis, so be prepared to deal with them. My main Mii kept proclaiming his love for a girl that was already taken... oh how art imitates life. I mean, what?

The music is there, but there's not a whole lot to love. If you're anything like me, you'll keep the sound up because you enjoy listening to the Miis talk. For example, in the photo above, I have a Mii named jake and I could listen to him talk all day because his voice amuses me. 

So you may be asking yourself, how could I possibly give it an 8 when the game gets repetitive so quickly? There are two main reasons for that. The first is that it's okay to have casual games where it's just a quick pick up and play. It helps ease and relax the mind, and sometimes it's nice to not play something complex.

The other reason is the main one. The game is hilarious and will most likely be the funniest game I play this year, and it positions itself nicely in the history of amusing video games. The comedy is the real winner here. Though the game does often get repetitive, there were times when something new happened that would make me crack up. This could be something as simple as watching a Mii do something strange in their apartment because they don't know somebody's watching, only to turn to you, eyes wide open, when you choose to enter their apartment. Or maybe it's the most random conversation you'll ever see in a Cafe. Perhaps it's the first time you watch a song (that you can write) get performed on stage. It could be watching the comical events that take place each day in the Mii News. Or it could be taking a vacation -- with selfies -- in space. Maybe it's the joy of doing something like this:

Making a Ninja who lives in a jail.

The game breathes and encourages odd. That's why it's okay that the game isn't as deep as it could be. Sure, in time this novelty will wear off as well, but that's the nature of games: eventually things become ordinary. It's cheesy and doesn't take itself too seriously, and may not find a real audience among "serious gamers," but it would have been a blast to develop. It's not the deepest life simulator, but it's important to note that in my time with the game so far, I have yet to feel like the game has gotten entirely stale. Give it a chance if you want something different.

I leave you with one last memory.

Fly Through The Air Like You Just Don't Care -- A Child of Light Review

Written By: Tyler
Platform Played On: PC

 

See 10 minutes of gameplay here: http://youtu.be/70Kkn2YOAt0


Rating: 8.5/10
Verdict: Child of Light does a few intriguing things with the format, and is an incredibly polished, beautiful game, but it doesn't stand among the best JRPGs in the world. It's only $15 though, and it could cost a little more and I still wouldn't feel ripped off.


Child of Light is an interesting gamble for Ubisoft. They are known recently for violent, expansive, open-world/sandbox games, and indeed, their next game in May is the much anticipated/eater of worlds Watch Dogs. Child of Light is a Japanese RPG made by North Americans, and it has slipped into existence a mere month before Watch Dogs gets released into the wild. It's very cool to see a company like Ubisoft release a smaller passion project before a big release, and it's especially cool that it's a genre that has fallen off the radar a bit over the years. But is it any good?

In a nutshell -- yes, Child of Light is good. Great even, but not a classic. It will not stand amongst the best JRPGs in video game history, but if there is any justice in the world then it should be remembered as a completely solid side-scrolling, turn-based RPG that does a few neat things with the genre.

You play as Aurora, a sick little Austrian girl who drifts asleep and wakes up in a foreign, fantastical land -- Lemuria. She is trying to get home. Whether it's real or a dream isn't apparent at the beginning, and you mean an odd bunch of characters through the ten hours or so that you adventure through the world.

The plot is interesting and emotional, while being told entirely through poetry. This is an awesome stylistic choice, because how often do we get to see a game where everyone talks in rhyme? Unfortunately some of the dialogue is timed and this can be problematic because of the nature of it -- it's lyrical, so it may take a moment to fully comprehend and the game doesn't always give you the time to understand it.

It's hard to talk about the game without acknowledging the visuals. The hand drawn/painted art style is beautiful and makes it very easy to drift into this wonderful fairy tale. Look in the background and there is plenty going on, or look around you and see how fully realized the entire area is. This game oozes atmosphere on all fronts, and it's an early candidate for visuals of the year.

