M1L9
”No Time To Explain (Remastered)” is nowhere close to being the oldest game I’ve played/reviewed & yet when compared to other games it stands out as a title that shows its age a lot when reflecting back. While not inherently a negative that you can tell what period a game is from - it really felt like a strange time capsule from the late 00’s-early 10’s compared to anything else I’ve played through.
The game definitely lives up to its title because doing a brief plot summary would be very convoluted. A broad stroke explanation would be that earth is getting attacked & you need to put a stop to it via time-travel/timeline jumping. For each level you’re given different weapons to help you through this journey - though their primary purpose is to help at traversal first, self-defense second. Because the game is more in line with a 2D platformer than a run n gun game.
Each time you kill a boss you’re summoned into a different timeline. Where gameplay either changes up by introducing a new puzzle/gimmick or you can be transported into a world with less mechanics, but a different way of transportation. Unfortunately, a pretty big quality difference is present. Since the gimmick/puzzle levels (where you retain your standard traversal weapon, but have to account for increasing mechanics) tend to play a lot better than levels with completely new playstyles. Momentum ends up coming to a crawl due needing to learn new traversal, while the difficulty still progresses increasingly. Leading to some of the last “new character” stages becoming rather unenjoyable due to this imbalance between difficulty vs learning curve with stage specific characters.
I still had fun completing ”No Time To Explain” However I would’ve wished it rather just committed fully to the primary weapon & what conditions/limitations could be introduced to make for a good gameplay loop. Instead of having a tool that generally was fun to use, but then have it limited for 65-70% of playtime & then replaced with less fun alternatives in those remaining 30%.
The game definitely lives up to its title because doing a brief plot summary would be very convoluted. A broad stroke explanation would be that earth is getting attacked & you need to put a stop to it via time-travel/timeline jumping. For each level you’re given different weapons to help you through this journey - though their primary purpose is to help at traversal first, self-defense second. Because the game is more in line with a 2D platformer than a run n gun game.
Each time you kill a boss you’re summoned into a different timeline. Where gameplay either changes up by introducing a new puzzle/gimmick or you can be transported into a world with less mechanics, but a different way of transportation. Unfortunately, a pretty big quality difference is present. Since the gimmick/puzzle levels (where you retain your standard traversal weapon, but have to account for increasing mechanics) tend to play a lot better than levels with completely new playstyles. Momentum ends up coming to a crawl due needing to learn new traversal, while the difficulty still progresses increasingly. Leading to some of the last “new character” stages becoming rather unenjoyable due to this imbalance between difficulty vs learning curve with stage specific characters.
I still had fun completing ”No Time To Explain” However I would’ve wished it rather just committed fully to the primary weapon & what conditions/limitations could be introduced to make for a good gameplay loop. Instead of having a tool that generally was fun to use, but then have it limited for 65-70% of playtime & then replaced with less fun alternatives in those remaining 30%.
1993
Slightly exposing my age here, but Doom 1 is the first game I’m reviewing that out-ages me. I knew going in it had a reputation of being the first person shooter in a pre-Half Life world & that intrigued me whether this reputation was overstated looking through a current day lens or it has aged like wine.
To probably not many people’s shock - this game definitely is on “Age like wine” side of things. For somebody who grew up with fully 3D shooters, Doom 1 is without a doubt a more primitive presentation compared to later games in the same genre, but during my playtime I didn’t feel its simplification was much of a hindrance. You cannot aim directly where you want, but the hitbox still is quite generous to make up for this.
…And that’s really my only thing that took me a bit of time to get used to, but otherwise Doom 1 holds up fantastically & there’s a ton to like. The levels are sprawling & generally really well designed - filled with lots of hidden secrets that generally are worth trying to find if you’re willing to go for some extra challenge. Gameplay is superb, it just feels punchy/intense & does a great job supporting wanting to dive head first into your enemies instead of being overly cautious. Guns are varied, enemy variety is solid, etc.
Heck I’ll also mention another thing that really caught me off guard in a positive way. I had never heard before going into Doom 1 that enemy infighting was a thing, so that really surprised me! It makes the game feel alive that enemies also react/take eachother out on occasion. Even if it wasn't a super common occurrence it really put a smile on my face the odd times it happened.
If I had to give 1 complaint though it probably would be later levels become a bit too infested with enemies. Not to an outrageous degree, but for me it was just slightly noticeable where I started questioning if it was becoming excessive. Though otherwise I can definitely wholeheartedly recommend Doom 1. Might be a 31 year old game by now, but damn is it a great time even nowadays.
To probably not many people’s shock - this game definitely is on “Age like wine” side of things. For somebody who grew up with fully 3D shooters, Doom 1 is without a doubt a more primitive presentation compared to later games in the same genre, but during my playtime I didn’t feel its simplification was much of a hindrance. You cannot aim directly where you want, but the hitbox still is quite generous to make up for this.
