Demi
BACKER
2023
At best: a recreation of F-Zero that fundamentally does not care about the delicate setup of the animations and controls found in the SNES original but at least has some interesting bits of detail with the presentation
At worst: being bored and sticking your finger into a fan just to see what happens
Nintendo add White Land II or you’re a bunch of cowards I wanna see 70+ people falling into a pit
At worst: being bored and sticking your finger into a fan just to see what happens
Nintendo add White Land II or you’re a bunch of cowards I wanna see 70+ people falling into a pit
1987
The Final Final Fantasy Review:
“It feels like time has been stopped for so long.”
-A Video Game Character Who Is Not From A Squaresoft Game
For the past month while playing this game, I wasn’t really in a good RPG mood, I was sort of going through a little existential crisis with my life and the genre. When you’re grinding away so you can find a purpose/stability in real life, grinding in a tiny box doesn’t entirely help. I’m saying that, but also it did help really in another way. It’s not shocking to say that I’m certain there are better (and more balanced) versions of this game (I actually have been thinking about playing through the GBA version soon ngl) but also I didn’t necessarily care because about 10 years ago before I even thought about coding my own games I was playing this one and (as mentioned in my first review for this game) I was drawn in. This journey of finishing the game was me going in and emotionally forgetting (in the sense I felt nothing) why and then discovering that again over time, Final Fantasy isn’t the best (even at it’s time) but it’s good because it is a journey and JRPGs are a chance to journey in artificial time.
A large percentage of this game is about progression: How do I get off this island? How do I find this item? Where do I go? What are these orbs? It’s all basic and the story is empty but everything is drawn by progress and the promise of progress whether it’s seeing magic you can buy eventually or jobs you will just have to try in another save file if you didn’t pick them. It’s all very bare and open but with how I tried playing this game by not really grinding I think it was pretty fun (and more challenging).
Dragon Quest 3 still better tho
“It feels like time has been stopped for so long.”
-A Video Game Character Who Is Not From A Squaresoft Game
For the past month while playing this game, I wasn’t really in a good RPG mood, I was sort of going through a little existential crisis with my life and the genre. When you’re grinding away so you can find a purpose/stability in real life, grinding in a tiny box doesn’t entirely help. I’m saying that, but also it did help really in another way. It’s not shocking to say that I’m certain there are better (and more balanced) versions of this game (I actually have been thinking about playing through the GBA version soon ngl) but also I didn’t necessarily care because about 10 years ago before I even thought about coding my own games I was playing this one and (as mentioned in my first review for this game) I was drawn in. This journey of finishing the game was me going in and emotionally forgetting (in the sense I felt nothing) why and then discovering that again over time, Final Fantasy isn’t the best (even at it’s time) but it’s good because it is a journey and JRPGs are a chance to journey in artificial time.
A large percentage of this game is about progression: How do I get off this island? How do I find this item? Where do I go? What are these orbs? It’s all basic and the story is empty but everything is drawn by progress and the promise of progress whether it’s seeing magic you can buy eventually or jobs you will just have to try in another save file if you didn’t pick them. It’s all very bare and open but with how I tried playing this game by not really grinding I think it was pretty fun (and more challenging).
Dragon Quest 3 still better tho
1987
The real accidental metaphor this game has is that yes, adults really are just kids but with faster vehicles, a license to cast high level magic for arbitrary reasons, and more money
2008
If you made Twin Peaks for people who absolutely hated and did not care to get "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" but also that's kind of fair but also modern-pre-2016-anime-doomsday-clock-video-game but also lol they really do kind of have a Dora The Explorer "oh no! watch out for your shadow" thing going on
Video game: okay
Video game: okay
2004
"I've always wondered, 'Why haven't they exploded more in sales even though they're so much fun to play? Why do people think they're so difficult?'”
"I get that people find it more difficult when death is a factor. But I think the franchise's strength lies in its relationship with mortality.
If something is irreversible, you need to figure out a way to prevent undesired things from happening."
-Shigeru Miyamoto
If there was one thing that was on my mind after finishing the first Pikmin game, it's
that the series has a lot of potential (to the point where I even mentioned that I hoped this
game would not disappoint me).
Pikmin 2 somehow is a clever continuation of the formula from the first game but also a very noticeable shift that to me feels like a
lack of confidence in what was going on in the first game more than anything really. I'm adding a huge negative here at the start but I actually was not
disappointed by this game, if there's one thing Nintendo got right here it's at least keeping the feeling of management/strategy even if they had to
change aspects of the game/story/etc. from the original game.
