funsohng
2019
Forget about the whole narrative of "Death Stranding is unique because no other developer would make a game about just walking across open world and doing deliveries." Anyone who thinks like that don't know a single thing about video games (also somehow doesn't know games like Euro Truck exists). The achievement of this game has nothing to do with how "novel" it is with its core theme or some bullshit.
Death Stranding is great because gameplay mechanics supporting the idea of doing deliveries are thoroughly and meticulously systematized and game-ified that their feedback loops are incredibly addicting, while also buttressing the core conceptual themes of connection, being alone and altruism. Kojima and his team made sure that fetch quests are fun not just because of the instant gratification of achieving grades at the end and people giving you likes, but because of your own planning before making the delivery and making sure you are going through your routes while in full understanding of your current resources. Once you begin to see the larger picture and build network of roads and ziplines, the game now becomes something else, testing you to be as efficient as possible, and rewarding you for being smart.
Kojima has always loved systemic gameplay, but he always understood how to balance it out to make sure it's manageable, localized and most importantly, exploitable. Death Stranding is no exception. The game's focus is in the systemic exploration, but unlike other emergent open world games and "immersive sims," Death Stranding is not about emergent experiences; it's about constantly dangling the carrot of "you can be even more efficient here." And it's damn good at amplifying that gameplay loop. But instead of the pursuit of efficiency diminishing the humanity of the narrative and the world, it makes it stronger because you are creating these "strands" tighter and tighter.
Death Stranding is great because gameplay mechanics supporting the idea of doing deliveries are thoroughly and meticulously systematized and game-ified that their feedback loops are incredibly addicting, while also buttressing the core conceptual themes of connection, being alone and altruism. Kojima and his team made sure that fetch quests are fun not just because of the instant gratification of achieving grades at the end and people giving you likes, but because of your own planning before making the delivery and making sure you are going through your routes while in full understanding of your current resources. Once you begin to see the larger picture and build network of roads and ziplines, the game now becomes something else, testing you to be as efficient as possible, and rewarding you for being smart.
Kojima has always loved systemic gameplay, but he always understood how to balance it out to make sure it's manageable, localized and most importantly, exploitable. Death Stranding is no exception. The game's focus is in the systemic exploration, but unlike other emergent open world games and "immersive sims," Death Stranding is not about emergent experiences; it's about constantly dangling the carrot of "you can be even more efficient here." And it's damn good at amplifying that gameplay loop. But instead of the pursuit of efficiency diminishing the humanity of the narrative and the world, it makes it stronger because you are creating these "strands" tighter and tighter.
2010
There seems to be a bit of revisionist history going on around Nintendo fanbase saying that Other M may have terrible story, its gameplay was solid.
It was not.
For a game to properly function, one of the most important thing is to have control scheme that actually works well. A game becomes an interactive medium through that control interface. That is the fundamental basis of all video games. Depending on what kind of a game it is and how fast-paced it is, one game can have be more lenient than others in terms of overall control design and responsiveness, but it is never right to have a bad control scheme. And bad control scheme always, always makes a game worse than it should be.
Metroid: Other M is a game with a god-awful control scheme. It simply does not work. A slower, more meditative game would be annoying to have a core gameplay mechanic where the way one holds the controller constantly changes; in a fast-paced action game, it is a sin. Almost every single boss battle forces the player to use missiles, which can only be shot when they are in first-person mode by holding the Wiimote up and pointing at the screen. Even then, it is a hassle to actually lock-on to the target, since for some bloody reason lock-on button and the "move screen around" button are both assigned to B, which honestly is two very conflicting things to begin with. Obviously, Samus cannot move when aiming in first-person, but for some reason, the enemies outside of her view are happy to attack her out of nowhere--something they didn't even allow in Metroid Prime, a game that's entirely in first-person and lets Samus move while aiming.
For reasons unknown, the game's only way of controlling is with Wiimote only--no nunchuck, no classic controller, just a single Wiimote. That means there are only two buttons for fast-paced action outside of the d-pad and the A button which is awkwardly placed to be readily used (it's used to change into Morph Ball). That means Other M, despite being a full 3D action-adventure game with multiple techniques, is controlled with less buttons than the GBA Metroid games. It is frankly absurd how terribly controlled this game is. Samus' movement is done through d-pad. In a 3D environment. There is no dedicated dodge button, the player can just tap the d-pad, and it has hilariously lenient window that they can spam it--until something offscreen randomly attacks Samus. Or even worse, they can attack when Samus is in concentration mode or aiming mode, at which point the player has to waggle the controller, which may or may not register despite the window for dodging is clearly designed with only button press in mind. It just does not feel good to play as an action game when its mechanics are chained by a controller that frankly does not have the capacity to be used for something like this. I don't say this because I hate motion-controls--I do like it when it's done well. I play Splatoon with motion controls. I love aiming with gyro on 3DS games. I play VR games. But Other M just has a poor, terribly thought-out motion control design, on top of fundamentally flawed scheme.
It's redundant to talk about how terrible Other M's story is, even outside of how they killed Samus' character and made some very problematic decisions in portraying her. But I want to talk about how the story is so bad that it actually makes gameplay worse. There are so many times where game places arbitrary restrictions on Samus by Adam not authorizing her to use certain weapons she already has. This becomes problematic in a level-design sense because it forces painfully needless backtracking in a game that is already bafflingly linear. Samus comes to an obstacle that is clearly possible to overcome with a weapon that has not yet been authorized, so only way is to go back, at which point Adam finally gives the green light to use the said weapon. The player is directed from one place to the next with no real exploation, not even in a contained sense like Fusion, at which point revisiting old places just become a chore. Fusion made linearity in story and level design into its strength; Other M is made linear for no reason at all.
Here is one specific example of how the game's awful narrative actually makes a bad boss battle even worse. Despite shoving down the whole "authorization" narrative gimmick into player's throat throughout the entire game, the game subverts the expectation by making the player to beat the penultimate boss of the main game (which also happens to be the most frustrating one) with a weapon that has been locked for the entire game until thus far--without telling them it has been unlocked. It is the only way to beat the boss, and not using it will literally kill Samus within seconds. Again, the game does not tell the player (as in, there is no authorization!) that that the said weapon is unlocked. The one time they actually need that confirmation, it's not there. There is no button prompt, no alarm message, no cutscene, nothing. The player just has to remember that they had it because it is one of the things they learn in the tutorial in the very beginning of the game, even though the game locks the player from using it right after, until the very last moment of that penultimate boss fight. The bad narrative device stabs the player in the back one last time.