…And that’s really my only thing that took me a bit of time to get used to, but otherwise Doom 1 holds up fantastically & there’s a ton to like. The levels are sprawling & generally really well designed - filled with lots of hidden secrets that generally are worth trying to find if you’re willing to go for some extra challenge. Gameplay is superb, it just feels punchy/intense & does a great job supporting wanting to dive head first into your enemies instead of being overly cautious. Guns are varied, enemy variety is solid, etc.
Heck I’ll also mention another thing that really caught me off guard in a positive way. I had never heard before going into Doom 1 that enemy infighting was a thing, so that really surprised me! It makes the game feel alive that enemies also react/take eachother out on occasion. Even if it wasn't a super common occurrence it really put a smile on my face the odd times it happened.
If I had to give 1 complaint though it probably would be later levels become a bit too infested with enemies. Not to an outrageous degree, but for me it was just slightly noticeable where I started questioning if it was becoming excessive. Though otherwise I can definitely wholeheartedly recommend Doom 1. Might be a 31 year old game by now, but damn is it a great time even nowadays.
2016
Been playing a surprising amount of this recently, it's a quite unique experience. Considering its a horror-adjacent setting coupled up with team-based vs. solo player PvP game. Not a combination I’ve seen often, but is quite fun to play with 1-3 friends if playing as a survivor or still enjoyable solo as ”The killer”
Though will make it pretty clear that I do not think this is a good multiplayer game to play on the survivor side if playing completely alone. Sure, you can be lucky & get a lobby of moderately to good randoms once in a blue moon, but otherwise my (admittedly limited) experience solo queuing as a survivor normally leads to being paired up with griefers, either sabotaging the survivor side or dying instantaneously deliberately. Rage quitters, who leave as soon they’re hooked/downed their first time or sandbaggers… Who arguably could be new players, but are so avoidant of the killer they pretty much contribute nothing for the team side. Which also is why I recommend playing with 1 friend minimum when playing as a survivor. Because then you can be sure ½ your team is cooperative at least.
Playing killer though is fun! You aren’t weighed down by potentially useless teammates & based on my own personal experience you can still have fun in most match-ups. If equally skilled just play normally, however for “lower skilled” survivor teams I tend to adjust my playstyle to make it a bit more difficult to hook people (also cause it's never fun to curb-stomp a team that's obviously outmatched)... There are ofc the infamous high skill “survivor bully squads” that can suck running into - but I run into those so rarely I wouldn’t worry about it (though should it happen just slug them. Don’t make a habit of playing like an ass, but if they start it then all is fair)
As for the game on a mechanical level. I do agree with the comments that it does become formulaic after a while doing gens/hooking survivors/etc. But I’d say it holds the interest for a good while before hitting that level & running different characters with varying playstyles definitely extends that window tremendously. I still boot the game up & run a few lobbies these days without being bored (I don’t have 1000’s of hours like other people have in this game. But TBF I don’t have that amount with many games?) It’s a fun game & I’d definitely recommend it if intrigued by the concept of a horror-esque multiplayer game.
Though will make it pretty clear that I do not think this is a good multiplayer game to play on the survivor side if playing completely alone. Sure, you can be lucky & get a lobby of moderately to good randoms once in a blue moon, but otherwise my (admittedly limited) experience solo queuing as a survivor normally leads to being paired up with griefers, either sabotaging the survivor side or dying instantaneously deliberately. Rage quitters, who leave as soon they’re hooked/downed their first time or sandbaggers… Who arguably could be new players, but are so avoidant of the killer they pretty much contribute nothing for the team side. Which also is why I recommend playing with 1 friend minimum when playing as a survivor. Because then you can be sure ½ your team is cooperative at least.
Playing killer though is fun! You aren’t weighed down by potentially useless teammates & based on my own personal experience you can still have fun in most match-ups. If equally skilled just play normally, however for “lower skilled” survivor teams I tend to adjust my playstyle to make it a bit more difficult to hook people (also cause it's never fun to curb-stomp a team that's obviously outmatched)... There are ofc the infamous high skill “survivor bully squads” that can suck running into - but I run into those so rarely I wouldn’t worry about it (though should it happen just slug them. Don’t make a habit of playing like an ass, but if they start it then all is fair)
As for the game on a mechanical level. I do agree with the comments that it does become formulaic after a while doing gens/hooking survivors/etc. But I’d say it holds the interest for a good while before hitting that level & running different characters with varying playstyles definitely extends that window tremendously. I still boot the game up & run a few lobbies these days without being bored (I don’t have 1000’s of hours like other people have in this game. But TBF I don’t have that amount with many games?) It’s a fun game & I’d definitely recommend it if intrigued by the concept of a horror-esque multiplayer game.
2013
Well this was a pleasant surprise! Ryse had my interest way back when it was announced for Xbox Kinect of all things. It was heralded as one of the first “real first party title” for the addon & that intrigued me. However I never picked it up when it changed from a Kinect game to a Xbox One launch title… both because it lost some appeal just becoming a standard action/hack & slash game, but more importantly due to Microsoft’s horrific Xbox One launch marketing.