I would say there were good moves made in this game that expand on the initial gameplay concept in Pikmin. For starters, you have
Louie, a second captain that you can split Pikmin with or swap control of from Olimar which helps with managing different areas
of the map for splitting up so you don't have to run around as much which I felt added a lot of strategy for the single player campaign
especially with Louie/Olimar being able to distract enemies if you leave them on their own.
While playing the game, I noticed how there were certain levels that promoted the use of controlling a single captain without Pikmin
such as having certain enemies that could defeat other enemies if you used them as a shield, sometimes going in with all your Pikmin is just a bad idea and this game
absolutely has A LOT of moments set up to drive home that core strategy. One meh/interesting continuation from the first game
that is played kind of as a joke at times (not major to the point of justifying this) are the consistent tutorials which were definitely very
prevalent throughout the first game but because of the more linear nature of Pikmin 2 you kind of just breeze through text rather than Pikmin
1 where it can kind of continuously appear over and over again (final note: it is better than any Pokemon tutorial lol).
Rather than having a large percentage of the game continuing the the open-ended survival aspect found in Pikmin 1,
Pikmin 2 keeps that as an "overworld" but presents RPG/Rogue-esc dungeons that play into the aspect of going in with
a set number of Pikmin until you make it to the end or escape. Honestly, if I had to sell Pikmin to more people on a console
that had to compete with the PS2, RPG dungeons are a tried and true formula to keep the series going while branching it out.
Pikmin 1 vs Pikmin 2 is open-ended design vs linearity in multiple aspects from the level design to even the endings (if you can say Pikmin 2 has multiple
but then again I did see the credits at a certain point). While I replayed Pikmin 1 and got better with each
new run to where I could "master" the game and cut my time in half, Pikmin 2 (like an RPG) is a long adventure that takes thoroughness
to complete when running through every area/cave. I can't say Pikmin 2 isn't fun or really a major step down but I will say that Pikmin 1
was just a lot more unique/interesting as a video game in my opinion and the fact that it was open-ended really connected me to the environment
a lot more.
I wouldn't even say this is specific to just the game design really as now there's a greater emphasis on the planet that Pikmin live on being
essentially Earth with goofy toys/items giving you upgrades or simple jokes rather than something like the first game where each part of your
ship was something weird/interesting you were assembling while learning about Olimar, you can still learn about Olimar in Pikmin 2 with the Pikilopedia
but that is outside of collecting items directly. With Pikmin 2 I felt like I was experiencing "Pikmin the video game sequel" rather than
"a continuation of the world of Pikmin", Pikmin 2 is louder (sometimes literally with buzzing treasure reading noises), has a lot more action, and to me doesn't
feel like it wants to keep up with the nature aspects of the series but rather whatever can keeps things goofy/creepy.
I said in my original review of Pikmin 1 that it was the "uncomfiest comfy game" because I was always worried about the time, how many
Pikmin I needed, what to build, and where to go with how short the game was and how much it subtly (and sometimes loudly) guided you but Pikmin 2 lightens these aspects and brings game design patterns I've definitely seen in other games but
in the context of being a continuation of what can be done with Pikmin which is a disappointment in some regards but not such a complete departure as to make me dislike it.
"I get that people find it more difficult when death is a factor. But I think the franchise's strength lies in its relationship with mortality.
If something is irreversible, you need to figure out a way to prevent undesired things from happening."
-Shigeru Miyamoto
If there was one thing that was on my mind after finishing the first Pikmin game, it's
that the series has a lot of potential (to the point where I even mentioned that I hoped this
game would not disappoint me).
Pikmin 2 somehow is a clever continuation of the formula from the first game but also a very noticeable shift that to me feels like a
lack of confidence in what was going on in the first game more than anything really. I'm adding a huge negative here at the start but I actually was not
disappointed by this game, if there's one thing Nintendo got right here it's at least keeping the feeling of management/strategy even if they had to
change aspects of the game/story/etc. from the original game.
I would say there were good moves made in this game that expand on the initial gameplay concept in Pikmin. For starters, you have
Louie, a second captain that you can split Pikmin with or swap control of from Olimar which helps with managing different areas
of the map for splitting up so you don't have to run around as much which I felt added a lot of strategy for the single player campaign
especially with Louie/Olimar being able to distract enemies if you leave them on their own.