There are games that are bad because the developers clearly did not have the talent or the passion. Then there are games that are bad because the ambition was too high and they simply did not have to resources to make it properly. Then there are these rare cases where they clearly have the resources, the passion and the talent with achievable ambitions, but they just make incomprensibly bad decisions over and over again. Metroid: Other M is that kind of a game. This is a game chock-full of baffling design decisions that somehow makes even less sense than its universally-hated narrative. That is saying something.
It was not.
For a game to properly function, one of the most important thing is to have control scheme that actually works well. A game becomes an interactive medium through that control interface. That is the fundamental basis of all video games. Depending on what kind of a game it is and how fast-paced it is, one game can have be more lenient than others in terms of overall control design and responsiveness, but it is never right to have a bad control scheme. And bad control scheme always, always makes a game worse than it should be.
Metroid: Other M is a game with a god-awful control scheme. It simply does not work. A slower, more meditative game would be annoying to have a core gameplay mechanic where the way one holds the controller constantly changes; in a fast-paced action game, it is a sin. Almost every single boss battle forces the player to use missiles, which can only be shot when they are in first-person mode by holding the Wiimote up and pointing at the screen. Even then, it is a hassle to actually lock-on to the target, since for some bloody reason lock-on button and the "move screen around" button are both assigned to B, which honestly is two very conflicting things to begin with. Obviously, Samus cannot move when aiming in first-person, but for some reason, the enemies outside of her view are happy to attack her out of nowhere--something they didn't even allow in Metroid Prime, a game that's entirely in first-person and lets Samus move while aiming.
For reasons unknown, the game's only way of controlling is with Wiimote only--no nunchuck, no classic controller, just a single Wiimote. That means there are only two buttons for fast-paced action outside of the d-pad and the A button which is awkwardly placed to be readily used (it's used to change into Morph Ball). That means Other M, despite being a full 3D action-adventure game with multiple techniques, is controlled with less buttons than the GBA Metroid games. It is frankly absurd how terribly controlled this game is. Samus' movement is done through d-pad. In a 3D environment. There is no dedicated dodge button, the player can just tap the d-pad, and it has hilariously lenient window that they can spam it--until something offscreen randomly attacks Samus. Or even worse, they can attack when Samus is in concentration mode or aiming mode, at which point the player has to waggle the controller, which may or may not register despite the window for dodging is clearly designed with only button press in mind. It just does not feel good to play as an action game when its mechanics are chained by a controller that frankly does not have the capacity to be used for something like this. I don't say this because I hate motion-controls--I do like it when it's done well. I play Splatoon with motion controls. I love aiming with gyro on 3DS games. I play VR games. But Other M just has a poor, terribly thought-out motion control design, on top of fundamentally flawed scheme.
It's redundant to talk about how terrible Other M's story is, even outside of how they killed Samus' character and made some very problematic decisions in portraying her. But I want to talk about how the story is so bad that it actually makes gameplay worse. There are so many times where game places arbitrary restrictions on Samus by Adam not authorizing her to use certain weapons she already has. This becomes problematic in a level-design sense because it forces painfully needless backtracking in a game that is already bafflingly linear. Samus comes to an obstacle that is clearly possible to overcome with a weapon that has not yet been authorized, so only way is to go back, at which point Adam finally gives the green light to use the said weapon. The player is directed from one place to the next with no real exploation, not even in a contained sense like Fusion, at which point revisiting old places just become a chore. Fusion made linearity in story and level design into its strength; Other M is made linear for no reason at all.
Here is one specific example of how the game's awful narrative actually makes a bad boss battle even worse. Despite shoving down the whole "authorization" narrative gimmick into player's throat throughout the entire game, the game subverts the expectation by making the player to beat the penultimate boss of the main game (which also happens to be the most frustrating one) with a weapon that has been locked for the entire game until thus far--without telling them it has been unlocked. It is the only way to beat the boss, and not using it will literally kill Samus within seconds. Again, the game does not tell the player (as in, there is no authorization!) that that the said weapon is unlocked. The one time they actually need that confirmation, it's not there. There is no button prompt, no alarm message, no cutscene, nothing. The player just has to remember that they had it because it is one of the things they learn in the tutorial in the very beginning of the game, even though the game locks the player from using it right after, until the very last moment of that penultimate boss fight. The bad narrative device stabs the player in the back one last time.
There are games that are bad because the developers clearly did not have the talent or the passion. Then there are games that are bad because the ambition was too high and they simply did not have to resources to make it properly. Then there are these rare cases where they clearly have the resources, the passion and the talent with achievable ambitions, but they just make incomprensibly bad decisions over and over again. Metroid: Other M is that kind of a game. This is a game chock-full of baffling design decisions that somehow makes even less sense than its universally-hated narrative. That is saying something.
I've never been so stunned looking at a screen that says "Will you save the game?" in my life.
2007
I still hate that XBOX fanboy in Gamespot forums in 2012 who assured me this was a great game.
2003
Who knew "Checkpoint reached" actually doesn't mean the game autosaves at that point, and you still have to manually save for some goddamn reason. Lost my progress twice until realizing this.
This is quite frankly the most distinctively Ubisoft open-world game I've ever played.
I would categorize Ubisoft games as the products of a studio system, like the Golden Age of Hollywood back in 30s to 50s. They have a clear template of how their games should work, and each title has their own gimmick and their own setting to make them differentiate from each other. As a massive fan of Ubisoft open-world games, I think this has some positives, as opposed to many people who (rightly) detest their system. Ubisoft has been trying to find the balance between the systemic gameplay and scripted gameplay since the first Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2, and Wildlands seem to be where they introduced a new template they would use for a while. At the very least, their games are easy to pick up and play for their fans who know what to expect: the same feature that was also true of the Hollywood films of the studio system.
