Unicorn Overlord
Finished 5/4/24

As a fan of the tactics genre I sometimes have to face an unfortunate truth. I'm not really that smart. Denoting the tactics genre as something of an 'intelligent' genre isn't super productive or entirely all that honest but I think most people like to equate it as requiring a bit more patience and caution to every detail. The game of chess throughout history used as a paradigm of teaching tactical strategy, morality, higher thinking and the likes- unfortunately, in our middle school's gifted enrichment class I had the proud honor of being the 2nd worst chess player in our class ranking. I don't know, something about my planning functions just don't activate in the middle of a TRPG, sometimes becoming an issue in these tactical games. FFT, Capsule Monster Coliseum, Tactics Ogre- at least Fire Emblem's archetypal builds and borderline gambling chances have carved a niche in my brain as to how I proceed through those battlefields. It's a weird conflict of interest for me but one I enjoy wracking my brain with as the systems often take creative liberties to allow several different variables in handling their given puzzles. Leave it to Vanillaware to both alleviate on and twist the knife on this predicament.

Unicorn Overlord is a magnificent addition to the genre's canon, and would make a pretty good entry into the genre as of late, as Fire Emblem I feel has cornered itself in weird conflicting philosophies, in my opinion and other tactics franchises are mostly juggling through remakes at the moment. Ironic to recommend it as such given how much this game borrows from the canon wholesale, the gameplay is very much Ogre Battle 64, the world map and many plot beats reek of 16-bit Fire Emblem yet the later addition of Feather classes and Bestrals feel more akin to the Tellius titles. This is fairly typical for Vanillaware: Dragon's Crown, 13 Sentinels, Odin Sphere usually display their inspiration on their sleeve, although this still feels a bit more ‘prime’ for expansion but I'll elaborate later.

Props to Vanillaware having some of my favorite 'feel' in games. It's incredibly easy and satisfying going through VW interfaces. Something like 13 Sentinels being 90% narrative doesn't give you much to navigate, game-wise but even in a title such as that- it just feels smooth going through menus to find what you want. It should be a given that Vanillaware's attention to its art, its interfacing and music is top notch, just some of the best in the industry.

The world map is incredibly fun to explore, with the first nation providing a ton of features to interact with. Treasure maps, unmarked houses that give hidden items, different types of quests abound and town restorations to boost your renown, there’s a lot to clear out throughout Fevrith. I do wish later areas had more unique things to distinguish them, Drakengard gets a distinct coliseum but past that the latter nations feel a bit rinse and repeat. It's still fun to run around the new areas and there's some neat distinctions in later areas, Bastorias has a lot more harbors, Albion has goats? There's at least enough throughout the continent to explore and go back to once you acquire new units that can interact with certain markers, which freshens things up a little.

/////INTERMISSION///////
Selvie is best wife.
/////END INTERMISSION//////


I was worried the introduction of so many characters at once would have been an issue, and while it does front load you with several, several characters on the front end it more or less resembles a larger Fire Emblem title at around 70 characters (Radiant Dawn, Fates: Revelation and New Mystery range around 70-high 80s). It's still quite a lot, and not every character is an immediate winner but they've got some fun interactions and the amount of units you can use in battle allows for better expression of their character. This opposes certain titles like New Mystery of the Emblem, a game with several, several units at your disposal but only about 10 slots by the end game, 6 of which are pretty locked in, either for Marth/Kris or good ending requirements. Here, UO gives plenty of opportunity for you to build out self-sufficient teams as you unlock and expand your unit sizes and test them out in the main, side and liberation quests.

If Fire Emblem is a JRPG given a tactical playing field, Unicorn Overlord is a tactics programming game (apologies though, I have no experience with actual programming video games). Quite often I run into a situation where I throw a unit out into the battlefield, meet some friction and only halfway through a battle remember the spaghettified loadout I hadn't changed back from a previous battle. While the game has so many options and ways to customize your moveset, it only makes it easier to be bogged down by the potential of every variable rather than a clear solution. I do wish I utilized the loadouts more often, just to preserve a 'main' loadout and shift to certain other builds depending on the situation- didn't because I just, well, forgot…The game isn’t all that hard, not when you really get down into the meat of it all, but I admittedly felt pretty stupid at a lot of points trying to organize certain skills together only for the main issue to be something like character placement in a unit. Thankfully Vanillaware's ethos of providing a lot of items and secondary abilities somewhat mitigates sticky situations- it just kinda feels sillier when resorting to certain items for beating hordes of units when the outlook of a fight doesn't look favorable. The perfect result forecast is a godsend of a feature though, giving no hang ups as to how a battle might go but letting you know completely if you’ll get a good outcome in a fight. The only issue being its not precise in letting you know what damage or healing goes where, the results mostly act as a total ‘healing’ or damage so it pays to pay attention because too often i saw i was getting healed, went into battle only for a unit to take 16 damage and die but someone else to be healed 32 HP for a result of 16 healing, very perplexing.

At the very least this differs from my frustrations with FE: Engage, where I would often struggle with an in-game currency as to whether certain builds would be a waste of both time and experience. Here, it was more so just a confusion on smart, optimal, loadouts for certain units I probably didn't need battling certain other enemies in the first place. It admittedly took me a while to remember how exactly best to counter Wyvern Riders...
I do give props for the game utilizing various cliques/design elements from Fire Emblem's classes, although some of the same pitfalls apply as well. Bulkier, defensive units like Hoplites don't feel nearly as useful as Cavalier or Flying units- hell Cavelier units are certainly the best of the bunch here. Most every class is pretty alright though, I was able to make one of my units using Bruno despite seeing a lot of pushback on Gladiators, which might speak to how malleable and gameable the systems are here.