Now roughly a decade later I picked up the game from Steam cheaply &.. It’s a pretty fun time? Admittedly it’s a quite short game (beat it in 6 hours & I’m not a person who breezes through) but it was an enjoyable ride I’d say. It’s still a shockingly gorgeous game despite being like 11-ish years old & the combat is also pretty solid… Which is a relief because going in I had heard it was pretty dull, though it holds up without issue & has enough variation to be interesting + the executions are all quite varied & stylish.
In the context of this as a retail game that originally launched for 60$.... Yeah under those circumstances I’d rate it quite a bit lower, but at a fraction of that nowadays I would give it a recommendation to people who are drawn in by Ryse’s setting or just want to play a solid hack & slash game that doesn’t overstay its welcome.
Now roughly a decade later I picked up the game from Steam cheaply &.. It’s a pretty fun time? Admittedly it’s a quite short game (beat it in 6 hours & I’m not a person who breezes through) but it was an enjoyable ride I’d say. It’s still a shockingly gorgeous game despite being like 11-ish years old & the combat is also pretty solid… Which is a relief because going in I had heard it was pretty dull, though it holds up without issue & has enough variation to be interesting + the executions are all quite varied & stylish.
In the context of this as a retail game that originally launched for 60$.... Yeah under those circumstances I’d rate it quite a bit lower, but at a fraction of that nowadays I would give it a recommendation to people who are drawn in by Ryse’s setting or just want to play a solid hack & slash game that doesn’t overstay its welcome.
2011
Very much been in the mode recently (that happens 1 a year or so) where Minecraft ends up getting a surprisingly amount of time committed from me for 2-4 weeks & then I drop it like a rock. I'm starting to get out of such a phase again, but why not review it while leaving this time?
My experience with Minecraft is not anything special compared to other people's experience with it. I got into it early during the Yogscast days & played it very consistently until 2014-ish where I just grew bored of it & just 1 day stopped logging in. Assume this is a quite normal experience for people - considering it's also around the same time the game had its first official ”Playerbase decline”, even if it's weird to think about something you had been intertwined with socially for years just suddenly got left behind. I spent a lot of time on multiplayer servers during those years & experienced “regulars”/”friends” suddenly disappearing without trace, but also realizing in hindsight I did the exact same thing by suddenly deciding not to play anymore without any heads up about it.
Hence It’s likely not a shock either that somebody who used 4-5 years on a game still swings by once in a while to check up on it sometimes. See what’s been implemented - perhaps play on a new server where nobody knows you or with friends briefly. That’s pretty much been my experience every time I’ve returned to Minecraft years after. See/Learn the new mechanics, have some fun & dip when bored, rinse/repeat months later.
This most recent playthrough I decided to attempt beating the game on hardcore though. Definitely more of a challenge for somebody who truly hasn’t fully committed to ”understand” all the new stuff since downgrading from playing daily/weekly to maybe yearly almost a decade ago…But I managed it! Only to then get bored… But I’ll probably return to Minecraft once again when somebody from my friend group wants to play at some point in the future!
It probably has been noted I haven’t really talked about the game yet - but honestly I think for somebody in my position it's hard to attempt rating a game objectively when it also comes with personal memories & experiences associated. Which my experience with Minecraft does - It could’ve been any multiplayer game, but for me Minecraft ended up being one of those titles. Which also is why I keep returning to it over time. Even if it doesn’t hold the same importance today it did leave a really strong impression on me that’s stuck through the ages.
My experience with Minecraft is not anything special compared to other people's experience with it. I got into it early during the Yogscast days & played it very consistently until 2014-ish where I just grew bored of it & just 1 day stopped logging in. Assume this is a quite normal experience for people - considering it's also around the same time the game had its first official ”Playerbase decline”, even if it's weird to think about something you had been intertwined with socially for years just suddenly got left behind. I spent a lot of time on multiplayer servers during those years & experienced “regulars”/”friends” suddenly disappearing without trace, but also realizing in hindsight I did the exact same thing by suddenly deciding not to play anymore without any heads up about it.
Hence It’s likely not a shock either that somebody who used 4-5 years on a game still swings by once in a while to check up on it sometimes. See what’s been implemented - perhaps play on a new server where nobody knows you or with friends briefly. That’s pretty much been my experience every time I’ve returned to Minecraft years after. See/Learn the new mechanics, have some fun & dip when bored, rinse/repeat months later.
This most recent playthrough I decided to attempt beating the game on hardcore though. Definitely more of a challenge for somebody who truly hasn’t fully committed to ”understand” all the new stuff since downgrading from playing daily/weekly to maybe yearly almost a decade ago…But I managed it! Only to then get bored… But I’ll probably return to Minecraft once again when somebody from my friend group wants to play at some point in the future!