The thing about Wildlands is that there are times I feel like this is the lowest common denomiantor for Ubisoft open-world games, gameplay-wise. A lot of gameplay mechanics and level design feel constrained, even though the systemic gameplay itself teases something beyond the game can let you. For example, stealth options are extremely limited, despite the fact scouting options are actually pretty robust. So you have situations where you have pretty damn good idea of where everything is, but your way to tackling that is just not as open-ended as it should be. The game is full of this internal, schizophrenic dilemma, where it is ambitious to a fault in one aspect, while terrified of being too open in another. It's a wildly inconsistent game (pun intended), which is ironic for a game that has rather repetitive progression structure.
Then there is the real bad: the checkpoint system. This game quite literally has a save system that does not deserve to exist in the decade it came out. It reminds me far too much of the absolutely horrendous monstrosity that is Grand Theft Auto 4, which also has as bad vehicle control as this game (thank god that at least helicopters control relatively well). If you die, in most cases you are re-doing a bulk of the mission again, and because of the systemic structure of the game, respawning at the last checkpoint after a mission failure often puts you in a position completely different from you initial plan (like spawning you on the other side of the base). Not only that, it has no manual save nor even a way to reload a checkpoint. Some of the missions feel needlessly punishing, while the others seem to be far to easy. And there is the jank that either make the mission exponentially harder or laughably easy, depending on your luck.
I still like the core gameplay. It's a good shooter, tackling bases in your own way still is fun, but it still has very deep flaws.
I would categorize Ubisoft games as the products of a studio system, like the Golden Age of Hollywood back in 30s to 50s. They have a clear template of how their games should work, and each title has their own gimmick and their own setting to make them differentiate from each other. As a massive fan of Ubisoft open-world games, I think this has some positives, as opposed to many people who (rightly) detest their system. Ubisoft has been trying to find the balance between the systemic gameplay and scripted gameplay since the first Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2, and Wildlands seem to be where they introduced a new template they would use for a while. At the very least, their games are easy to pick up and play for their fans who know what to expect: the same feature that was also true of the Hollywood films of the studio system.
The thing about Wildlands is that there are times I feel like this is the lowest common denomiantor for Ubisoft open-world games, gameplay-wise. A lot of gameplay mechanics and level design feel constrained, even though the systemic gameplay itself teases something beyond the game can let you. For example, stealth options are extremely limited, despite the fact scouting options are actually pretty robust. So you have situations where you have pretty damn good idea of where everything is, but your way to tackling that is just not as open-ended as it should be. The game is full of this internal, schizophrenic dilemma, where it is ambitious to a fault in one aspect, while terrified of being too open in another. It's a wildly inconsistent game (pun intended), which is ironic for a game that has rather repetitive progression structure.
Then there is the real bad: the checkpoint system. This game quite literally has a save system that does not deserve to exist in the decade it came out. It reminds me far too much of the absolutely horrendous monstrosity that is Grand Theft Auto 4, which also has as bad vehicle control as this game (thank god that at least helicopters control relatively well). If you die, in most cases you are re-doing a bulk of the mission again, and because of the systemic structure of the game, respawning at the last checkpoint after a mission failure often puts you in a position completely different from you initial plan (like spawning you on the other side of the base). Not only that, it has no manual save nor even a way to reload a checkpoint. Some of the missions feel needlessly punishing, while the others seem to be far to easy. And there is the jank that either make the mission exponentially harder or laughably easy, depending on your luck.
I still like the core gameplay. It's a good shooter, tackling bases in your own way still is fun, but it still has very deep flaws.
2013
For those people who appreciate gameplay over story in JRPGs, this is a treat. The team really thought out what made old JRPGs great to play, and focused on gameplay experimentations and discoveries. You know it's a good game when you google "best build for this game?" and every single person has a different viable answer.
Then there is the story. According to the general internet consensus, Bravely Default is the game with the best story by Team Asano. This also barely means anything because their other three games were heavily critcized for their stories. The problem with Bravely Default is, for lack of better description, that it is the "Endless Eight" of video games. It makes sense why it's like that, but it also means it becomes painfully repetitive. If the gameplay was not one of the best in the genre, this game would've been near impossible to beat for me.
To end with a good note, I want to highlight the game's graphics, especially the use of 3D. This is one of the best uses of 3D on 3DS. It has no gameplay function, yes, but it still makes everything so beautiful. The towns are absolutely gorgeous to look at, and it's a shame that this style never really was copied by other devs. Also, obviously like with any Team Asano games, music is absolutely fantastic.
Then there is the story. According to the general internet consensus, Bravely Default is the game with the best story by Team Asano. This also barely means anything because their other three games were heavily critcized for their stories. The problem with Bravely Default is, for lack of better description, that it is the "Endless Eight" of video games. It makes sense why it's like that, but it also means it becomes painfully repetitive. If the gameplay was not one of the best in the genre, this game would've been near impossible to beat for me.
To end with a good note, I want to highlight the game's graphics, especially the use of 3D. This is one of the best uses of 3D on 3DS. It has no gameplay function, yes, but it still makes everything so beautiful. The towns are absolutely gorgeous to look at, and it's a shame that this style never really was copied by other devs. Also, obviously like with any Team Asano games, music is absolutely fantastic.
2010
Even though Empire may have the scale, Napoleon takes the essence of Empire and really focuses on the specific time period that is probably best known for the kind of warfare these two games wanted to portray. The game combat is definitely tighter, and I think diplomacy is slightly better too, and unit variation is definitely deeper than the predecessor. For some flintlock strategy in cinematic scale, this is probably the definitive game so far.
The smaller time frame does end up an double-edged sword, however, and there are both positives and negatives that are hard not to notice. While the game has 3 smaller campaigns for Napoleon (Toulons, Northern Italy and Egypt), the "grand campaign" covering Europe starts from 1805 and covers until the end of 1812, with each year spanning 24 turns. I generally like this change since like in Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai (and unlike Empire), this means that winter months last 6 turns, which is sizable enough to halt your army's advance to avoid attrition losses. Seeing how this barely mattered in Empire despite its real-life historical importance, this is another dynamic that adds flavour to your overall campaign. The map itself is also bigger than the Europe in Empire, meaning there are details in place. The most noticeable change is that France is no longer a single province, and overall the province numbers are roughly the same.
