You can't outdo perfection, but this was a valiant attempt.

This game honestly reminded me of Spyro 2 Reignited in that it's a really good game and you should absolutely play it, but I can't bring myself to say it's better than the original. In both instances: improvements from the source material are present but rare, The voice acting is missing some of the original's distinct charm, and some(not many but some) of my favorite elements from the original were weft out.

If you want my full feelings about this game, just read my review of the original RE4 and note that this is that with a bit less enjoyable camp, a touch weaker voice acting, and a few less memorable set pieces.

Believe me: this game is amazing, and I'd be a lot more excited about it is it wasn't riding on the heels of one of the all-time greats, but those are big shoes to fill. Still, I feel this remake did the 2005 original justice, it just didn't replace it.

Every frame of this game has me questioning my grip on reality.

I pull cows from flowers and protect them from aliens. I use a mouse in a cage to start a meat grinder and use it for transportation. I take a break from floating through an intestine pinball machine to participate in a game show. Have you called the men in white coats yet?

Even barring the surreal level themes, this game is bizarre metatextually as well: how are the difficulty spikes this sharp? How can a hour-long game have almost no consistency in terms of gameplay? How did anyone ever finish this game before the switch's rewind feature? This game is making me crazy.

If you want an acid trip, smoke some weed and watch a lets play. If you want a fair, balanced platformer, play something else.

Water, Ear - er Lightening, Fire, Air

Long ago, the four Divine Beasts lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Calamity attacked. Only the Hero of Time, master of all four runes, could stop it. But, when Hyrule needed him most, he vanished. One-hundred years pass by and my Wii U and I discover the new Hero of Time: a young swordsman named Link, and, though his weapon-breaking skills are great, he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone.

But, I believe, Link will dick around in shrines for 150 hours then watch Zelda save the world.

Wow, I am getting myself in serious trouble with this review score. Alright, I've got skin in the game now, so let's keep going.

The aspects of TotK I found disappointing were outright unforgivable: it fixed almost none of my problems from the previous game, which I already think was very flawed. TotK kept BotW's weak combat system bolstered by the same weapon degradation mechanic no one likes; it copies the story structure point-for-point even though diehard BotW fans can admit the story was the weakest part of it, and TotK managed to tell an even weaker story with more plot holes, worse storytelling, and more timeline nonsense; The map, most enemies, and most of the side characters are copy-and-pasted from the previous game, making this feel more like an expansion pass than a new campaign. The only flaw from BotW that was fixed was the boss roster: these bosses are actually pretty decent, but they aren't enough.

This game may offer expansive exploration, but I found this exact map sparse and underwhelming in 2017, and I feel the same way now. The new layers of the map were a good touch, but the sky is so barren and the underground is so bland that it doesn't add much.

The only thing in the entire game that feels exceptional at all is the building mechanic. You can get wonderfully creative putting those contraptions together, and I'm sure people have had hours of fun just fiddling with it. But, while using Zoni parts to make a Hylian airplane or a rolling execution chamber is fun, if I can only have it at the expense of a compelling story, strong characters, varied combat, new enemies, a new map, and any of the thematic brilliance or narrative innovation Zelda games have enraptured me with for as long as I can remember, then it wasn't a good deal.

I got through about half the shrines, and then I just hit a wall with this game; I really didn't want to play anymore, so I rushed to the end and experienced the game's disappointing ending which, just like every other aspect of the story, was lifted from the previous game and done worse. The ending rung so hollow for me, and I don't see myself ever revisiting the game.

I tolerated many of the aforementioned flaws I noticed in BotW because that game was new, innovative, and took so many risks. I never agreed that it was one of the all-time greats, but I agreed it laid the foundation for such a game. I thought a sequel could grasp that unused potential and create a game I liked every bit as much as everyone else liked BotW, and I was very disappointed.

Do you want to know why my expectations were so high? Because, about half-a-year ago, I plaid God of War Ragnarök. That game is everything this one should have been. Taking the previous game's foundation, and fixing every single narrative and gameplay problem I had; providing an excellent story, endearing characters, great performances, fun combat, enemy variety, adding new themes to the story and new development to the characters, and making re-used maps feel fresh with new assets and seasons. I can't expect every game to be GoW 5, that game really is one of the all-time greats, but the idea that some people are giving TotK perfect scores when games like GoW 5 exist just baffles me. That game deserves five stars; this one is getting three.