This feels like an odd inverse to Vanillaware's previous opus, 13 Sentinels, a title I honor in its densely layered, memetic entanglement of a narrative, but somewhat spartan in its tactical, wave management mode (fantastic music at least). Unicorn Overlord, despite its immense equipment-moveset-placement management and its abundance of items for tactical deployment has a fairly milquetoast narrative. It works, although I wouldn't say it strikes me as hard as some of my more favorite Fire Emblem titles or most of what I've played of FF Tactics. It's a bit hard to place as the game's heavy reliance on other games in the genre made it harder to really place my head separate from the parallels. Additionally, while I enjoy the methodical pace of going country by country to liberate Fevrith, many of the quests and fights began feeling pretty cut and dry rather than having a living, dynamic narrative that felt impacted by the progress of your crusade. You make a good chunk of progress through the mainland of Cornia, approximately freeing a quarter of the continent yet even with this massive chunk it feels a bit silly that there's still 4 major countries propping up these major occupants in the other nations. I guess there's mind-control-curse type shenanigans to fall back on for why you still need to go to each of the nations but it's funny when looking at the big picture. There’s a big lore drop around the last single digit percent of the game, and granted it's a neat explanation as to why the events have unfolded, it just feels too little for too late.


The main thing I want to impart is that this game is quite excellent on most fronts- it's perhaps a nation and a half too long though. The novels of the world, all the classes, the battling, the equipment swapping gets to be pretty redundant once you hit Bastorias. By then, a lot of the classes introduced start to feel like repeats of prior classes, a reskin of thieves, two reskins of archers, a hoplite reskin, etc. Looking closer these do have their distinct differences of course, some of which have better synergy than their compatriot but it feels harder at first glance to determine how to fit in these newer classes and playstyles, often I figure it best to just lump all of one region's new characters into their own unit and call it a day.

It is a shame, I doubt this'll see a sequel or follow up of any sort given that usually Vanillaware deals in one and done titles. While I don't necessarily want something on the same length, I think there's a lot that could be done to iron out some of the kinks of the unit/inventory management while expanding upon the way this interacts in the narrative. Nothing feels quite as good as changing that one variable in a loadout and making a battle go from a close shave to a complete trample, although by the third act much of the time it feels more like you’re plodding through useless trinkets for the specific battle while on the grand scheme of the game the fighting has stalled in narrative momentum.

I mentioned earlier VW's penchant to have games wear a patchwork sweater of references, and while UO isn't innocent of this I feel as though it not as ‘contained’ as something like a 13 Sentinels- a narrative that feels more open and closed by that game’s finale. I could earnestly see something at least in the same universe or style to Unicorn Overlord, although i don't know if they’d need to go through the same hoops as each FE continuity needing a ‘Fire Emblem’. Perhaps it's just that I felt left wanting a bit more on the narrative end, but I could go for another tactics title from Vanillaware, it checks a lot of things I’ve been wanting from Fire Emblem for a while.

Unicorn Overlord is a massive ordeal in tactical thinking, allowing for the customization of several cogs to trample armies, somewhat undermined by the ease of having so many options that forego needing to engage with the usual risks in the genre and running low on steam by the last continent.

When I picked up the X games, met Zero, and eventually played as him, I thought "man, he's cool af". Then, I picked up the Zero games and thought "yep, he is still cool af". But it is only when I played this game that I truly realized: he's simply #Him.

It was one thing for the story and stages to be the best these games had to offer so far, but it even went the extra step of basically making the combat 2D Devil May Cry. It is entirely possible to play this game however you want, either casually or testing your skills with all the crazy stuff you can do with the combo system.

I guess some of the bosses weren't that interesting to tackle, but otherwise, this is a truly phenomenal game.

Finished on April 27th, 2024

Played this on the Steam Deck through the Advance Collection but- I like this box art more.

Overall this is a fine enough start to the GBA games- it being on a smaller handheld and not having Igarashi on board would make this game attempting to hold up to SotN's quality a monumental effort. But, for it being a release title for the handheld I can imagine most fans were probably sated by it.

In 2024 however a lot of issues feel that much more glaring as CotM's main gameplay feature: the DDS cards kinda throw a wrench into my expectations for the experience- namely its fusing with the RPG mechanics of the usual igavania. It feels as though you're expected to grind- grind on monsters that hold the cards that you dont yet have. Partially to make sure you're up to snuff for the next section of the castle and partially because a new card opens up a slew of new combinations with each card you obtain...but how good some of these new powers are varies wildly. It gets even more peculiar nearing the end of the game when some cards get hidden away in prior boss rooms and the battle arena- the completionist in me wanted to nab every card but I was not willing to sit through the tedium of
->summoning thunderbird on Lilith twice
->Leave room and repeat
->wait a minute or three so your MP refills
->repeat for 10 or so levels
Like i COULD but then you'd just be entering the battle arena several, several times to get the cards anyway- I just wanted to get a move on.

The DDS cards are neat and all but too many of them feel too samey for me to really want to commit to them. Some of them unlock new weapon types to dish out, some of them give elemental attributes to your whip, some allow you to summon- its pretty great at first but mostly I just stuck to a handful of these combos. It also feels weird considering how these feel as though they're trying to replace other mechanics? Like item drops? I swear I barely had any potions or heart items drop throughout, so mostly I stuck to the healing combo i mentioned earlier which is suitable but it just felt- odd, idk. No shops, no currency just the one card combo you could potentially miss out on.

Some of the bosses are pretty tedious (Death, buddy, what happened to you?) and the castle isnt all too interesting visually. It does become a bit more fun to explore as you hit the end of the game and get the Roc's feather, allowing a long, vertical jump up to cut through towering sections of the map and even playing a fun role in the final boss.

Its fine for the first handheld (not?)-Igavania title, although much of this traversing of Dracula's castle feels bogged down one half being a more rudimentary progression of unlocking your movement abilities and the other half being this momentum breaking grind for your combative flairs in the DDS system.

started to see the vision once I realized the grab (your only verb outside of jumping) gives you i-frames when you bounce off of whatever you're grabbing... pretty cool wrinkle on an otherwise plain set of mechanics. a lot of the game is carried by the dense mix of geometric terrain and organic outgrowths a la sonic; it's no surprise that much of this team got rolled into sonic team for NiGHTS into dreams the year after. said team really demonstrates their technical aptitude as well, with some stunning overlapping parallax on stages such as planet automaton and swirling line scrolling in the background of the itamor lunch fight. ristar emotes fluidly, with his walking scowl morphing into a grin and twirl upon defeating hard enemies. occasionally he'll even show a penchant for childlike play, such as in this snowball fight setpiece.