Focusing on a specific era defined by a single man also means that historical figures are much more noticeable, unlike in previous games where they were small cameos at best. Napoleon is obviously the most prominent one here, but there are also his marshalls like Davout, Massenna, Murat, Berthier (minister) and Bernadotte (whom you can actually have killed by the Swedish!) with historical portraits as their unit card and appropriate traits. Figures from other countries also populate the scene, from Kutuzov and Bennigsen of Russia to Blucher of Prussia, and of course, Wellington and Nelson. However, if there is one gripe I have, it's that all of this predates Shogun 2's implementation of skill trees for generals. Instead of really highlighting the character-building potential it could have had as a character-oriented Total War game, these generals in the end become nothing more than just run-of-the-mill Total War generals a bit more detail and with lots of stars. Also some of the lesser known generals don't have their historical portraits and instead has randomly chosen ones, most notably Talleyrand (minister) and Archduke Charles of Austria.
The downside of focusing on a condensed period of time, especially from 1805, is that the campaign throws you directly into a massive war right from the beginning. This is understandable in the rather linear first three campaigns, but even the grand campaign follows this suit. 1805 is the year that saw War of Third Coalition, the year that really cemented Napoleon's dominance of Europe for next few years after defeating a massive coalition of the continental powers. The problem is, unlike other Total War games with more loose and longer grand campaigns, the diplomatic dynamics and historical flow of events are quite rigid here to accomodate historical accuracy. It is quite impossible to stop Prussia from declaring war on France, and the only way to stop the war with Austria at first is to capture Vienna. For people who wants a more relaxed approach in their campaigns will find all campaigns in this game rather too rushed and limited in terms of diplomatic freedom. It certainly would be the best to have a longer period for grand campaign with more freedom in government and diplomacy with Napoleon's additions and improvements, but for now, the two games seem to have advantages of their own.
The smaller time frame does end up an double-edged sword, however, and there are both positives and negatives that are hard not to notice. While the game has 3 smaller campaigns for Napoleon (Toulons, Northern Italy and Egypt), the "grand campaign" covering Europe starts from 1805 and covers until the end of 1812, with each year spanning 24 turns. I generally like this change since like in Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai (and unlike Empire), this means that winter months last 6 turns, which is sizable enough to halt your army's advance to avoid attrition losses. Seeing how this barely mattered in Empire despite its real-life historical importance, this is another dynamic that adds flavour to your overall campaign. The map itself is also bigger than the Europe in Empire, meaning there are details in place. The most noticeable change is that France is no longer a single province, and overall the province numbers are roughly the same.
Focusing on a specific era defined by a single man also means that historical figures are much more noticeable, unlike in previous games where they were small cameos at best. Napoleon is obviously the most prominent one here, but there are also his marshalls like Davout, Massenna, Murat, Berthier (minister) and Bernadotte (whom you can actually have killed by the Swedish!) with historical portraits as their unit card and appropriate traits. Figures from other countries also populate the scene, from Kutuzov and Bennigsen of Russia to Blucher of Prussia, and of course, Wellington and Nelson. However, if there is one gripe I have, it's that all of this predates Shogun 2's implementation of skill trees for generals. Instead of really highlighting the character-building potential it could have had as a character-oriented Total War game, these generals in the end become nothing more than just run-of-the-mill Total War generals a bit more detail and with lots of stars. Also some of the lesser known generals don't have their historical portraits and instead has randomly chosen ones, most notably Talleyrand (minister) and Archduke Charles of Austria.
The downside of focusing on a condensed period of time, especially from 1805, is that the campaign throws you directly into a massive war right from the beginning. This is understandable in the rather linear first three campaigns, but even the grand campaign follows this suit. 1805 is the year that saw War of Third Coalition, the year that really cemented Napoleon's dominance of Europe for next few years after defeating a massive coalition of the continental powers. The problem is, unlike other Total War games with more loose and longer grand campaigns, the diplomatic dynamics and historical flow of events are quite rigid here to accomodate historical accuracy. It is quite impossible to stop Prussia from declaring war on France, and the only way to stop the war with Austria at first is to capture Vienna. For people who wants a more relaxed approach in their campaigns will find all campaigns in this game rather too rushed and limited in terms of diplomatic freedom. It certainly would be the best to have a longer period for grand campaign with more freedom in government and diplomacy with Napoleon's additions and improvements, but for now, the two games seem to have advantages of their own.
2013
This game made me realize that a lot of games I play for the sensation of achieving something, for the reward rather than sake of playing it. This game, I played it because I loved playing it.
2020
A SHMUP fighter, but actually more. Thinking it's a fighting game, I wasn't expecting single player campaign would be much, at least compared to traditional SHMUP that have traditional bosses. Instead, the story mode of this game is essentially a SHMUP boss rush, where each character has several AI-only "magnus" moves that are essentially special boss attacks. Each fight in the story mode basically comes down to having several rounds, where if you outlast your AI opponent until the very last life in that round, it triggers a "magnus" fight (basically "spell" in Touhou Gensou no Ronde). Survive that like a traditional SHMUP boss, you are onto the next round that features yet another magnus. There are quite a few to master, and considering that, it's an excellent single player experience, with last two "real" bosses showcasing absolutely punishing series of patterns.
The meat of the gameplay is, however, the multiplayer (apparently has an amazing netcode!), which I haven't had much chance to play with real people. However, what little chance I had (along with fight against AI opponents) are still a treat as well. It borrows roughly the similar concept from Senko no Ronde, which heavily influenced a Touhou doujin game, Gensou no Ronde. Unlike these two, Maiden & Spell is Bullet Hell first and Fighting game second. This means that you no longer have traditional HP bar; you get hit, that's your life gone.
Of course, the bullet patterns from Maiden & Spell have completely different charactertics from those found in Senko no Ronde, as they aim for two completely opposite objectives. In Senko no Ronde, your attacks are designed to hit your opponents, so the bullets are fast and straight. In Maiden & Spell, even your attacks feel more like SHMUP bosses, where your lay an elaborate pattern of bullets filling the screen, at a slower pace. The game therefore focuses less about twitch precision and more about methodical trap laying and forcing opponents to move into position they don't want to be in. This is very clear from how your two basic attacks are designed: one is directed towards your enemy (through autoaim) in straight line, while the other is emanated from you and designed to never hit the enemy if she stands still. Combining the two, along with two specials, creates a distinct gameplay loop of waiting and trapping, which is not usually this literal in fighting games. It's borderline impossible to snipe your opponent in this game; instead, dodging is first, while you tirelessly work to trap your opponent whenever you can. It's a simple concept really, putting Touhou into 1v1 fighting genre, but I've never seen this done in such a faithful way.