I know I got really negative while writing this review, and I don't fault people for enjoying this game, for there is definitely fun to be had with it. But, for me, the best thing I can say about Tears is that I no-longer need to wonder what my least-favorite mainline Zelda game is. Clearly everyone else will be satisfied if the next Zelda game follows this exact formula with few changes or improvements and good for them. But, if this trend continues, I'll be playing something else.

This game doesn't need a sequel; it can have a remake if it wants one.

The ethereal world and mystifying story of Bloodborne will captive me no matter how many treks I make through Yharnam. I've plaid Bloodborne many times, yet I feel I've only just begun to appreciate its visceral combat, immaculate art design, unforgettable dialogue, and variation in character build and gameplay progression. How this game manages to be something so familiar, yet so distinct; so simple, yet so complex; so streamlined, yet so customizable. The majesty of FromSoft's work has left me at a loss for words. I don't often say this, but I wouldn't want a sequel. This game left every piece of its story, world, and lore where it needed to be, and I'm happy that the studio is still making creative, new projects; they've made more games I love since.

We'll never have another game like Bloodborne, but I don't see that as a bad thing. And, having just started Elden Ring, I can tell that FromSoftware will continue to amaze with new titles and ideas.

I used to think I hated this game, but I was just completely indifferent to it.

The original trilogy was very flawed, but also very inspired. So, when you follow up a unique, mature, and well-written trilogy of games with one of the most generic, neutered, and un-original children's platformers I've ever played, the backlash is understandable.

I have so many complaints about Thieves in Time: from the childish writing which clashed hard with that of the previous games, to the gimmicky gameplay lacking depth or ambition, to the weak story loaded with missed potential, to the flaccid cast of characters featuring easily the worst rough's gallery of any Sly Cooper game (El Jefe is the only one I can take seriously and Le Paradox is one of the worst villains I've every seen in a game). I have so many complaints to make, but none of them feel worth making (Except the one about Le Paradox, f*ck Le Paradox).

I'm so dispassionate about Sly 4 that it took me nearly a decade to re-play it and several days to crank out this review. The game is competent enough that I can't be angry about it, but if it were shockingly bad, I'd at least have more to say. As is, this game will leave my memory very soon, and I'll have made room for new games.

For all my problems with the first three games, I respect their maturity and ambition enough that I'll still revisit them in the future, but, for me, Thieves in Time is staying in the past.

A near-perfect adaptation and a just-ok game.

FBW captures the look, feel, sounds, lore, humor, and pacing of South Park perfectly. If you're someone who deeply desires 'South Park with a controller' this is going to be your new favorite game, and That's enough to make up for the fact that the gameplay is basic, repetitive, and uninspired; but just barely.

This is a tricky game to review, because I feel it does what it sets out to do very well, in that its an excellent recreation of the show. But, as a game, I can't say it's anything special, and I don't suspect I'll be playing it again.

If you love FBW, I totally see why. It's a must play for diehard South Park fans, but a very soft recommendation for RPG fans.

I apologize.

I somehow failed to acknowledge this as a five-star game when I first reviewed it. I am a flawed human capable of mistakes, and that's one of them.

Forgive and move on.

Why did I remember this game being so mediocre? It's actually good!

Tight controls which compliment a distinct gameplay loop; A charming Outback aesthetic and lovely soundtrack bolstered by strong enemy, character, and level design; and a good variety in terms of weapons and gameplay styles. It feels great to re-visit an old game and realize it's way better than you remember it.

However, not all of my initial criticisms were unfounded. Ty is an early, low-budget PS2 game, and the first game in a series, and it shows: Character interactions and dialogue are very awkward(and not in a self-aware kind of way), the cutscenes don't look great, and the storytelling is so poor the basic narrative can be confusing. The game also suffers from tedious item collection and an abysmal boss roster. These are definitely issues, they just aren't as bad as I remembered them.