a first impression yields something a little dry on the gameplay front, with single-hit enemies and slow movement compounding into something more leisurely than interesting. thankfully around the halfway point the design veers into level-unique puzzles and setpieces. the one that stuck out to me the most was a series of areas in planet 4 involving babysitting this radio(?) item across various hazards in order to give to various birds who want them blocking your way. presages a klonoa style of puzzles built from manipulating objects in the environment rather than working with pre-defined aspects of the player's toolkit. near the end the game veers into some execution challenges as well, with mixed results. ristar's grab actually has a lot more going on to meets the eye: not only does he have the aforementioned i-frames, but he also gains a bit of height off his bounce, and he can hold onto some interactables indefinitely, swinging back and forth using his arms as a tether. the former gets used for a couple climbing challenges jumping between walls and swinging poles, which makes for some pleasant execution trials in the midst of the level-specific stuff. the latter never gets expanded on quite as much, probably because ristar maintains no momentum from his swinging when he releases due to bouncing back off of the fulcrum he's attached to, so actually manipulating the technique to achieve certain bounce angles is a bit unintuitive.

bosses are neat across the board; while somewhat cycle-based, the designers trickle a couple small points for attacking them before they're obviously wide-open. some of these (I'm thinking of specifically the bird boss on planet 4 and its array of non-linear projectiles) encourage the i-frame abuse in interesting ways. by the end of the game, however, it seems like they expect you to exploit it pretty openly to get anywhere, and by that point the bosses end up becoming grab spam. definitely makes the fights fly by quicker, but I find myself preferring the more cautious approach I took during the earlier bosses, although I would imagine upon a replay some of the same techniques apply.

podcast fodder. it occurred to me over the course of playing that for four-player couch co-op like this, the mindlessness is a boon. you're supposed to be catching up with your friends and fucking around, not actually invested in the game.

it pulls surprisingly heavily from the original gauntlet with little variation: destroy generators that endlessly spawn, open chests and gates with keys, use potions as AoEs, destroy walls, open other walls. the only other mechanical changes is some light meter management, where you can activate one of three different special abilities depending on the level of the gauge or siphon some off to use a dash-twirl kinda action. other than weaving those in, you'll just be mashing the shoot/attack button, and with the advent of a 3D world and shifting perspective for the game, they've slathered auto-aim all over your toolkit, so there's almost no engagement other than being there to press the button... and if you're close enough to an enemy you'll auto-attack anyway, so who cares.

the main intrigue instead is the variety of environments and stages, each with their own hazards and puzzles to solve. you might rend an arena asunder by pressing a switch, skewing the two halves apart and exposing new corridors in the process. there's moments where you'll rearrange a set of catwalks by pressing a series of switches (although you never have access to more than one at once) to raise and lower them to match your character's height. in some (many) instances, you must painstakingly root out a breakable wall and enter it to press a switch and open a different wall somewhere else. indeed, most of the game consists of finding switches to press to access a new area; it is not uncommon for there to be chains of three to seven switches that lead to each other in the span of a single room. is what the switches activate occasionally cool, giving you a new path through the often intricate area designs? sure. but expect the whole game to follow virtually the exact same loop throughout: mash attack, press switch.

there's occasional gesturing to more of diablo-like system, the style which would quickly eat this series' lunch by the sixth gen, though it often doesn't land given the game's arcade-focused nature. other than adding a leveling and stats system to the original gauntlet experience, there's also this odd loot/power-up component, some of which is random but others of which are actually specific, often obscure unlockables within particular levels. of course, seeing as there's no permanence regarding items beyond keys/potions, these end up being temporary powerups; the thrill of grinding out skorne 1 so that you can get a piece of his armor set feels quaint when faced with the reality that said item will disappear 90 seconds into the next stage you play. as an aside: per the original game you're intended to replenish your health or revive yourself with extra credits, but seeing as this console version does not have that system, dying will kick you back out to the hub with whatever health you had going in. that might seem fine, but if you actually want to replenish to full health, expect to spend a lot of time grinding the first level for the 400-500 in health pickups that are guaranteed. for my final boss run, where I needed my level 60 max of 7000 health after spending most of the game maintaining about 2000, this was quite a chore.

this sega dreamcast version seems like a hodge-podge of each of the other versions of this game. compared to the playstation and n64 versions, which have a different set of levels and a proper inventory system, the dreamcast version serves as a more direct port of the original's levels and item system. oddly enough, it does have the additional endgame levels and skorne refight from the original home ports. it also carries in certain mechanical changes from the game's incremental sequel dark legacy, such as all of the new character classes and a functionally useless block ability; what the fuck is the point of a block in a mostly ranged game where having attack advantage is always a priority to avoid getting flanked and overwhelmed? probably the most bizarre aspect of the dreamcast version is that it runs like dogshit even with only a single player, and it retains the somewhat hideous look of the original game. not sure why the dc wasn't able to handle a relatively low-poly game built for a 3DFX banshee gpu, but I'm going to assume fault on the part of the developers.

still, a podcast game with some cool level visuals has its own appeal. was unfortunately left curious about dark legacy and the later gameplay revisions in seven sorrows. an arcade-style dungeon crawler does appeal to me in a base way, and I appreciate that this was an early attempt at creating an arcade game with a proper progression system (including rudimentary usernames and passwords!). should probably bring some friends along for the ride if I ever get a wild hair to try again.

nintendo salvaging the american gaming market with the release of the NES was the modern inflection point for our industry, in some ways that are less obvious than others. the console enshrined gaming as a medium with legitimacy beyond the original fad-like relevance of the atari VCS, but the centralization of this success around nintendo gave the company an uncomfortable amount of leverage. this immediately portended poorly with the simultaneous release of the console's killer app: super mario bros., which gestured to a sinister rejection of the console's original intent. look to the japanese launch line-up and you'll see arcade staples such as donkey kong and popeye; games that lauded precise, restricted play with definitive rules and short runtimes. super mario bros. was a refutation of this design philosophy in favor of the loosey-goosey variable jump heights, frequent health restoration items, and long hallways of copy-paste content replacing the tightly paced experiences that defined the era before. the NES still featured arguably the greatest console expressions of the rigorous arcade action experiences that defined the '80s - castlevania, ninja gaiden, and the early mega mans all come to mind - but the seeds super mario bros. planted would presage a shift into more and more experiences that coddled the player rather than testing their fortitude. in some ways, super mario bros. lit the match that would leave our gaming landscape in the smoldering ruins of the AAA design philosophy.