The meat of the gameplay is, however, the multiplayer (apparently has an amazing netcode!), which I haven't had much chance to play with real people. However, what little chance I had (along with fight against AI opponents) are still a treat as well. It borrows roughly the similar concept from Senko no Ronde, which heavily influenced a Touhou doujin game, Gensou no Ronde. Unlike these two, Maiden & Spell is Bullet Hell first and Fighting game second. This means that you no longer have traditional HP bar; you get hit, that's your life gone.
Of course, the bullet patterns from Maiden & Spell have completely different charactertics from those found in Senko no Ronde, as they aim for two completely opposite objectives. In Senko no Ronde, your attacks are designed to hit your opponents, so the bullets are fast and straight. In Maiden & Spell, even your attacks feel more like SHMUP bosses, where your lay an elaborate pattern of bullets filling the screen, at a slower pace. The game therefore focuses less about twitch precision and more about methodical trap laying and forcing opponents to move into position they don't want to be in. This is very clear from how your two basic attacks are designed: one is directed towards your enemy (through autoaim) in straight line, while the other is emanated from you and designed to never hit the enemy if she stands still. Combining the two, along with two specials, creates a distinct gameplay loop of waiting and trapping, which is not usually this literal in fighting games. It's borderline impossible to snipe your opponent in this game; instead, dodging is first, while you tirelessly work to trap your opponent whenever you can. It's a simple concept really, putting Touhou into 1v1 fighting genre, but I've never seen this done in such a faithful way.
The original Fire Emblem Warriors was a proof of concept game that did not even think to expand its scope as a full-fledged standalone title of its own. It was a good Musou game, with great movesets and a hint of Fire Emblem's tactical gameplay spicing up the usual hack-n'-slash affair, but it was never more than a typical collaboration game where it was really a Warriors game with Fire Emblem coat of paint, never seeking to truly maximize its potential of bringing these two franchises together. Fire Emblem Warriors: Three Hopes, however, is possibly the first Warriors collaboration project that is fully aware of the synergy between the two franchises it is merging, even more so than Persona 5 Strikers, which very much sacrificed the Warriors aspect for the sake of its Persona-ness.
On the outset, Three Hopes is simply Three Houses where battles are repalced with the Musou combat. But it's more than that. Three Hopes streamlines the camp/monastery activities in-between battles that became a slog in the main game, and allows it to feed into the fast-paced combat of the Warriors formula. The camp is smaller than the monastery but with all the important facilities present, and upgrading them feeds into the progression loop that is constantly satisfying. After a battle, there is always something to do--a facility to upgrade, a new support to watch, a new equipment to check out. The game keeps on going and once it finds its rhythm it can become dangerously addicting to some.
Perhaps the biggest difference Three Hopes has to other Musou games is the class system. Unlike other Musou games where a moveset usually equals a character, Three Hopes takes from its mainline counterpart to allow characters to change their classes at will, and the movesets are tied to classes and what weapon they use. Unlike the first Fire Emblem Warriors where the oversaturation of sword-users really hampered the tactical experience by not having enough options on lances or axes, Three Hopes allows a diversified and balanced party of characters at your disposal at all times. Characters are instead differentiated by their unique skills, their gimmicks that are applied to any moveset/class they use. In previous Musou games these gimmicks where tied to the movesets themselves; here the moveset is just another equipment that you can mix-and-match to build a character of your own.
And the freedom of build is very much there. The way Three Hopes fuses the character-building freedom of Three Houses and the fast-paced action of Musou really transcend this game to a proper action RPG. You can just use the preferred classes of each character, such as Annette as a tome-wiedling gremory, but why would you when she can ride a dragon with a hammer that deals magic damage? Maybe you want to have the testerone-obsessed Raphael use a physical tome to somehow beat the sh-t out of enemies with a book. The class sytem, unique personal skills, equippable abilities and arts, weapons with interesting attributes, these all synergize with each other to provide abundant opportunities to experiment at your heart's content.
The Musou combat itself is very much at its top form as well. While some movesets are from the original, it also has many new ones that can change pretty dramatically depending on which character you are using due to their unique abilities. As before, the game very much expects you to use the sword-axe-lance attack triangle when fighting enemy officers (and this time, gauntlet-tome-bow triangle is added), which means for the most part, you will be hoping from one character to other constantly, while ordering others to deal with far away NPCs. It's also important to use the newly added combat arts/magic mechanic--first introduced in Pirate Warriors 4 and now a staple of the recent Warriors games--as they break up the enemy's frequent super armour stances so their guard guage can be broken down. On top of these, add in the parries and perfect dodges (which were more or less perfected with Age of Calamity), the combat offers surprisingly wide variety of actions at your disposal--a simple button-mashing Musou game, this is not. The game is designed to have the player constantly check the map and give orders, maybe excessively so.
While most non-Musou fans wouldn't notice, but a lot of mechanics in Three Hopes are what Omega Force already experimented in their previous titles. Three different routes with world-map UI is from Warriors All-Stars, base-building has been staple of the series including Spirit of Sanada, the R-button active skills are from Pirate Warriors 4, which in turn is an evolution of Sacred Treasures system of Warriors Orochi 4, ordering troops and changing characters on the fly are from Samurai Warriors games, weapon weakness/strength and switching to deal with that are from Dynasty Warriors 8, dodge/parry have been in many of the recent titles most notably in Age of Calamity, and many of the unique gimmicks of each characters resemble those that were already present in Dynasty Warriors 8. But what makes Three Hopes stand out is that never have Omega Force actually brought these elements together to have its mechanics actually synergize so well that the gameplay loop is this natural and addicting. As a fusion of Musou and Three Houses, the game just works and works exceptionally well.