While playing the game, I noticed how there were certain levels that promoted the use of controlling a single captain without Pikmin
such as having certain enemies that could defeat other enemies if you used them as a shield, sometimes going in with all your Pikmin is just a bad idea and this game
absolutely has A LOT of moments set up to drive home that core strategy. One meh/interesting continuation from the first game
that is played kind of as a joke at times (not major to the point of justifying this) are the consistent tutorials which were definitely very
prevalent throughout the first game but because of the more linear nature of Pikmin 2 you kind of just breeze through text rather than Pikmin
1 where it can kind of continuously appear over and over again (final note: it is better than any Pokemon tutorial lol).
Rather than having a large percentage of the game continuing the the open-ended survival aspect found in Pikmin 1,
Pikmin 2 keeps that as an "overworld" but presents RPG/Rogue-esc dungeons that play into the aspect of going in with
a set number of Pikmin until you make it to the end or escape. Honestly, if I had to sell Pikmin to more people on a console
that had to compete with the PS2, RPG dungeons are a tried and true formula to keep the series going while branching it out.
Pikmin 1 vs Pikmin 2 is open-ended design vs linearity in multiple aspects from the level design to even the endings (if you can say Pikmin 2 has multiple
but then again I did see the credits at a certain point). While I replayed Pikmin 1 and got better with each
new run to where I could "master" the game and cut my time in half, Pikmin 2 (like an RPG) is a long adventure that takes thoroughness
to complete when running through every area/cave. I can't say Pikmin 2 isn't fun or really a major step down but I will say that Pikmin 1
was just a lot more unique/interesting as a video game in my opinion and the fact that it was open-ended really connected me to the environment
a lot more.
I wouldn't even say this is specific to just the game design really as now there's a greater emphasis on the planet that Pikmin live on being
essentially Earth with goofy toys/items giving you upgrades or simple jokes rather than something like the first game where each part of your
ship was something weird/interesting you were assembling while learning about Olimar, you can still learn about Olimar in Pikmin 2 with the Pikilopedia
but that is outside of collecting items directly. With Pikmin 2 I felt like I was experiencing "Pikmin the video game sequel" rather than
"a continuation of the world of Pikmin", Pikmin 2 is louder (sometimes literally with buzzing treasure reading noises), has a lot more action, and to me doesn't
feel like it wants to keep up with the nature aspects of the series but rather whatever can keeps things goofy/creepy.
I said in my original review of Pikmin 1 that it was the "uncomfiest comfy game" because I was always worried about the time, how many
Pikmin I needed, what to build, and where to go with how short the game was and how much it subtly (and sometimes loudly) guided you but Pikmin 2 lightens these aspects and brings game design patterns I've definitely seen in other games but
in the context of being a continuation of what can be done with Pikmin which is a disappointment in some regards but not such a complete departure as to make me dislike it.
1994
Says enough that I remember small quests/lines like "The world is square" 8 years later
2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXbsmbd-0tE
GTAIII to me was already pretty ambitious when I started the game, hijacked a taxi,
and then proceeded to play essentially a smaller version of Crazy Taxi. I very much
wish arcades were still a thing, but I can imagine this just being an absolute
game changer for people at the time who couldn't even imagine a brutual game that
was so sprawling yet wasn't confined by clunky mechanics (or having to buy a PC).
I've never played a GTA game before but decided to start with this one because:
1. I'm at that point where I am collecting whatever good PS2 games I can find under $30
2. I don't mind just seeing a series at the origin point
3. GTA became incredibly relevant as a pillar of video games in pop culture
when Rockstar took over (at least from all I've seen, like I'm sure GTA
was controversial but it really did not take Mortal Kombat's place until the
PS2 honestly)
The formula of GTAIII really is something I've experienced consciously and I realized
that within the first hour of this game: you are in an open world with tasks you can do
but it essentially acts as a traversal level select screen for missions to complete
within the context of the world map. I think this was really big to a lot of people
because the only major game that was on a home console that was even remotely like this
was something maybe like Final Fantasy but JRPGs will always have a higher barrier
to entry than action games really (this could easily be a point as to how I've heard
some people talk about this game being something that "made Shenmue outdated" which
was a title that very much was more of a fighting game RPG than anything GTA wanted to be).
So many reviews for this game state that it has "aged poorly" but I think that just says
more about where we all have gone since this game released and I guess maybe
some issues that are prevalent in later GTA games (although I have seen a fair
number of people put this game at the bottom out of all three GTA games so who knows).