It probably has been noted I haven’t really talked about the game yet - but honestly I think for somebody in my position it's hard to attempt rating a game objectively when it also comes with personal memories & experiences associated. Which my experience with Minecraft does - It could’ve been any multiplayer game, but for me Minecraft ended up being one of those titles. Which also is why I keep returning to it over time. Even if it doesn’t hold the same importance today it did leave a really strong impression on me that’s stuck through the ages.
An interesting tidbit to start off with - Sly Cooper & The Thievious Racoonous actually ended up being a game I played way later than its sequels. Which makes for a peculiar experience, considering Sly 1 vs Sly 2 & Sly 3 is a very apples to oranges comparison. You still do a lot of the same things in the sequels (varied missions, sneaking around, collecting different valuables) but it’s in a different avenue because Sly 1 is more straightforward than it’s sequels. Going for a smaller hub in general, not really featuring Bentley/Murray much outside of the odd level once a blue moon, combat being harder, etc.
Fortunately, nobody said that because it’s a different context also must mean it’s inferior & in Sly 1’s case it still stands well on its own. It still has a lot of the Sly charm which the whole series has (the comic book-esque aesthetic & generally memorable characters) & while combat is different to its sequels it’s not a deterrent. Because enemies go down just as quickly as you - hence it makes the challenge not feel insurmountable.
Probably the biggest complaints I’ve seen is that some missions felt gimmicky & while I do see where people are coming from there were only 2 “gimmick” levels which led to personal frustration, being the chicken level & 1 of the bosses. However I felt the games deviation from more standard gameplay more often than not led to an enjoyable experience.
And that’s also how I’d rate this game - mostly enjoyable! It’s a slight outlier compared to its sequels, but it holds up fairly well with quite some years removed since it came out. I’d recommend it to any fan of 3D platformers.
Fortunately, nobody said that because it’s a different context also must mean it’s inferior & in Sly 1’s case it still stands well on its own. It still has a lot of the Sly charm which the whole series has (the comic book-esque aesthetic & generally memorable characters) & while combat is different to its sequels it’s not a deterrent. Because enemies go down just as quickly as you - hence it makes the challenge not feel insurmountable.
Probably the biggest complaints I’ve seen is that some missions felt gimmicky & while I do see where people are coming from there were only 2 “gimmick” levels which led to personal frustration, being the chicken level & 1 of the bosses. However I felt the games deviation from more standard gameplay more often than not led to an enjoyable experience.
And that’s also how I’d rate this game - mostly enjoyable! It’s a slight outlier compared to its sequels, but it holds up fairly well with quite some years removed since it came out. I’d recommend it to any fan of 3D platformers.
2013
The type of FPS games which “Rise of The Triad” (2013) takes inspiration from, comes from an era before I got into shooters. Most notably, my very first FPS I recall playing was COD 4: Modern Warfare & while I hold that game in high regard I am also aware of the criticism surrounding that series & what direction it helped steer the FPS genre into. That being overly linear & heavily scripted games that generally fell into being very easy to play & it being seen as an overall downgrade.
Despite this lack of experience with “older” shooters I’ve always had an interest in trying some FPS games which play more retro. Especially when observing franchises such as Doom/Wolfenstein holding onto the formula & new indie games such as Dusk/Ultrakill that seem to embrace an older approach too. However instead of spending money for a game I’m uncertain to even like I looked through my steam library to see if I already owned something from a bundle which could be my first dive into a more “retro shooter” & “Rise of The Triad” seemed to be the closest thing to it.
After having played through it, I’ve come to the conclusion that ”retro inspired shooters” is a game type I want to try more games from… However it’s not because “Rise of The Triad” won me over, it's because I felt extremely constrained of having a decent gameplay loop stuck in an experience that ran out of ideas ½ way through & then decided to overcompensate with enemy spam & gimmicks that disappear as quickly as they’re introduced.
And it's a shame because shooting is pretty damn solid! It has some punch on every weapon & the arsenal you’re given is quite creative (explosive type & “special”-type being standouts) It’s really enjoyable to shoot in the game. Thus it’s disappointing as the game progresses you end up getting increasingly limited in ways to take enemies down. Because they become armored (bullet sponges) immune to anything that isn’t explosives, matrix like acrobats & so on!
I started dreading encounters during late stages because I knew I could overcome every enemy type like I had done 5 dozen times before, but when you have to unload a whole clip of ammo into each enemy before they‘re defeated it becomes tedious more than anything.
And this is not even addressing the technical issues, which also are plenty. Had to reset different stages probably 5-6 times during its 5 hour runtime due to being soft-locked or stuck on terrain. There’s also a less daming issue of looping sound effects if a sound is playing as you finish a stage (like if an enemy is shooting a gun right as you complete a level you’re gonna hear that until next level loads)
Nothing super game-breaking is present, but I do feel it speaks for “Rise of The Triad” (2013) as an overall package. It’s a game that has some nuggets of potential, but it's just a bogged down experience - both from a technical standpoint, but also just in terms of polish. I did have moments of fun with this game in spurts when it wasn’t technically janky & if enemy spam was on the milder side briefly, but it overall left me wishing for a more cohesive experience.