Of course, there are some gripes I have, but they are mostly "why didn't they go further here." For example, Battalions feel like a throw away mechanic here since they have no actual presence in the game other than giving a passive boost, unlike Three Houses where you could use special moves and they would actual be present on the battlefield. There also could be a bit more tactical options, such as being able to route multiple orders, or being able to order CPU combat arts on enemies. And there are some annoying decisions such as S-Rank being too annoying sometimes and the weapon grinding is too random compared to traditional Musou titles. But these problems are minor when the game's elements synergize so well. And that's the underlying key concept of this game, synergy. This is a game that has a plethora of mechanics that synergizes with each other to feed into a gameplay loop that keeps on going--something that Three House also did extremely well.
Now, an Empires mode as DLC would make it perfect.
On the outset, Three Hopes is simply Three Houses where battles are repalced with the Musou combat. But it's more than that. Three Hopes streamlines the camp/monastery activities in-between battles that became a slog in the main game, and allows it to feed into the fast-paced combat of the Warriors formula. The camp is smaller than the monastery but with all the important facilities present, and upgrading them feeds into the progression loop that is constantly satisfying. After a battle, there is always something to do--a facility to upgrade, a new support to watch, a new equipment to check out. The game keeps on going and once it finds its rhythm it can become dangerously addicting to some.
Perhaps the biggest difference Three Hopes has to other Musou games is the class system. Unlike other Musou games where a moveset usually equals a character, Three Hopes takes from its mainline counterpart to allow characters to change their classes at will, and the movesets are tied to classes and what weapon they use. Unlike the first Fire Emblem Warriors where the oversaturation of sword-users really hampered the tactical experience by not having enough options on lances or axes, Three Hopes allows a diversified and balanced party of characters at your disposal at all times. Characters are instead differentiated by their unique skills, their gimmicks that are applied to any moveset/class they use. In previous Musou games these gimmicks where tied to the movesets themselves; here the moveset is just another equipment that you can mix-and-match to build a character of your own.
And the freedom of build is very much there. The way Three Hopes fuses the character-building freedom of Three Houses and the fast-paced action of Musou really transcend this game to a proper action RPG. You can just use the preferred classes of each character, such as Annette as a tome-wiedling gremory, but why would you when she can ride a dragon with a hammer that deals magic damage? Maybe you want to have the testerone-obsessed Raphael use a physical tome to somehow beat the sh-t out of enemies with a book. The class sytem, unique personal skills, equippable abilities and arts, weapons with interesting attributes, these all synergize with each other to provide abundant opportunities to experiment at your heart's content.
The Musou combat itself is very much at its top form as well. While some movesets are from the original, it also has many new ones that can change pretty dramatically depending on which character you are using due to their unique abilities. As before, the game very much expects you to use the sword-axe-lance attack triangle when fighting enemy officers (and this time, gauntlet-tome-bow triangle is added), which means for the most part, you will be hoping from one character to other constantly, while ordering others to deal with far away NPCs. It's also important to use the newly added combat arts/magic mechanic--first introduced in Pirate Warriors 4 and now a staple of the recent Warriors games--as they break up the enemy's frequent super armour stances so their guard guage can be broken down. On top of these, add in the parries and perfect dodges (which were more or less perfected with Age of Calamity), the combat offers surprisingly wide variety of actions at your disposal--a simple button-mashing Musou game, this is not. The game is designed to have the player constantly check the map and give orders, maybe excessively so.
While most non-Musou fans wouldn't notice, but a lot of mechanics in Three Hopes are what Omega Force already experimented in their previous titles. Three different routes with world-map UI is from Warriors All-Stars, base-building has been staple of the series including Spirit of Sanada, the R-button active skills are from Pirate Warriors 4, which in turn is an evolution of Sacred Treasures system of Warriors Orochi 4, ordering troops and changing characters on the fly are from Samurai Warriors games, weapon weakness/strength and switching to deal with that are from Dynasty Warriors 8, dodge/parry have been in many of the recent titles most notably in Age of Calamity, and many of the unique gimmicks of each characters resemble those that were already present in Dynasty Warriors 8. But what makes Three Hopes stand out is that never have Omega Force actually brought these elements together to have its mechanics actually synergize so well that the gameplay loop is this natural and addicting. As a fusion of Musou and Three Houses, the game just works and works exceptionally well.
Of course, there are some gripes I have, but they are mostly "why didn't they go further here." For example, Battalions feel like a throw away mechanic here since they have no actual presence in the game other than giving a passive boost, unlike Three Houses where you could use special moves and they would actual be present on the battlefield. There also could be a bit more tactical options, such as being able to route multiple orders, or being able to order CPU combat arts on enemies. And there are some annoying decisions such as S-Rank being too annoying sometimes and the weapon grinding is too random compared to traditional Musou titles. But these problems are minor when the game's elements synergize so well. And that's the underlying key concept of this game, synergy. This is a game that has a plethora of mechanics that synergizes with each other to feed into a gameplay loop that keeps on going--something that Three House also did extremely well.
Now, an Empires mode as DLC would make it perfect.
Again, for some reason Backloggd won't let us log each game of Metroid Prime Trilogy separately, so here we go. Played on Wii.
I heard comparisons of Echoes being the Majora's Mask of Metroid series, and in a weird way, it is. The cliches are there: it is darker, it is a bit "weirder," and it is also more difficult than what came before. But it's not just Majora's Mask in its position. What Echoes sets apart from Prime--or any other Metroid--is that it feels decidedly more like a Zelda title than a Metroid title.
The four areas are all connected, but instead of the more organic layout in Super and Prime, Echoes has its central hub, with the three "dungeons" being placed on the edges, circling the hub area. Much of the "dungeons" are distinct in theme and for the most part, you will spend most time there until you clear the area. And to clear the area, you will need to collect three keys to unlock the dark temple, which greets you with a boss battle.
To put a spin on this tried-and-true formula, Echoes incorporates the Link to the Past-esque Light and Dark World, where you move back and forth between the portals to progress, on top of the usual Metroid-like progression of getting new items. This is where Echoes shines: it may (for the most part) opt to have more focused dungeon design, but the integration of Dark Aether is done so well that it is still complex and rewarding to progress through. From the pure level design perspective, it is a step up from its predecessor, a feat not many games to this date even dare to come close.