I think the core of this game is like what I mentioned at the start: arcade action
and mayhem spliced with the kind of seemless 3D world promised by the previous generation
of games. If it wasn't obvious (or you're new here), I play a lot of games
with a very linear story/progression so it was kind of refreshing going back to
something where there is a bit of that progression but also I can mess around with
a side mechanic for half an hour or whatever. At the end of the day, the only major
design aspect of this game that makes it factually outdated is that it was designed for a 22-year-old piece
of hardware and the terrible gun controls that would probably fit in with a PS1/N64 game.
I feel that the rapid nature the game world promotes where bumping into cops can get you
immediately down the path of absolutely taking on the force by yourself (as I did many times),
gangs can attack you if you're on their turf, strangers during certain times will try and
hijack your ride also, etc. help stradle this game on the fine line between "wow I just
drove people to this dog food place so they can get murdered" and "I am
going to approach this ramp at 80-90mph because why the hell not". If there's anything I can
see later games improving on, it's making the story and actions of the player a lot more involved
and not just throwing a box of mechanics at the player entirely (such as one time where I was running
down the street and I guess took some sort of drug that made everything bullet time?).
GTAIII isn't a game that does one thing extremely well, it has a lot of small ideas that are
fun to play through a bit and I think the episodic nature of the main story helps align with
that even if it's why I don't think this game meshes well with me. I understand there
wasn't really any way to make third-person shooting good in an era where RE4 was a dream
and all you had to go with were titles like Ocarina of Time and Tomb Raider but combat is very
easily the worst aspect of this game in my opinion.
Like other PS2 launch title games, this game absolutely goes in with the presentation, pushing the hardware,
and very much still carrying PS1-era design decisions but carving a path that would ultimately lead
to the terrible game industry we're just floating around in today.
GTAIII to me was already pretty ambitious when I started the game, hijacked a taxi,
and then proceeded to play essentially a smaller version of Crazy Taxi. I very much
wish arcades were still a thing, but I can imagine this just being an absolute
game changer for people at the time who couldn't even imagine a brutual game that
was so sprawling yet wasn't confined by clunky mechanics (or having to buy a PC).
I've never played a GTA game before but decided to start with this one because:
1. I'm at that point where I am collecting whatever good PS2 games I can find under $30
2. I don't mind just seeing a series at the origin point
3. GTA became incredibly relevant as a pillar of video games in pop culture
when Rockstar took over (at least from all I've seen, like I'm sure GTA
was controversial but it really did not take Mortal Kombat's place until the
PS2 honestly)
The formula of GTAIII really is something I've experienced consciously and I realized
that within the first hour of this game: you are in an open world with tasks you can do
but it essentially acts as a traversal level select screen for missions to complete
within the context of the world map. I think this was really big to a lot of people
because the only major game that was on a home console that was even remotely like this
was something maybe like Final Fantasy but JRPGs will always have a higher barrier
to entry than action games really (this could easily be a point as to how I've heard
some people talk about this game being something that "made Shenmue outdated" which
was a title that very much was more of a fighting game RPG than anything GTA wanted to be).
So many reviews for this game state that it has "aged poorly" but I think that just says
more about where we all have gone since this game released and I guess maybe
some issues that are prevalent in later GTA games (although I have seen a fair
number of people put this game at the bottom out of all three GTA games so who knows).
I think the core of this game is like what I mentioned at the start: arcade action
and mayhem spliced with the kind of seemless 3D world promised by the previous generation
of games. If it wasn't obvious (or you're new here), I play a lot of games
with a very linear story/progression so it was kind of refreshing going back to
something where there is a bit of that progression but also I can mess around with
a side mechanic for half an hour or whatever. At the end of the day, the only major
design aspect of this game that makes it factually outdated is that it was designed for a 22-year-old piece
of hardware and the terrible gun controls that would probably fit in with a PS1/N64 game.
I feel that the rapid nature the game world promotes where bumping into cops can get you
immediately down the path of absolutely taking on the force by yourself (as I did many times),
gangs can attack you if you're on their turf, strangers during certain times will try and
hijack your ride also, etc. help stradle this game on the fine line between "wow I just
drove people to this dog food place so they can get murdered" and "I am
going to approach this ramp at 80-90mph because why the hell not". If there's anything I can
see later games improving on, it's making the story and actions of the player a lot more involved
and not just throwing a box of mechanics at the player entirely (such as one time where I was running
down the street and I guess took some sort of drug that made everything bullet time?).
GTAIII isn't a game that does one thing extremely well, it has a lot of small ideas that are
fun to play through a bit and I think the episodic nature of the main story helps align with
that even if it's why I don't think this game meshes well with me. I understand there
wasn't really any way to make third-person shooting good in an era where RE4 was a dream
and all you had to go with were titles like Ocarina of Time and Tomb Raider but combat is very
easily the worst aspect of this game in my opinion.