the '90s only deepened nintendo's exploration of trends that would further attempt to curb the arcade philosophy, which still floated on thanks to the valiant efforts of their competitors at sega, capcom, konami, and others. super mario world kicked off nintendo's 16-bit era with an explicitly non-linear world map that favored the illusion of charting unknown lands over the concrete reality of learning play fundamentals, and its pseudo-sequel yoshi's island would further de-emphasize actual platforming chops by giving the player a generous hover and grading them on their ability to pixel hunt for collectables rather than play well, but the most stunning example of nintendo's decadence in this era is undoubtedly donkey kong '94. the original donkey kong had four levels tightly wound around a fixed jump arc and limited ability for mario to deal with obstacles; its ostensible "remake" shat all over its legacy by infusing mario's toolkit with such ridiculous pablum such as exaggerated flip jumps, handstands, and other such acrobatics. by this point nintendo was engaging in blatant historical revisionism, turning this cornerstone of the genre into a bug-eyed circus romp, stuffed with dozens of new puzzle-centric levels that completely jettisoned any semblance of toolkit-oriented level design from the original game. and yet, this was the final fissure before the dam fully burst in 1996.

with the release of the nintendo 64 came the death knell of the industry: the analog stick. nintendo's most cunning engineers and depraved designers had cooked up a new way to hand unprecedented control to the player and tear down all obstacles standing in the way of the paternalistic head-pat of a "job well done" that came with finishing a game. with it also came this demonic interloper's physical vessel, super mario 64; the refined, sneering coalescence of all of nintendo's design tendencies up to this point. see here a game with enormous, previously unfathomable player expression, with virtually every objective solvable in myriad different ways to accommodate those who refuse to engage with the essential challenges the game offers. too lazy to even attempt some challenges at all? feel free to skip over a third of the game's "star" objectives on your way to the final boss; you can almost see the designers snickering as they copy-pasted objectives left and right, knowing that the majority of their player base would never even catch them in the act due to their zombie-like waddle to the atrociously easy finish line. even as arcade games stood proud at the apex of the early 3D era, super mario 64 pulled the ground out underneath them, leaving millions of gamers flocking to similar experiences bereft of the true game design fundamentals that had existed since the origination of the medium.

this context is long but hopefully sobering to you, the reader, likely a gamer so inoculated by the drip-feed of modern AAA slop that you likely have regarded super mario 64 as a milestone in 3D design up to now. yet, it also serves as a stark contrast to super mario 64 ds, a revelation and admission of guilt by nintendo a decade after their donkey kong remake plunged modern platformers into oblivion.

the d-pad alone is cool water against the brow of one in the throes of a desert of permissive design techniques. tightening up the input space from the shallow dazzle of an analog surface to the limitations of eight directions instantly reframes the way one looks at the open environments of the original super mario 64. sure, there's a touch screen option, but the awkward translation of a stick to the literal flat surface of the screen seems to be intentionally hobbled in order to encourage use of the d-pad. while moving in a straight line may still be simple, any sort of other action now begets a pause for reflection over the exact way one should proceed. is the sharp 45 or 90 degree turn to one side "good enough", or will I need to make a camera adjustment in-place? for this bridge, what combination of angles should I concoct in order to work through this section? the removal of analog control also forces the addition of an extra button to differentiate between running and walking, slapping the player on the wrist if they try to gently segue between the two states as in the original. the precision rewards those who aim to learn their way around the rapid shifts in speed while punishing those who hope they can squeak by with the same sloppy handling that the original game allowed.

on its own this change is crucial, but it still doesn't cure the ills of the original's permissive objective structure. however, the remake wisely adds a new character selection system that subtly injects routing fundamentals into the game's core. for starters: each of the characters has a separate moveset, and while some characters such as yoshi and luigi regrettably have the floaty hover and scuttle that I disdained in yoshi's island, it's at least balanced here by removing other key aspects of their kit such as wall jumps and punches. the addition of wario gives the game a proper "hard mode," with wario's lumbering speed and poor jump characteristics putting much-needed limiters on the game's handling. for objectives that now explicitly require wario to complete, the game is effectively barring you from abusing the superior movement of the original game by forcing you into a much more limited toolkit with rigid d-pad controls, the kind of limitations this game absolutely needed in order to shine.

that last point about objectives that specifically require a given character is key: the remake segments its objectives based on which characters are viable to use to complete them. however, while in some cases the game may telegraph which specific characters are required for a particular task, in many cases the "correct" solution is actually to bounce between the characters in real time. this is done by strategically placing hats for each of the characters throughout the map - some attached to enemies and some free-floating - which allow the player to switch on the fly. this adds new detours to the otherwise simple objectives that vastly increases their complexity: which toolkit is best suited for which part of each mission? how should my route be planned around the level to accommodate hats I need to pick up? will I be able to defeat an enemy that's guarding the hat if I had to? this decision-making fleshes out what was previously a mindless experience.

there's one additional element to this system that truly elevates it to something resembling the arcade experiences of yore. while you can enter a level as any character, entering as yoshi allows you to preemptively don the cap of any other character as you spawn in, preventing the player from having to back-track to switch characters. on the surface this seems like another ill-advised QoL feature, but some subtle features reveal something more fascinating. yoshi has no cap associated with him, so to play as him, one must enter the level with him. however, you often need to switch to another character in the middle of a level. how do you switch back? by taking damage. to solve the ridiculously overstuffed eight piece health bar of the original, this remake transforms it into a resource you expend in order to undergo transformation. sure, one could theoretically collect coins in order to replenish this resource, but this adds a new layer onto the routing that simply didn't exist in the original game, where there were so many ways to circumvent obstacles with the permissive controls that getting hit in the first place was often harder than completing the objective. by reframing the way that the player looks at their heath gauge, the game is calling to mind classic beat 'em ups, where the health gauge often doubled as a resource to expend for powerful AoE supers.