But the "Zelda-like" design does have its downside. It diminishes the distinct organic exploration found in previous Metroid titles. Instead, the game does feel a bit formulaic in a long run, even though the microspective designs are top notch. It still has backtracking to other areas, but due to how the game's overworld is designed, these feel more like backtracking for the sake of backtracking, instead of something organic. The game also brings the dreaded (pun not intended) "late game artifact hunting" of the previous game, though it is slightly better contextualized in this game.
Then there is the difficulty, especially of the bosses. Despite having more bosses, Echoes sadly does not hit the mark with most of its boss battles. The game relies heavily on cycle-based patterns, but in some boss battles, it becomes ridiculous when the most of the time the boss is completely invulnerable. The window of opportunity is small, both in time and space, and their constant movement means that lock-ons are not usually reliable. Some patterns are excruciatingly difficult to dodge (particularly due it being a first person game with lock-on), which amounts to the frustration. Then there are the absolute horrors of the morph ball bosses, which amplifies the atrocious controls with overdone momentum physics (seriously, why doesn't morph ball have a break button??). The alternate beams requiring limited ammo also forces the player to be even more precise, making getting at least 2 or 3 ammo expansions out of 4 absolutely essential to even have a decent chance at the late game bosses. Of course, this is not to say that the game doesn't have great boss battles--in fact, the highs here are much higher than Prime in my opinion--but there are so, so many lows, unfortunately.
This is still a great game, especially for its time, but I fear that it shows its age more than the predecessor. I feel like Prime's problems from its age was largely ignorable, but Echoes will be much harder to swallow for newcomers this day and age.
I heard comparisons of Echoes being the Majora's Mask of Metroid series, and in a weird way, it is. The cliches are there: it is darker, it is a bit "weirder," and it is also more difficult than what came before. But it's not just Majora's Mask in its position. What Echoes sets apart from Prime--or any other Metroid--is that it feels decidedly more like a Zelda title than a Metroid title.
The four areas are all connected, but instead of the more organic layout in Super and Prime, Echoes has its central hub, with the three "dungeons" being placed on the edges, circling the hub area. Much of the "dungeons" are distinct in theme and for the most part, you will spend most time there until you clear the area. And to clear the area, you will need to collect three keys to unlock the dark temple, which greets you with a boss battle.
To put a spin on this tried-and-true formula, Echoes incorporates the Link to the Past-esque Light and Dark World, where you move back and forth between the portals to progress, on top of the usual Metroid-like progression of getting new items. This is where Echoes shines: it may (for the most part) opt to have more focused dungeon design, but the integration of Dark Aether is done so well that it is still complex and rewarding to progress through. From the pure level design perspective, it is a step up from its predecessor, a feat not many games to this date even dare to come close.
But the "Zelda-like" design does have its downside. It diminishes the distinct organic exploration found in previous Metroid titles. Instead, the game does feel a bit formulaic in a long run, even though the microspective designs are top notch. It still has backtracking to other areas, but due to how the game's overworld is designed, these feel more like backtracking for the sake of backtracking, instead of something organic. The game also brings the dreaded (pun not intended) "late game artifact hunting" of the previous game, though it is slightly better contextualized in this game.
Then there is the difficulty, especially of the bosses. Despite having more bosses, Echoes sadly does not hit the mark with most of its boss battles. The game relies heavily on cycle-based patterns, but in some boss battles, it becomes ridiculous when the most of the time the boss is completely invulnerable. The window of opportunity is small, both in time and space, and their constant movement means that lock-ons are not usually reliable. Some patterns are excruciatingly difficult to dodge (particularly due it being a first person game with lock-on), which amounts to the frustration. Then there are the absolute horrors of the morph ball bosses, which amplifies the atrocious controls with overdone momentum physics (seriously, why doesn't morph ball have a break button??). The alternate beams requiring limited ammo also forces the player to be even more precise, making getting at least 2 or 3 ammo expansions out of 4 absolutely essential to even have a decent chance at the late game bosses. Of course, this is not to say that the game doesn't have great boss battles--in fact, the highs here are much higher than Prime in my opinion--but there are so, so many lows, unfortunately.
This is still a great game, especially for its time, but I fear that it shows its age more than the predecessor. I feel like Prime's problems from its age was largely ignorable, but Echoes will be much harder to swallow for newcomers this day and age.
It honestly isn't just an offshoot of Total War: Shogun 2; it's almost in every way better than the main game. The main game, while its lightweightness and streamlined core gameplay certainly made the game more engaging and easily accessible, it was also in a way slightly bland if you were used to other Total War titles. Fall of the Samurai instead takes up what made Shogun 2 good (and that one thing that made Rise of the Samurai actually worth playing) and added an exceptionally interesting dynamic in both battle and campaign gameplay with its new setting.
It was a common knowledge that archers were exceptionally strong in Shogun 2 and Rise of the Samurai--and honestly, it's one thing they did get right since Samurai started as a bow-wielding warriors. However, it also did mean that battles became a bit mundane since bows were so versatile. If you had stronger bow units, some units would not even reach your melee line before routing. It certainly feels good to see a shower of arrows destroying a unit, but it also meant skirmishing now much more important.
Here, bows still exist, but are very inefficient. Instead, now the bulk of the army is line infantry, like Empire or Napoleon Total War. However, unlike those games, the melee potential of these units are were nerfed significantly. The end result is that now you have to mix the old and the new units well in an army, and use them accordingly. Since musket fires are directly fire, having your line infantry behind your melee units to protect them is also not viable. You have to learn when to pull your units back and put your spears in. This keeps the battles fresh and unique compared to other Total War games.
One downside is that it made sieges even worse. Fortresses are more or less carbon copy of the original, but without the parabolic projectiles dominating the battlefield, it's now a boring battle between line infantries, one behind the palisades and the other on the open field. Having artillery helps, but it's now a lot more limited than Empire, and the one worth using is a rather late-game production.
Those shortcomings are easily forgiven with key improvements in campaign gameplay, however. Fall of the Samurai adopts the one mechanic that was central to Rise of the Samurai, the alignment system. But instead of three factions, now there are two sides (Imperial and Shogunate) who hate each other, and Realm Divide is directly affected by it. Even more so than Rise of the Samurai, whether you support the Shogun or the Emperor affects the diplomacy fundamentally. Whereas both the original campaign and the Rise of the Samurai's pre-Realm Divide diplomacy was basically allying with others to delay them from stabbing your back, now the Realm Divide is actually a Realm Divide--as in, the country splits into two, and those who are the same alignment as you will all form alliances with you in first few turns, while those who are not will declare war instead. It becomes a massive civil war, and you are now rewarded for all the hardwork that went into cherishing your alliances and turning neutral clans to your cause beforehand.