Despite this lack of experience with “older” shooters I’ve always had an interest in trying some FPS games which play more retro. Especially when observing franchises such as Doom/Wolfenstein holding onto the formula & new indie games such as Dusk/Ultrakill that seem to embrace an older approach too. However instead of spending money for a game I’m uncertain to even like I looked through my steam library to see if I already owned something from a bundle which could be my first dive into a more “retro shooter” & “Rise of The Triad” seemed to be the closest thing to it.
After having played through it, I’ve come to the conclusion that ”retro inspired shooters” is a game type I want to try more games from… However it’s not because “Rise of The Triad” won me over, it's because I felt extremely constrained of having a decent gameplay loop stuck in an experience that ran out of ideas ½ way through & then decided to overcompensate with enemy spam & gimmicks that disappear as quickly as they’re introduced.
And it's a shame because shooting is pretty damn solid! It has some punch on every weapon & the arsenal you’re given is quite creative (explosive type & “special”-type being standouts) It’s really enjoyable to shoot in the game. Thus it’s disappointing as the game progresses you end up getting increasingly limited in ways to take enemies down. Because they become armored (bullet sponges) immune to anything that isn’t explosives, matrix like acrobats & so on!
I started dreading encounters during late stages because I knew I could overcome every enemy type like I had done 5 dozen times before, but when you have to unload a whole clip of ammo into each enemy before they‘re defeated it becomes tedious more than anything.
And this is not even addressing the technical issues, which also are plenty. Had to reset different stages probably 5-6 times during its 5 hour runtime due to being soft-locked or stuck on terrain. There’s also a less daming issue of looping sound effects if a sound is playing as you finish a stage (like if an enemy is shooting a gun right as you complete a level you’re gonna hear that until next level loads)
Nothing super game-breaking is present, but I do feel it speaks for “Rise of The Triad” (2013) as an overall package. It’s a game that has some nuggets of potential, but it's just a bogged down experience - both from a technical standpoint, but also just in terms of polish. I did have moments of fun with this game in spurts when it wasn’t technically janky & if enemy spam was on the milder side briefly, but it overall left me wishing for a more cohesive experience.
Hot on the trails of my 2nd finished GTA game, Vice City ended up being the 3rd GTA game I've seen to conclusion & while I like certain ideas intorduced in VC I'm not sure I in good faith can say its that much of an improvement from GTA 3.
Main word I would use to describe VC is reinterpretation. Instead of adjusting the mechanics of GTA 3, VC seems more interested in presenting a smaller map (although brimming with way more personal flair than GTA 3) but also giving different gameplay variety on top too.
It gives mixed results. The implementation of numerous new vehicles, weapons & a crouch button are welcome additions, but there's also implementations I just wish hadn't been entertained. Most notably the property system in the endgame is not only unintuitive, but also incredibly grindy - however the worst offender is the gimmick missions.
You can tell that Rockstar was aiming towards making missions more cinematic in VC, but during my playthrough I lost count how many times mission failed because NPCs pathing messed up or they died during these "cinematic" moments/cut scenes. This is not even touching upon the flying/rc missions - which I'd say are borderline unplayable on a PC with standard controller set-up.
I do actually like this game, but it took some time to accept there wasn't really any improvements from 3 to this & rather main focus seemed to be on expanding the sandbox than refining anything. Its a game that brims with individual personality more than GTA 3, but I'm less lenient on VC's shortcomings. You can definitely see some of VC's ideas in the more modern entries & I feel that's pretty commendable.
Main word I would use to describe VC is reinterpretation. Instead of adjusting the mechanics of GTA 3, VC seems more interested in presenting a smaller map (although brimming with way more personal flair than GTA 3) but also giving different gameplay variety on top too.
It gives mixed results. The implementation of numerous new vehicles, weapons & a crouch button are welcome additions, but there's also implementations I just wish hadn't been entertained. Most notably the property system in the endgame is not only unintuitive, but also incredibly grindy - however the worst offender is the gimmick missions.
You can tell that Rockstar was aiming towards making missions more cinematic in VC, but during my playthrough I lost count how many times mission failed because NPCs pathing messed up or they died during these "cinematic" moments/cut scenes. This is not even touching upon the flying/rc missions - which I'd say are borderline unplayable on a PC with standard controller set-up.
I do actually like this game, but it took some time to accept there wasn't really any improvements from 3 to this & rather main focus seemed to be on expanding the sandbox than refining anything. Its a game that brims with individual personality more than GTA 3, but I'm less lenient on VC's shortcomings. You can definitely see some of VC's ideas in the more modern entries & I feel that's pretty commendable.