the game still suffers from much of the rotten design at the core of its forebear; these above changes are phenomenal additions, but they're grafted onto a framework that's crumbling as you delve into it. regardless, the effort is admirable. for a brief moment, nintendo offered an apology to all of those hurt by their curbstomping of the design philosophies that springboarded them into juggernaut status in the first place, and they revitalized classic design perspectives for many millions more who first entered the world of gaming after it had already been tainted by nintendo's misdeeds. the galaxy duology, released a few years after this game, attempted to rework the series from the ground up with a new appreciation for arcade design by limiting the bloated toolkit of previous games and linearizing levels, but the damage had already been done. the modern switch era has magnified nintendo's worst tendencies, putting proper execution and mechanical comprehension to the wayside as they accelerate the disturbing "the player is always right" principles that have infested their games since that original super mario bros. by looking at super mario 64 ds in this context, we at least get a glimpse of what a better world could have looked like had nintendo listened to their elders all along.

(Finished main game on 3/24, abandoned beating last couple of bosses 3/25)

Had to manage beating the last 25% of this game on a Dualsense with a broken left analog stick, privy to send me forward towards an attack I meant to back up from. Rather than wait out the arrival of a new controller or return it for a fix - I just really wanted to get this game out of the way.


Off the heels of Dark Souls 1, FromSoft had managed to get a hot streak going with its 'Souls' titles. DeS and DS1 managed to entice players seeking out new, harder, wilder challenges that overlay a world brimming with deeper scars. It was a turning point in the games industry during the mid to late 7th generation and FromSoft would be right to keep that momentum going with making a follow up to solidify Souls as a series. Somehow DS2 didn't end the franchise, which is one positive I can say about the game.

I already knew going into this that it was the weird cousin of the series and I would say I'm privy to weird mechanics or janky structure, unfortunately I only came to the conclusion that I don't think there's any single aspect of this game I thought rivaling its kin in quality nor scope. While I haven't played all the games in the series I have played the game to release prior and after this: DS1 and Bloodborne, respectively. The series would go on to evolve and morph into several different forms since then, yet around the time of BB's release I remember discourse surrounding the trio regarding the difference between Dark Souls' reliance on being more patient and slower in your approach versus Bloodborne's more aggressive, tit-for-tat, combat. Where Dark Souls 2 lied in this comparison I don't remember. Hell, across the several years afterward I didn't hear much about Dark Souls 2 outside of memes about how Dark Souls 2 is the 'weirdo' one. It was the only thing I really had to base my expectations on, yet really- what isnt weird about Souls games anyway? Regardless of its notoriety (and a fairly shoddy PC port that had issues with my controller), I tried to remain somewhat bright in my outlook and understand what fans saw in SotFS.


As a starter for this Soulsborne I decided to focus a bit more into a Dex-Hex build compared to the Sorcery-Spellsword in ER and the Pyromancer in DS. I will say, if Magic is what you're looking for this is a pretty good entry, having a lot of variety in its spells. Until Elden Ring this seems to be the title with the most variety and ease of access to its spell selection. Hexes are a neat type of magic, basing its strength off the weaker of your Int/Faith, requiring you to level both simultaneously, but soft-capping early. Once you hit the DLCs this stratagem becomes a little less valuable, so I respec'd into a more DEX focus build. I don't tend to focus too hard on combat in these titles although this time around everything feels much more ‘crowded’ and I'll touch on that later but it's usually a good idea to carry some ranged options, or in some fields of magic, an AOE (thank you Dark Fog...). Most everything surrounding the combat feels about the same as DS1 feels, although certain movements/animations feel just a tad off, even for Dark Souls. Certain hitboxes not feeling right, lotta bad locking on…I dont have the chops to elaborate though so it could just be my imagination.


What I will elaborate on, however, is the enemies with which you apply your combative prowess on. Dark Souls certainly has its fair share of notorious enemies, a grand array of memorable jerks that have just that one move that reaches you, attempting to down an Estus. From the literal Dragon Asses parading in Lost Izalith, the Giant Werewolves in Yharnam, the Caelid Dinosaur Crows- the list goes on.

In Dark Souls 2 many of the enemies reflect the fallen kingdom and the surrounding areas, although coming off of Eldenring and Dark Souls 1 you can just kinda categorize certain mook types and aggressions as the game goes on. Where it starts to falter however is in 3 key details:

1) How many enemies you'll be facing
2) Where many of the enemies are placed
3) How persistent these enemies are

Oftentimes Dark Souls 2 will take an opportunity to present a sort of...scenario. One that feels like it sounded cooler in the level designer's head than in practice. Sometimes it's as simple as crossing a certain boundary and a horde of 4 or 5 enemies descending a tower in the distance to meet you, other times it feels more dubious. There's one instance late in the game where several enemies/beasts are caged up like experiments and a third party is monitoring these trapped monsters. The trope of 'the freed monsters turn on their captors' immediately comes to mind as you pull the lever to free these beasts, not realizing that games sometimes aren't that smart and you now have to contend with the third party and several new monsters aggroing onto you from mimics to ogres. I wouldn't mind, and you get some items out of it but it just feels like there were a lot of 'events' that were meant to be scripted out but just clash with the normal, actual game feel of a Soulsborne. I'll get into some of the 'world/area' event mechanics later but for enemies there's often too many in each area of a given map and often just feel too samey for much of the game.

Maybe a good chunk of that sameness across the enemy types is just how often you fight 'ambush' zombies/knights. I feel like for a good chunk of the game its just contending with these somewhat competent, agile Manikins and Alonne Soldiers and Heide Knights. They aren’t unmanageable on their own but they tend to use much more time/effort to take down than I’d like, especially when managing 2 or 4 of them (those damn Alonne Knights…).

Side note, however you get raided in this game way too often. I swear you get about 2 to 3 an area but it's never consistent as to when these guys might spawn, some areas have multiple invaders in the same area, too?? I'm sure there's story significance but I don't really care because invaders have usually been hit or miss in the series, and mostly miss in this game. The amount of times 'The Forlorn' has shown up eclipses the amount of times I died to most every boss in this game, I wish I were joking. That's not a flex on my skill, this person just shows up 12 times to annoy you.