Like other PS2 launch title games, this game absolutely goes in with the presentation, pushing the hardware,
and very much still carrying PS1-era design decisions but carving a path that would ultimately lead
to the terrible game industry we're just floating around in today.
2001
The EX-Pikmin Review
Original Pikmin review
Parts collected: 30/30
So today I sat down and was like "wouldn't it be cool if I beat this game in a single sitting" and then proceeded to not only cut my time in half (ending on day 17) but also basically completing 100% of the game.
I still stand by a lot of what I said but it's a bit more apparent to me how short this game is (I really hope I like Pikmin 2 rip). Big fan of the management and how you can basically master the game by understanding the fundamentals of throwing or just going through with a good army.
Game good
Gonna be really disappointed if the sequel is meh ngl
Original Pikmin review
Parts collected: 30/30
So today I sat down and was like "wouldn't it be cool if I beat this game in a single sitting" and then proceeded to not only cut my time in half (ending on day 17) but also basically completing 100% of the game.
I still stand by a lot of what I said but it's a bit more apparent to me how short this game is (I really hope I like Pikmin 2 rip). Big fan of the management and how you can basically master the game by understanding the fundamentals of throwing or just going through with a good army.
Game good
Gonna be really disappointed if the sequel is meh ngl
2001
If square was making hit after hit on the PS1, then this was the final culmination and I think the fact it’s more linear than those titles (something that initially made me dislike it as someone who grew up with FF4 on the ds), removed ATB for tactical turn based combat, and doubled down on cinematics says a lot about how they knew what people came to Final Fantasy for and what moves they needed to make to get to the good stuff instantly.
I need to replay it since it’s been 5 years since I finished it but this is very easily one of my top 5 FFs
I need to replay it since it’s been 5 years since I finished it but this is very easily one of my top 5 FFs
2012
I've had numerous hours spent having fun with just the Luigi's Mansion co-op game but also
"What do you play? The Wii U? insert laughter"
-Guy from my high school when I mentioned not having a ps4 2015
"What do you play? The Wii U? insert laughter"
-Guy from my high school when I mentioned not having a ps4 2015
2014
I bought this """""game""""" because BASIC/QB64 was the first programming language I got into and I swear I missed out on every big DSi online feature years and years after you could get anything fun out of it.
It's very cool being able to make your own programs on a handheld but coding is something that I really cannot do on a touchscreen (I don't even really like Scratch that much ngl but I get the appeal).
Definitely a novel DSi moment but I imagine the percentage of people who got into programming from this are <= 5%
It's very cool being able to make your own programs on a handheld but coding is something that I really cannot do on a touchscreen (I don't even really like Scratch that much ngl but I get the appeal).
Definitely a novel DSi moment but I imagine the percentage of people who got into programming from this are <= 5%
1987
The Pre-me-maybe-beating-it-for-once-review:
Back in 2019 I was crazy enough to say this was (in my opinion) the "most replayable JRPG" which was 100% clouded by the context of what JRPGs I had access to at the time I got this game on the Virtual Console and even what I was playing during the time I was weird enough to say something like that.
Today I really see this game as being a defiant example of what makes this series fundamentally different from Dragon Quest, a series that plays on an idea having some form of RPG complexity whether it can be a detriment or benefit.
This very conclusion I came to was part of the reason I felt that this game was "replayable", because starting up a new file felt like being given the keys to what would probably be the middle of an RPG adventure like Dragon Quest without having to grind there (but also you are absolutely grinding there). You can start this game and get a boat within the first hour, shops straight up sell incredibly high level magic/weapons/armor that you can only dream of buying, and right at the start you can set up your own party to have completely different experiences (good or terrible).
As I said before, Final Fantasy is about having some sort of appearance of complexity and I think this is evident with just HOW MANY enemies appear in this game during random encounters compared to other JRPGs at the time. Battles in this game take a long time but also can have a decent amount of strategy involved (because of the weird math or maybe something intentional) and investing into the proper equipment and spells is incredibly important.
I was about 12 when I got this game and I'm still (as I'm going through this game to finally finish it) wondering how I even found it to be so enjoyable that years later I'd be saying it's more replayable than a lot of JRPGs that are just better but I think there is a lot of charm that comes with it being Final Fantasy.