2001
2nd GTA game I've ever beaten the story mode in - I normally tend to get far, but then abandon for some reason. However finally got through 3 on this latest playthrough.
These games are hard to rate in retrospect though man. Because yes there's obviously quite a bit of jank in this entry, (some of it even probably being considered bad/unenjoyable game design in a modern context)... but like its hard to be negative about considering this is one of the earliest 3D open world games & considered hugely influential. You aren't gonna get a perfect track record when you're in uncharted waters & what you make is gonna end up being "the standard" for others to build upon, duh!
That little rant out the way, I'd say most of this games jank from a 2023 perspective is 80-85% manageable & 15-20% cheap BS. Definitely seen worse skews, but it doesn't hurt my experience with the game too much. Overall I'd consider this a pretty neat, though very early "good example" of its genre that's been surpassed by now. However that does not mean this game isn't worth visiting. Would just advice going in with modest expectations, tackle its awkward qualities more with fascination than frustration.
These games are hard to rate in retrospect though man. Because yes there's obviously quite a bit of jank in this entry, (some of it even probably being considered bad/unenjoyable game design in a modern context)... but like its hard to be negative about considering this is one of the earliest 3D open world games & considered hugely influential. You aren't gonna get a perfect track record when you're in uncharted waters & what you make is gonna end up being "the standard" for others to build upon, duh!
That little rant out the way, I'd say most of this games jank from a 2023 perspective is 80-85% manageable & 15-20% cheap BS. Definitely seen worse skews, but it doesn't hurt my experience with the game too much. Overall I'd consider this a pretty neat, though very early "good example" of its genre that's been surpassed by now. However that does not mean this game isn't worth visiting. Would just advice going in with modest expectations, tackle its awkward qualities more with fascination than frustration.
2009
It's Interesting, reading other people’s assessment of this game there’s a lot of criticism I feel is totally valid. The driving is nothing to write home about, the climbing feels out of place considering its setting, etc…. yet despite that these flaws just didn’t detract much from my experience with “The Saboteur”?
Perhaps it's because I’m just super captivated with the overall presentation/premise/art direction that it didn’t take much away from me? Being a saboteur, the little guy in a suppressed Paris occupied by Germany just really draws me in for some reason. How you are able to tackle objectives, guns blazing but also stealthily if you wish, really kept me invested (+ I will also slightly defend the stealth system. It’s not that deep or complex, however I still found it consistent enough from own experiece)
Saboteur’s characters also are pretty vibrant. Can admit the overall story isn’t fantastic, but Sean/Irishman in general is a great character to take control of/play as. But its most outstanding element for sure is the artstyle. Having Paris be presented in black & white, only broken up by the enemies red insignia & light from other buildings gives the game an incredibly memorable aesthetic throughout.
I fall on the side of really liking this game, despite its obvious faults. There are elements of this game that don’t compliment each other much & also comes off as a mishmash of mechanics. However it just didn’t really phase me? I was charmed by the game right from minute 1 & most shortcomings never became bad enough to dent my enjoyment. I had a blast, making this a game experience way surpassing my expectations, but could see other people being less lenient towards “The Saboteur” jank elements. So do approach with that in mind if interested. There’s lots of ideas here & not all of them executed brilliantly, though I’d say there still is a really enjoyable game despite those rough edges.
Perhaps it's because I’m just super captivated with the overall presentation/premise/art direction that it didn’t take much away from me? Being a saboteur, the little guy in a suppressed Paris occupied by Germany just really draws me in for some reason. How you are able to tackle objectives, guns blazing but also stealthily if you wish, really kept me invested (+ I will also slightly defend the stealth system. It’s not that deep or complex, however I still found it consistent enough from own experiece)
Saboteur’s characters also are pretty vibrant. Can admit the overall story isn’t fantastic, but Sean/Irishman in general is a great character to take control of/play as. But its most outstanding element for sure is the artstyle. Having Paris be presented in black & white, only broken up by the enemies red insignia & light from other buildings gives the game an incredibly memorable aesthetic throughout.
I fall on the side of really liking this game, despite its obvious faults. There are elements of this game that don’t compliment each other much & also comes off as a mishmash of mechanics. However it just didn’t really phase me? I was charmed by the game right from minute 1 & most shortcomings never became bad enough to dent my enjoyment. I had a blast, making this a game experience way surpassing my expectations, but could see other people being less lenient towards “The Saboteur” jank elements. So do approach with that in mind if interested. There’s lots of ideas here & not all of them executed brilliantly, though I’d say there still is a really enjoyable game despite those rough edges.
A game that strives to implement its main hook decently (bullet curving) into the gameplay loop, but then keep it standard procedure for everything else. Wanted: Weapons of Fate is a third-person-shooter based off the movie released the year prior. Not completely following the story of the movie, considering it follows Wesley & his father in different time periods; attempting to take down “The immortal”
While the curved bullet element of the game keeps stuff semi fresh it's unfortunately the only element really of note in the game. The environments are pretty drab & uninspired, not really leaving much of an impression. The bosses too don’t really stand out in any particular way, only things I remember is the first boss being pretty jank to deal with & the last being an absolute bullet sponge… Which does remind me roughly 1⁄2 way through the game certain enemies also end up becoming very bullet resitant too.