Dark Souls 1 eventually starts to reuse certain enemies but throughout much of the experience you have pretty distinct and suitable adversities up until Lost Izalith. In addition, there weren't too many places that required you to look around corners and be cautious, other than a few in Lower Undead Burg(?). Here it's just a constant swarm of enemies dropping from out of eyesight tunnels, behind corners, and from several, several feet away. I swear the archers have the most absurd range, they will just continue to fire arrows or projectiles from much farther than you'd think.

Ranged enemies aren't the only ones however as close combat enemies, once proc'd, will also be incredibly tenacious in their pursuit. There are several areas in the game in which you'll prefer to just ignore certain mooks lying throughout a segment of the map, perhaps to backtrack to a sidepath you missed earlier. Careful now, several enemies decided to join you while you weren't looking! The Huntsman Copse I swear has the worst end of this, I've had boss runs where somehow the large Hunters chase behind me, even worse if you decide to be responsible and try to tackle the Executioners that ambush you from the cliffs. There are a lot of boss runs that have this issue, hell there's a lot of just 'running' where you pick up weird stragglers. Add in the factors I mentioned above like how many enemies some sections have and it just gets absurd. At least Fume Knight has a sober bonfire...

I think the primary example of this can be seen in the first area of the game, the Forest of Fallen Giants. Quite immediately there's a few details that feel off about the location, for starters there's an ogre just like, walking around? I don't know why. He just kind of ignores you, so you encounter the first group of enemies, one hiding behind the bridge, and deal with them deftly. You climb a ladder and there's just like 8 of them lying on the ground now, and a couple of firebomb tossers on a ledge. If you go out a side path there's also a cliff side with an item but there's just like a guy there. You can proc him 50% of the time and he just drops down and will chase you up the latter and this becomes every area from here on out. Just running through half a level and not being able to catch a break. Enemies that would otherwise feel fine to face just get super tedious and drag down certain areas of the game that much more. Although the area design is generally shoddy, with or without enemy combatants.


Immediately one of the weakest parts of Dark Souls 2 is the map design- a large step down from 1's intricate world. It's only been a few years since finishing Dark Souls 1 yet it's quickly become one of my favorites in gaming. Looking up from Blighttown and seeing the sky, the cliff and the tree of Firelink Shrine means so much. In Dark Souls 2 so many of the areas you traverse just feel so...disconnected and distant. Certain areas reminded me more of Spyro than of FromSoft, there's a certain style to how varied the level theme and structure are and its just not Dark Souls, or Bloodborne for that matter.

Maybe it's how certain areas in DS1 are connected that makes it feel so much more natural. Getting to Andrei’s Shop from the Undead Parish but also that bonfire acting as a hub leading out to Darkroot Garden and also Sen's Fortress feels amazing. In Dark Souls 2 it prefers to take you through tunnels and elevators and other means of transportation to reach new areas, everything is disjointed and unconnected. This comes to a breaking point after unlocking so many areas and just seeing the list of different, separate areas that feel so far apart... even though the Shaded Woods are just a brief walk away. By the end of the game you will have lit flames atop a large stone map, indicating the defeated major bosses of sections and I just can't point out what these flames are supposed to represent.

I guess the upside is there's a lot of openness as to what direction you can go right off the bat. Usually you head into the Forest into Heide's Tower but from there it's kind of up to you as to what 'Great Souls’' you want to hunt down, it just feels a bit more like I'm stumbling upon these more than anything. From what I saw a lot of people ran straight into Sinner's Rise immediately although after seeing the Flexile Sentry, I thought the area was meant for later. I don't know whether to praise it for its flexibility or prod it for its lacking sensible direction. Certainly other games in the series run into this same problem, no doubt. Bloodborne you might accidentally run into Cainhurst, Dark Souls has most of the Tomb of Giants available after beating Pinwheel but nothing much to do until you grab the Lordvessel, Eldenring is completely open world so you can just hit whatever. Although usually the games have been much more balanced or streamlined as to keep players out through other signs or hints than enemies being harder. Going into the Catacombs is already a farcical task until you gather a way to permanently destroy Skeletons and is completely off the beaten path. Bloodborne's manner of madness along with how each area is connected makes it so it's really hard to just stumble into an area with a higher skill ceiling than others.

I really appreciate how easily areas blend into each other in DS1, and admittedly- the lack of fast travel for the first half of the game feels so much more refreshing. Sidetracking isn't really all that lustrous as straying too far from the main objective of reaching Anor Londo -or hell straying too far from Firelink- seems unwise, so the options aren't really there at all. Why are the New Londo Ruins so easily accessible from the start? Well, while its not intentional you are able to grab an early Estus upgrade by suicide running into the ruins, but the ethereal enemies and lack of any clear objective should clue you in otherwise. On top of that it serves as a nice connecting point between an elevator from the Valley of Drakes, another area that acts more as a highway for other areas' off ramps and the upper end of Blighttown.

Dark Souls 1 also prides itself on not having too much of one 'status' to worry about. Looking back there's a lot of areas and enemies that carry status effects of some sort, but as far as I remember there's only really 1 area for each status? Blightown, the Depths, the Catacombs, each have a focus on one status and after those areas are done you don't have to worry too much from then on. In Dark Souls 2 it feels like there's so many traps and statuses just randomly spread around the place. Several places have poison throughout the area like the Gutter and Harvest Valley, lots of enemies will proc bleed if they attack you, basilisks are just randomly everywhere. This gets incredibly annoying in the DLCs, namely the Sunken King areas where a lot of enemies carry stone status and there’s an entire subsection with statues that just hock stone loogies at you.