Given how much Ty had going against it, I think Chrome turned out a strong product. I'm very glad I gave this game a second chance, and I'll happily recommend it to any fan of classic platformers.

This game is RIPPER! (there I said it.)

I liked this game more than I remembered, and I remembered liking it.

The storytelling in this game is soooooooooo much better than the previous game, and the tone feels appropriately lighter and more self-aware. The enemies have been amped-up, making combat with the different rangs much more satisfying. There is a greater wealth of quirky characters and funny interactions. I also found the collectables so much more reasonable and rewarding to collect. I was honestly shocked by how much this game improved from the first game, which I already liked.

Not every change was for the better: Ty 2's biggest problem is a strange dependence on vehicle segments, few of which are good and take up a significant portion of the game. The level design is also a bit more hallway-like, making exploration less-satisfying in many areas. The pacing of the story is also somewhat awkward, as the first game went much too fast, this one goes a bit too slow, having very little story development between missions and reaching the end without feeling like much has happened.

Nitpicks aside, I love this game, and will definitely re-visit it in the future. I haven't played Ty 3, but everyone says it's complete trash. So, for me, the series ends here, and it was a good note to end on.

Ty 2, You little Beauty! (I did it again)

The best boss fights of any FromSoft game (and possibly any game period).

Sekiro may have the better combat, Elden Ring may have better controls, and Bloodborne may be my favorite overall, but just going based off the bosses themselves, I think DS3 is the best. Every boss has lore significance, a wonderfully-creative design, at least two phases, and supports a dizzyingly-high standard of quality.

I honestly found even the worst bosses of DS3 to be perfectly serviceable. Ancient Wyvern and Deacons of the Deep were nothing special, but I'd take them over Bed of Chaos, or at least a third of the DS2 bosses any day. Besides, even if they were truly awful, sitting through them to experience the ecstasy of the Abyss Watchers, the Pontiff, the Twin Princes, Nameless King, or the Soul of Cinder would be more than worth it.

These bosses were S-tier before the DLC even came out and added at least four more of the trilogy's best encounters. Dark Souls 3 is truly a boss among bosses.

I'll admit I'm not as passionate about most other aspects of the game: it does have some of the weaker level design among FromSoft games in my opinion, most of the story and characters feel familiar if you've plaid DS1, and while I still think it looks and controls the best of any game in the trilogy, I still have issues with it in that regard.

In summary: I don't always like the parts of this game that aren't boss fights, but the parts that are boss fights, I like a lot, and boss fights are usually my favorite part of a game. So, are my reasons for listing this as my favorite game in the trilogy shallow? Maybe, I'm still going to do it.

No, it isn't as good as Arkham City. No superhero game ever will be; I accepted that years ago.

Spider-Man 2 has an even blend of steps forward and back compared to the 2018 game: the bosses are more consistent, not reaching the same dizzying highs as the Doc Ock battle or the same mediocre lows as most of the other bosses from that game; The first two-thirds of Spider-man 2 are much more compelling, better paced with a more interesting story, but they lead to a very haphazard and poorly set-up last third (The exact opposite of the first game which had an underwhelming lead-up to an incredible last third); I found the side-quests and other playable characters much more enjoyable this time around, but the cast has become a bit oversaturated and not every character gets as much development or screentime, leading to some emotional moments not hitting as hard as they could. Broadly-speaking, I'd say I liked both games about the same, but for different reasons.

Marvel's Spiderman: A long car ride to Disneyland. It's hot, traffic is bad, and we ran out of snacks an hour ago. But, once we get there, we have the time of our lives.

Marvel's Spiderman 2: A really fun car trip. We are stopping at attractions, everyone is getting along, and we are loaded on snacks. We get there, Disneyworld is closed.

I would rather re-watch Lightyear.

Bad graphics, lazy storytelling, repetitive gameplay, and an awful camera with terrible controls. I can't remember the last time I abandoned a game after thirty minutes.

The only remotely-enjoyable parts of the whole experience were those split-second cutscenes from the show. I never watched the cartoon myself, but I trust it's much better. If you're ever tempted to play this game, just watch that cartoon instead,.