At least it’s a short game, roughly 3-4 hours, but I'm not really sure I want to recommend it to anyone. Only really if somebody has interest in the bullet curving mechanic sorely. Because that’s pretty unique & can’t pinpoint another game where it can be experienced otherwise.
While the curved bullet element of the game keeps stuff semi fresh it's unfortunately the only element really of note in the game. The environments are pretty drab & uninspired, not really leaving much of an impression. The bosses too don’t really stand out in any particular way, only things I remember is the first boss being pretty jank to deal with & the last being an absolute bullet sponge… Which does remind me roughly 1⁄2 way through the game certain enemies also end up becoming very bullet resitant too.
At least it’s a short game, roughly 3-4 hours, but I'm not really sure I want to recommend it to anyone. Only really if somebody has interest in the bullet curving mechanic sorely. Because that’s pretty unique & can’t pinpoint another game where it can be experienced otherwise.
2017
One of the biggest hurdles of the roguelike/roguelite genre for me is that there’s an expectation the player has to hurl themselves at the same wall a dozen of times until they “master”/”conquer” said challenge & then keep trucking along until you hit the end eventually. The problem is though, the balancing act between not making it a cakewalk, but also avoiding making the early experience so repetitive that the player gives up due to boredom or frustration is a hard line to walk.
Based on my personal experience I’m the type who tends to abandon roguelike/roguelite because it ends up crossing into the line of boredom quicker than most. The lack of noticeable progression is killer & it's a shame because I love the concept of the genre, but not the established rules of it.
Which is why I’m so happy Fury: Unleashed caught me completely by surprise when I launched it up. I think the element I like most is rather than focusing on making each room itself the challenge, Fury: Unleashed steers a bit differently by encouraging playing fast & precise rather than methodical & adverse. The arcade-y/score-attack nature of the game compliments the game wonderfully & it does not seem out of place with the genre.
Another thing I like is that you rarely feel under-equipped in any runs. I’ve played other roguelikes where sometimes you could play well, but the gear you gathered that specific run just seemed hopeless & progressing just wasn’t happening. This isn’t a problem for Fury. The odds don’t feel stacked against you & the enemies aren’t too spongy either where it becomes frustrating.
The only thing I would dock the game for is the overarching narrative. It’s not bad, but it really didn’t captivate me either. What pushed me through more than anything was seeing all the environments the game took place in. But would wholeheartedly recommend this game!
Based on my personal experience I’m the type who tends to abandon roguelike/roguelite because it ends up crossing into the line of boredom quicker than most. The lack of noticeable progression is killer & it's a shame because I love the concept of the genre, but not the established rules of it.
Which is why I’m so happy Fury: Unleashed caught me completely by surprise when I launched it up. I think the element I like most is rather than focusing on making each room itself the challenge, Fury: Unleashed steers a bit differently by encouraging playing fast & precise rather than methodical & adverse. The arcade-y/score-attack nature of the game compliments the game wonderfully & it does not seem out of place with the genre.
Another thing I like is that you rarely feel under-equipped in any runs. I’ve played other roguelikes where sometimes you could play well, but the gear you gathered that specific run just seemed hopeless & progressing just wasn’t happening. This isn’t a problem for Fury. The odds don’t feel stacked against you & the enemies aren’t too spongy either where it becomes frustrating.
The only thing I would dock the game for is the overarching narrative. It’s not bad, but it really didn’t captivate me either. What pushed me through more than anything was seeing all the environments the game took place in. But would wholeheartedly recommend this game!
2022
I am not well versed in the genre of visual novels, but saw this on itch.io with the LGBT tag & thought why not? I'm LGBT, I want to become more comfortable exploring media with LGBT topics, this did not seem too long. Hence I think this could be a nice starting point getting into visual novels considering its themes.
I really vibe with the story! Albeit nothing groundbreaking (very outcasts vs. the world) the 2 main characters play off each other well & it captured/held my interest easily throughout its 2-3 hours till end credits rolled. I will also give a huge compliment to the artstyle. It does seem rugged at first glance - almost coming off hand drawn in a sketch format, but I think it works in the games favor. I'm personally a believer that the most important traits of an artstyle is that it's 1) consistent & 2) distinct. Which are 2 rules "Lookout" manage to abide by throughout.
There’s 2 things worth mentioning though. I wish the game had used a bit more time of having more music tracks present. Because there are periods where nothing is playing (not even ambient noise) & it does come off uncanny. Secondly is a thing that might be standard for VN’s & I perhaps just am not used to it, but wish there was a tad more player input expected. It’s more an interactive story than a game - which I don’t oppose because I enjoyed the story that was there, but barely any dialogue options, branching or interactivity was required (outside of reading ofc) which does disappoint me a bit.