(Dragon Quest 3 better tho)
Back in 2019 I was crazy enough to say this was (in my opinion) the "most replayable JRPG" which was 100% clouded by the context of what JRPGs I had access to at the time I got this game on the Virtual Console and even what I was playing during the time I was weird enough to say something like that.
Today I really see this game as being a defiant example of what makes this series fundamentally different from Dragon Quest, a series that plays on an idea having some form of RPG complexity whether it can be a detriment or benefit.
This very conclusion I came to was part of the reason I felt that this game was "replayable", because starting up a new file felt like being given the keys to what would probably be the middle of an RPG adventure like Dragon Quest without having to grind there (but also you are absolutely grinding there). You can start this game and get a boat within the first hour, shops straight up sell incredibly high level magic/weapons/armor that you can only dream of buying, and right at the start you can set up your own party to have completely different experiences (good or terrible).
As I said before, Final Fantasy is about having some sort of appearance of complexity and I think this is evident with just HOW MANY enemies appear in this game during random encounters compared to other JRPGs at the time. Battles in this game take a long time but also can have a decent amount of strategy involved (because of the weird math or maybe something intentional) and investing into the proper equipment and spells is incredibly important.
I was about 12 when I got this game and I'm still (as I'm going through this game to finally finish it) wondering how I even found it to be so enjoyable that years later I'd be saying it's more replayable than a lot of JRPGs that are just better but I think there is a lot of charm that comes with it being Final Fantasy.
(Dragon Quest 3 better tho)
Sadly this is the only Paper Mario game I’ve currently fully played at the time of writing this (this will change by the end of the year I hope)
Incredibly gimmicky with none of the humor found in Super Mario RPG or the Mario & Luigi games, it feels like a culmination of my issues with Nintendo that plagued their lineup in the Wii U era with gimmicks and nothing else.
Incredibly gimmicky with none of the humor found in Super Mario RPG or the Mario & Luigi games, it feels like a culmination of my issues with Nintendo that plagued their lineup in the Wii U era with gimmicks and nothing else.
2001
The comfiest uncomfy game
(Parts collected: 29/30)
Sometime in 2012 I briefly borrowed this game and didn't get too far really. I was incredibly overwhelmed by the time limit and felt that the game was too difficult for me so I didn't put a lot into it until I had to give it back. 11 years later and I gotta say I am an absolute fan of this game and I think it's an incredibly interesting launch title to have for a Nintendo system especially.
I forget who said it but I think there's a quote out there about how a good game is supposed to make you feel smart by doing something that's not super complex and I think the hands-off and pressure-on nature of Pikmin just creates that feeling for me.
Pikmin is a short enough game that I was able to finish it this weekend (even when I thought I'd just try it briefly) but even with my run going pretty smoothly I didn't get the best ending and I think that says enough that there's still more even when you finish it (hence, being a comfy uncomfy game). There's always something I kept working on in this game whether it was finding out when I should throw Pikmin, how to lead them with the controls outside of just basic walking around, etc. and it's something I know isn't really beginner friendly for some but it was just the right amount for me.
I'm not a massive fan of the final area (maybe I'm still salty lol) but I do feel like even with my annoyances that this game brings it only serves to work with the premise of this game being about managing resources whether they be under your control or not.
Anyways yeah highly recommended.
(Parts collected: 29/30)
Sometime in 2012 I briefly borrowed this game and didn't get too far really. I was incredibly overwhelmed by the time limit and felt that the game was too difficult for me so I didn't put a lot into it until I had to give it back. 11 years later and I gotta say I am an absolute fan of this game and I think it's an incredibly interesting launch title to have for a Nintendo system especially.
I forget who said it but I think there's a quote out there about how a good game is supposed to make you feel smart by doing something that's not super complex and I think the hands-off and pressure-on nature of Pikmin just creates that feeling for me.
Pikmin is a short enough game that I was able to finish it this weekend (even when I thought I'd just try it briefly) but even with my run going pretty smoothly I didn't get the best ending and I think that says enough that there's still more even when you finish it (hence, being a comfy uncomfy game). There's always something I kept working on in this game whether it was finding out when I should throw Pikmin, how to lead them with the controls outside of just basic walking around, etc. and it's something I know isn't really beginner friendly for some but it was just the right amount for me.
I'm not a massive fan of the final area (maybe I'm still salty lol) but I do feel like even with my annoyances that this game brings it only serves to work with the premise of this game being about managing resources whether they be under your control or not.
Anyways yeah highly recommended.
I think Markiplier is kind of funny, I stopped watching Game Theory in 2015, that's all I have to say here (yes I did play this game)