Creative Assembly rebranded it as a Total War Saga game 2 years ago, and the game's quality more than justifies that decision. It's a culmination of both Shogun 2's own gameplay mechanics and the fusion of the previous two eras of Total War (pre-gunpowder age and musket era), refined to absolute masterclass. While I would think twice before recommending the original Shogun 2 to the series veterans, I would not hesistate with this one.
It was a common knowledge that archers were exceptionally strong in Shogun 2 and Rise of the Samurai--and honestly, it's one thing they did get right since Samurai started as a bow-wielding warriors. However, it also did mean that battles became a bit mundane since bows were so versatile. If you had stronger bow units, some units would not even reach your melee line before routing. It certainly feels good to see a shower of arrows destroying a unit, but it also meant skirmishing now much more important.
Here, bows still exist, but are very inefficient. Instead, now the bulk of the army is line infantry, like Empire or Napoleon Total War. However, unlike those games, the melee potential of these units are were nerfed significantly. The end result is that now you have to mix the old and the new units well in an army, and use them accordingly. Since musket fires are directly fire, having your line infantry behind your melee units to protect them is also not viable. You have to learn when to pull your units back and put your spears in. This keeps the battles fresh and unique compared to other Total War games.
One downside is that it made sieges even worse. Fortresses are more or less carbon copy of the original, but without the parabolic projectiles dominating the battlefield, it's now a boring battle between line infantries, one behind the palisades and the other on the open field. Having artillery helps, but it's now a lot more limited than Empire, and the one worth using is a rather late-game production.
Those shortcomings are easily forgiven with key improvements in campaign gameplay, however. Fall of the Samurai adopts the one mechanic that was central to Rise of the Samurai, the alignment system. But instead of three factions, now there are two sides (Imperial and Shogunate) who hate each other, and Realm Divide is directly affected by it. Even more so than Rise of the Samurai, whether you support the Shogun or the Emperor affects the diplomacy fundamentally. Whereas both the original campaign and the Rise of the Samurai's pre-Realm Divide diplomacy was basically allying with others to delay them from stabbing your back, now the Realm Divide is actually a Realm Divide--as in, the country splits into two, and those who are the same alignment as you will all form alliances with you in first few turns, while those who are not will declare war instead. It becomes a massive civil war, and you are now rewarded for all the hardwork that went into cherishing your alliances and turning neutral clans to your cause beforehand.
Creative Assembly rebranded it as a Total War Saga game 2 years ago, and the game's quality more than justifies that decision. It's a culmination of both Shogun 2's own gameplay mechanics and the fusion of the previous two eras of Total War (pre-gunpowder age and musket era), refined to absolute masterclass. While I would think twice before recommending the original Shogun 2 to the series veterans, I would not hesistate with this one.
1994
Super Metroid is one of the best designed games ever made. This I will not argue.
However, I do think Super Metroid is a game that too far ahead of its time, in a way. Specifically, it's a game that should have come out when console makers realized "oh, people actually can use a lot more buttons on a controller than the SNES controller." The biggest problem that makes it difficult for modern players to enjoy this as much as they should is just that: the game is clearly more ambitious than the controller it was played on. Not only the item cycling system making the whole thing too confusing for those who don't play this all the time, the grapple and x-ray beam seems to be designed for a more analogue control.
I want to say that I also am not fan of the platforming in this game, but I don't think it's inconsistent. It's just very strict on timing, perhaps too much. At least space jump should be easier than it is, in my opinion. I almost pull off shine sparks more consistently than vertical space jumps, for god's sake.
However, I do think Super Metroid is a game that too far ahead of its time, in a way. Specifically, it's a game that should have come out when console makers realized "oh, people actually can use a lot more buttons on a controller than the SNES controller." The biggest problem that makes it difficult for modern players to enjoy this as much as they should is just that: the game is clearly more ambitious than the controller it was played on. Not only the item cycling system making the whole thing too confusing for those who don't play this all the time, the grapple and x-ray beam seems to be designed for a more analogue control.
I want to say that I also am not fan of the platforming in this game, but I don't think it's inconsistent. It's just very strict on timing, perhaps too much. At least space jump should be easier than it is, in my opinion. I almost pull off shine sparks more consistently than vertical space jumps, for god's sake.
2016
The entire audio-visual presentation is something I don't think I have ever seen before, something truly unique in that regard, or at the very least, very refreshing. It's oppressive, threatening, but also at the same time, calm and reflective. I can see the influences from Naussica, but the colour palette, which is what catches the attention at first, is quite unlike anything on the market.
Gameplay-wise, it's a very competent Zelda-like, and while your melee attack is pretty simple to get a grasp on, the variety lies in your ranged attacks, each weapon accounting for specific situations and play style. Level design, outside of the aesthetic excellence, is filled with hidden paths and routes that are mostly not too ridiculously hidden.
Two gripes I have is how useless the map is (I still don't understand how to read the map in this game, honestly), and how needlessly strict and inconsistent the chain dash timing is. Especially the latter makes it frustrating for some patterns and traps, where chain dashing is borderline required. Its interval gets shorter until a certain number of dashes, and this acceleration really throws me off, making it difficult to pull off in the heat of battle.
But other than that, a great, beautiful experience.
Gameplay-wise, it's a very competent Zelda-like, and while your melee attack is pretty simple to get a grasp on, the variety lies in your ranged attacks, each weapon accounting for specific situations and play style. Level design, outside of the aesthetic excellence, is filled with hidden paths and routes that are mostly not too ridiculously hidden.
Two gripes I have is how useless the map is (I still don't understand how to read the map in this game, honestly), and how needlessly strict and inconsistent the chain dash timing is. Especially the latter makes it frustrating for some patterns and traps, where chain dashing is borderline required. Its interval gets shorter until a certain number of dashes, and this acceleration really throws me off, making it difficult to pull off in the heat of battle.
But other than that, a great, beautiful experience.