Still a fun experience. I liked the story, characters, artstyle & setting a lot + you can perhaps make an argument that 1 of my complaints could stem from inexperience with the genre more than anything. For something that can be found for free on itch.io I enjoyed my brief time with it.
I really vibe with the story! Albeit nothing groundbreaking (very outcasts vs. the world) the 2 main characters play off each other well & it captured/held my interest easily throughout its 2-3 hours till end credits rolled. I will also give a huge compliment to the artstyle. It does seem rugged at first glance - almost coming off hand drawn in a sketch format, but I think it works in the games favor. I'm personally a believer that the most important traits of an artstyle is that it's 1) consistent & 2) distinct. Which are 2 rules "Lookout" manage to abide by throughout.
There’s 2 things worth mentioning though. I wish the game had used a bit more time of having more music tracks present. Because there are periods where nothing is playing (not even ambient noise) & it does come off uncanny. Secondly is a thing that might be standard for VN’s & I perhaps just am not used to it, but wish there was a tad more player input expected. It’s more an interactive story than a game - which I don’t oppose because I enjoyed the story that was there, but barely any dialogue options, branching or interactivity was required (outside of reading ofc) which does disappoint me a bit.
Still a fun experience. I liked the story, characters, artstyle & setting a lot + you can perhaps make an argument that 1 of my complaints could stem from inexperience with the genre more than anything. For something that can be found for free on itch.io I enjoyed my brief time with it.
I've had this GBA game for ages, but never completed it back then. Was hesitant to start it up years later because I had a concern my vague positive memories were very rooted in nostalgia, but then I looked the game up here & saw its surprisingly high score (4+ stars) & decided to give it a go anyways.
I don't think I'm as fond of the game as others on this site are, but it's hard to deny that Ham-Ham Heartbreak being really polished & a very competent hand held experience most of the way through. The premise is really simple (main villain hates love/people getting along. Hence he attempts to make everyone fight) but it's still executed well despite the simple premise. The sprite work is also quite inspired & it compliments the dictionary system a lot with how creative some of the animations are.
...The game does have downsides though, especially regarding how obtuse progression sometimes can be. Make no mistake the game isn't hard, but you can very much run into situations where you run around for a surprising amount of time because there's some obscure text prompt/object to interact with you overlooked - leading you to comb through the whole zone backwards until you find what you missed.
Those moments do leave some frustration and it's also why I can't give a full on no reservations recommendation. It's a good game, think its more polished than most licensed games, but you have to accept 10-15% nonsense alongside it. Though if you can stomach that there's a fun 6-8 hour game in store.
I don't think I'm as fond of the game as others on this site are, but it's hard to deny that Ham-Ham Heartbreak being really polished & a very competent hand held experience most of the way through. The premise is really simple (main villain hates love/people getting along. Hence he attempts to make everyone fight) but it's still executed well despite the simple premise. The sprite work is also quite inspired & it compliments the dictionary system a lot with how creative some of the animations are.
...The game does have downsides though, especially regarding how obtuse progression sometimes can be. Make no mistake the game isn't hard, but you can very much run into situations where you run around for a surprising amount of time because there's some obscure text prompt/object to interact with you overlooked - leading you to comb through the whole zone backwards until you find what you missed.
Those moments do leave some frustration and it's also why I can't give a full on no reservations recommendation. It's a good game, think its more polished than most licensed games, but you have to accept 10-15% nonsense alongside it. Though if you can stomach that there's a fun 6-8 hour game in store.
2008
Another game from the backlog completed... Actually swung quite a bit with this game & how I felt about it. At first I felt it was too simple. Considering it's a puzzle platformer it's extremely straight forward in terms of navigation. There's not really much "exploring" & most of the mechanics come off haphazardly implemented (1 of the games worst traits is sections where platforms move under you, but if you just stand still you can bypass 75% of all movement)
However around lvl 16 the game starts actually expecting a bit more awareness around its mechanics (particularly hanging on an edge) & I was starting to warm up thinking it would steadily improve from that point on - that didn't happen though. Rather it just became a matter of "do what we learned you, but this time longer", which just cannot carry a game till the end screen.
Apparently it was designed first for mobile a few years earlier, but that doesn't take away from how surprisingly repetitive it is throughout its 3 hours of playtime. Will make it clear that its not a badly designed game, but definitely a unremarkable one.
However around lvl 16 the game starts actually expecting a bit more awareness around its mechanics (particularly hanging on an edge) & I was starting to warm up thinking it would steadily improve from that point on - that didn't happen though. Rather it just became a matter of "do what we learned you, but this time longer", which just cannot carry a game till the end screen.
Apparently it was designed first for mobile a few years earlier, but that doesn't take away from how surprisingly repetitive it is throughout its 3 hours of playtime. Will make it clear that its not a badly designed game, but definitely a unremarkable one.