In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and say that I think the primary focus of the game is creating a rich, awe-inspiring yet believable world. This extends to the music. The music doesn't stand out like some games, but it's solid and always there to compliment the visuals wonderfully with its usage of a lot of strings. It sounds like it belongs in a fairy tale, as opposed to in a big Hollywood movie like a lot of games these days go for.

The JRPG is known for turn-based combat, and Ubisoft has decided to bring that back. However, they didn't bring it back in a bland, unoriginal way. There are a couple ideas here that progress the genre. There is a timeline on the bottom of the screen and you can see who is going to get to attack next. Some enemies/characters are faster so they will move along the line more quickly. You can use spells to decrease or increase speed, and it becomes a battle to see who can get there first. You could just hammer it out and get through the game because it's not that hard, but there are a couple elements to the combat that encourage you to use strategy.

Your blue firefly companion can slow down enemies. He has an energy bar and if you click and hold down the mouse button on an enemy, they move slower along the timeline. You can also use him to heal yourself. This allows you to get a bit of an advantage on enemies, or at least somewhat level the playing field if they're faster than you.

He also ties into the two-player mode, and while I haven't played it, I can't imagine it's that much fun. He has a few ways in which he helps, like in combat. But you also use him to reach items, solve easy puzzles (I'm notoriously stupid and had no issues), stun enemies -- since they can be seen on the "world map" you can go behind them and get a sneak attack -- and collect healing. The multiplayer just seemed tacked on and unnecessary to me.

There is also importance in going first beyond the obvious reason of just attacking the enemy. You can actually interrupt enemy attacks if you've timed it right, which sets them back on the line. What this means is that you could essentially go an entire battle without getting hit if you plan accordingly and things work out well. Like I said, you don't really need to put this much thought into the combat, but the options are there and it's much more rewarding if you do.

In battle you can also switch your characters on the fly, allowing you to utilize any and all characters since they all have their pros and cons. Some are best at healing, some can caste haste, some are brutes, etc. I always enjoyed this aspect in Final Fantasy X, and it's nice to see it employed again.

There is another way in which the game is like Final Fantasy X, and that's in how you level up. Child of Light essentially has a Sphere Grid, only it's more of a Sphere Grid-lite. There are a couple different ways you can go, but in my experience there's really only one way I wanted to go, except for with a character or two.

You can unlock new abilities, or upgrade your statistics like strength or magic defense. You level up at least every second fight (I'm not kidding), and while that might sound cool, due to the limited nature of level progression, it's not really all it's cracked up to be. There isn't really a sense of accomplishment after you've put a few hours in because you level up so quickly. I get what they're doing by constantly offering growth, but sometimes less is more.

Regardless, due to the fact that you ultimately have a choice with how your character progresses, and the fact that there's a crafting system -- there is a decent amount of depth here. The Oculi crafting system is simplistic and straight-forward, but it does pay to experiment a little bit to see how all your gems can benefit you. In this case, despite how minimalist it is, it's better to have it than not because it adds to the experience.

At the beginning of the game you walk and jump, and it's slow going, but in roughly an hour or less you can suddenly fly. Yes, you can fly... with no limitations except for the map ending. There is no energy bar to prevent you and you never have to walk again. This may seem like a simple thing, but it gives the game a more open feel and it's just beyond cool to be able to take flight whenever you see fit, and travel wherever you damn please (within reason). The game doesn't force feed you where to go, or how to do anything, so you can get disoriented pretty quickly if you're not paying attention, but there's a tip section when you pause that poetically tells you where to go.


Despite how technically sound it is in a lot of ways, it didn't grab me like the best RPGs do. I still really dug it and was into it, but favourite games have a way of burrowing their way into your heart, leaving you with this feeling of amazement (depending on who you are, this is either starting to sound erotic or romantic).

Child of Light is a polished JRPG-lite in a few ways, but in other ways it is near the top of its class (such as the visuals). It's not a long game, and anybody looking for a serious challenge should look elsewhere, but it's also only $15 so you definitely get your money worth.