I don't even feel as though I hate Dark Souls 1's uncooked latter half as much as I hate the boss fight checklist here in 2. Dark Souls 1 opens on several of your late game bosses totaling the world and bringing about the age you now live in- Nito, Seath, the Witch of Izalith and King Gwyn. The hard thing to really compel with these titans is that by the end of the game these are admittedly...odd fights, bar the games finale. Nito is fine, if easier than I had hoped, but Seath is a complete nutjob being a blind dragon with this eclectic BGM and the Bed of Chaos is a complete disaster of a puzzle boss. They're chumps. They’ve fallen off. They're losers- you're coming in to clean their mess, and by the time you reach Gwyn you're probably just as hollow inside as he is. Whether intentional or not, the latter half of Dark Souls 1 feeling a lot more 'broken' does in a weird way resonate with several of your colleagues also going through their own crises- Solaire either completely turns on you or loses out on his sunlight; most of Siegmeyer’s options end in him dying or resigning that he is too weak compared to you. The two endings are either you burning at the kiln and continuing the age of Fire or breaking the cycle and issuing in the age of Dark. Obviously From Soft didn't have all the time or money to finish up much of the late game and it suffers a lot while playing through, but part of me enjoyed the final stretch being as discombobulated and somewhat more ‘open’ compared to the earlier objectives.

Dark Souls 2 on the other hand, the intro this time around involves an old woman spinning a tale about a long lost kingdom of Drangleic and much of the cast will reference this lost kingdom surely. The main objective is given to you by the leveling up maiden, the Emerald Herald: To gather the four flames from 'Great Ones' that are considered to be reincarnations of the four main baddies from the first game. As you obtain the Sacred Flames, you get interrupted by a massive being named Aldia. He gives some vague explanations and lore regarding your role in all of this, somewhat like Frampt or Kaathe. He's fine but spoiler alert you fight him and its pretty middling, kinda disappointing considering he's the titular "Scholar of the First Sin". Dark Souls 1 might have a pretty light story if you just go through it but its creation mythos feels so ingrained in every step of the process from the intro onward that its easy to discern what's going on. Dark Souls 2 has these weird gaps throughout the journey that make me stop and try and remember what the hell is going on anyway. I pretty much had the jist after all, its just not as interesting as I figured. Yes the Lost Sinner has some neat connections especially with regards to items you find in one of the DLCs no I did not see that because by the time I hit the DLCs that boss had jettisoned itself out of my memory banks.


Padding the journey to claim these sacred flames are a swath of middling boss fights. Keeping a mental note in my mind (tierlistmaker .com on one of 20 tabs on the other monitor) I recorded how I felt about each boss with regard to how fun of a fight they are and the ‘pageantry’ surrounding it. Yet there’s a major quantity over quality issue here, especially in the first half of the game. Until you hit Drangleic Castle the two strongest fights in the game are Pursuer and Smelter Demon among a morass of unremarkable, dull or easy as hell fights. It's hard to even appreciate the former because he just shows up everywhere in the following area to ambush you- funny, admittedly but really tiring.

Much of the game's challenge relied more on obscure prerequisites rather than constant player engagement, or at least the 'facade' of a challenging encounter. Dark Souls 1 works excellently to at least present the "facade" aspect, even if it doesn't execute all that well. While Bed of Chaos or Pinwheel are incredibly flawed either in the complexity, or lack thereof, of the fight, or just a couple of terrible hitboxes, they still have some significance or build up that makes those fights feel justified. In Dark Souls 2, fights like the Covetous Demon, the Royal Rat fights, Demon of Song, several Dragonriders Flexile Sentry, hell some of the ‘Great Ones’ just feel like throwaway fights. They feel more like what would become the minor boss fights in the Eldenring catacombs.

Certainly there's some neat lore connecting the events following DS1 to the destruction of Drangleic thousands of years later, everything is just 'awkward'. This is the awkward middle child between the start of the end in Dark Souls 1 and what I understand to be the near total death of everything in DS3. Again, it feels like there's a neat idea on paper but in execution there's nothing really tying myself to this new foursome of foes. Like of all the guys to get Gwyn's shard its the Old Iron King? Man, what a downgrade.

That said Majula is a strong hub, it feels a bit more 'lively' as a hub than most of your other hubs in a soulsborne title. It's not my favorite but it's a pleasant place to bring people to and unlock new shopkeeps. At the very least I understand the jokes about Eldenring being more akin to Dark Souls 2-2 now.


The other thing that gets brought up regarding Dark Souls 2 was that the DLCs were a step above the vanilla base of the game, 3 flavorful scoops on top of everything else!... Well, I guess they aren't wrong, per se. I'll at least say the DLCs feel like an upward momentum from Sunken to Ivory to Old Iron. A lot of these have shades of what would next evolve into Bloorborne's geometry. In particular Eluem's long castle walls blend into courtyards and branching into lower levels/caves. I did really enjoy rolling that snowball down to make a shortcut- didn't enjoy the Frigid Outskirts so much.

I'll cop to it, there were a few bosses I didn't get around to (namely I got so tilted needing to go back through the Pilgrims of Dark area if you die to Darklurker so I just gave up playing anymore, I saw credits sue me) but hell if I was going to go check out the King's Pets in Frigid Outskirts, namely because of how bad the boss run is. Low visibility, large map, constant ambushing by these Kirin type enemies, not even a bonfire on the map so you have to take a coffin loading screen after each death and all this for what I hear is one of the hardest fights? Two of a boss I already fought earlier? Nah.

Crown of the Old Iron King feels the most consistent in its quality, and its probably the hardest which is an odd balance if I had to say. The worst part about Dark Soul II isn't that its hard, its that its obnoxious. Dark Souls I was likened upon its release as a return to retro style, no holds barred difficulty and yet most of the difficulty throughout the first game felt more like tests of patience, skill and a bit of pattern recognition/manipulation. Arriving at Old Iron King felt like a return to this mindset as you tackle bosses like Sir Alonne and Fume Knight, easily two of the games most fun fights.


I don't really pride myself on not liking video games, I think generally I buy and play games that I think I'd enjoy. Critically, I tend to hone in on aspects I enjoy and I tend to be optimistic on titles despite glaring flaws or shortcomings. Opinions are certainly given, flexible, intangible ideas and I just tend to be easier on titles in general, but sometimes its just that hard to really find the points that gave me a rush to my neurons in a game.

In my head I think about how I felt about Pokemon X/Y across the entire spectrum of the series and that's where I think about it being the 'weakest' of the set. It's still in a series I enjoy across the bar and that generation had additions that were at least tangible throughout the later games. I think initially starting Dark Souls 2 I was wondering if I'd feel a similar sensation, a faint appreciation but lacking the right 'punch'. I can appreciate a handful of fights and the generally laissez-faire structure, but otherwise this is a package too cluttered, too unfocused and too halfhearted in its attempts to recreate the magic of its predecessors.

It's sorta hard to place Dark Souls 2, not because of some conflicting feelings but because it feels a bit hypocritical to the pathos of the franchise. While I still wouldn't consider myself an authority of some sort, much of the enjoyment I've had with the franchise comes from the spectacle, the sense and the sortie of its worlds. There's a tug-of-war sensation to the world of a Soulsborne game- when you've conquered an area you mostly just breeze by it without consequence. Here, rather than allowing you to conquer an area- a lot of enemies end up just despawning after beating them after a certain number of times, instead. As if the game just gives up after so many times. The game isn't so hard, nor is it that different on the surface, yet every corner hides just a tiny bit of faux pas- enough to temper my enjoyment much earlier than I would prefer. Dark Souls' 'Stockholm Syndrome' post Anor Londo, while a blemish on the game and a prime example to game developings' tendency to lose steam in the third act, has somehow shone brightly compared to Dark Souls II's Imposter Syndrome-esque design doc.

For god's sake, they tried making another Ornstein and Smough fight, in a game that already has literally Ornstein in it.

I've got real admiration for the theatrical trappings, with panels falling off the back wall and gyrating stagehands gussying up the set as you stroll through, but I think coming back to this style of gameplay doesn't hit the same for me anymore. the treasure hyperfocus on impressive boss fights is here without the richer mechanics of gunstar heroes or alien soldier, leaving much stricter scenarios where the player has less leverage over the proceedings. it's heavily setpiece-driven and thus built upon cracking open whatever essential strategy solves each individual encounter rather than learning particular mechanics over the course of the game. a good example would be izayoi, who has a rapid arm extension attack that aims for your head, so if you throw your head above you right when she starts tracking, you can repeatedly have her whiff and then bop her in the face when she briefly exposes it afterwards. that's a cool little extension of the game's primary mechanic (you can throw your head in any direction), but once you lock it in the repetition of her behavior pattern and her cyclically available weak point make the fight rather static.

not sure what to think of the different abilities you can get with various heads throughout either. theoretically I could've enjoyed having them woven in through enemies or something else organic a la kirby, but having the abilities just sitting out in the open right where you need them feels a bit raw. it's especially apparent given how few there are that alter mobility or do anything other than make combat easier; perhaps a bit of tunnel vision on the developer's part, even though you can tell they attempted some actual level design here. you may get a sequence with some wall-climbing thanks to the spiky head ability, but these segments boil down just to "scale the wall with the powerup" without many complicating factors thrown in aside from a late-game segment where you use it to stall on the ceiling and avoid rocket trains zooming by. the way that abilities are applied in the boss fights also fall into a narrow paradigm, with more than a few bosses having abilities sitting around that effectively shut them off: time stop in multiple fights, both a bomb with crazy damage and invincibility in the aforementioned izayoi fight, and the hammer in both rever face and the final boss fight. really something where some sort of trade-off regarding grabbing the ability would've made more sense; the developers settled instead of interleaving junk abilities in the rotating ability selection that will inevitably cause you to eat a lot of damage until they wear off.

obviously with mikami at the top of the masthead on this one it's very tempting to extract the seeds of resident evil and his later titles out of this one. hmmm... limited inventory, you say? narrow corridors with dangerous enemies that you have to expend limited ammo against or lure away through subtle AI manipulation?? all these environments that loop back on themselves... you can really see the sketches of the spencer mansion here...

but really, it's heavily streamlined zelda in the same way quackshot is heavily streamlined metroid. the structure is effectively five dungeons in the classic single-screen room format strung along with some cute cutscenes of goofy and max trying to rescue pete and pj from a group of pirates. there's no resource management; exiting and reentering a room resets the majority of its state, which includes various throwable objects used to attack enemies. occasionally a puzzle will affect something in the next room over, but by and large every room here is a self-contained puzzle, ranging from "clear all the enemies" to push-block puzzles to a couple things in between. they're pretty solid too: the push-block puzzles often require using certain blocks to line up others, keeping the mapping of routes from becoming rote, and since clearing a room requires paying attention to where throwables are located and how to access them, some cool ideas arise from determining an order of attack and manipulating enemies to assist you with killing others. AI manipulation puzzles are a thing as well, ensconced into the game's toolkit with a bell item that draws aggro and thus controls enemy movement. the concepts stay remarkably fresh throughout, although given that the game is only a couple hours long, it would be tedious if this wasn't the case. a couple favorites of mine would be ones where you trick enemies into walking into oncoming fire from cannons and a particular one where you line up four enemies in a corridor to kill them with a single sliding block.

beyond throwing items and kicking blocks, goofy can hold two items at any given time to assist in particular puzzles. other than the bell one mentioned earlier, the hookshot serves the most "interesting" purpose of the bunch, as it can both stun enemies and create tightropes. not exactly exhilarating, but its latter purpose consumes the item, making searching for new hookshots an additional intrigue that drives exploration. beyond these the applications lack substance; the candle widens the sight radius in infrequent dark rooms, keys are just keys, and shovels can be used to farm life-up items in some rare locales with movable dirt. in this way the restriction of holding only two items at once becomes less demanding, since the latter set are so situational that holding onto them longer than a room or two will always be a waste. by the late game item-reliant puzzles give way to ones that leverage the game's inherent mechanics, so it seems like the designers figured this out as well.

if you played TETRIS ATTACK instead of PANEPON you have been played for an ABSOLUTE FOOL and i shall impress upon you the DEPTH OF YOUR FOLLY

TETRIS ATTACK is for PAWNS and BABIES, UNDERSTUDIES and BIT PLAYERS dancing to the tune of a MADMAN, PERVERSE AND EVIL, the landscape of PEAK 90'S ANIME AESTHETIC EXPUNGED and LEAVENED with LIES by THE FALSE IDOL, YOSHI

will you remain PREY TO HIS AMBITIONS? remain ENSLAVED to a SHAMBLING SHADE OF PERFECTION?

REAL ONES will answer NO

REAL ONES will play PANEPON