Yeah, euphoria made me feel things.

Dread and fear were all those emotions.

Is it good, is it bad? I don't know. Is it something that I recommend? euphoria is highly inaccessible as a game, and requires a strong heart in order to fully experience it.

I'm unsure if I should label euphoria as a "different" type of medium, but I'm also unsure if its merely a disgrace.

While God of War III was bonkers, and God of War 2018 was good to look at, God of War II smashed and slashed its way through the PS2 era, besting its predecessor gameplay-wise.

God of War II's set-pieces are mesmerizing and something that I would continue to gush about. Colossus of Rhodes still lives in my head, rent-free. Not only that, but its level design is an exemplar of linear game design.

Where God of War II ultimately faltered was its storytelling. God of War handled this well, a Greek tragedy retold in a contemporary format, while God of War II decided to go all-in on the "revenge" aspect. It also presents the "sequelitis" problem, where everything needs to be grander in their sense of scale. Still somewhat good, however.

God of War II is perhaps one of my favorite PS2 games. It's an excellent adventure, and one the best-presented "cinematic" video-games that have existed.

God of War was naturally a DMC clone, but nevertheless stood its ground and forged its own identity.

It's poetic, and was built like an epic, with some of the best environmental design and set-pieces that Sony had on its rampage with the Playstation 2.

While most view God of War as needlessly violent, its extreme parts complements the ever so often humane parts of Kratos. Quite cheap, maybe, but still impactful, storytelling wise.

God of War is worthy of its praise. There's some frustrations here and there with the puzzles and possibility of being infinitely staggered. However, it's certainly a strong contender in PS2's catalogue, except for one thing. God of War 2 existed.

Undertale has a lot of heart. Every section, every character, every dialogue is oozing with its own charm and quirk.

Yet, it never vibed with me.

Perhaps its the age difference? No, I was born in the same generation with the people who have enjoyed it. Perhaps I got turned off by its fanbase? Not really, I pay no attention to social media's reception anyway.

Then perhaps, Undertale didn't vibe with me because I've played dozens of games that predated Undertale, all of which already gave me the quirk, weirdness, and humor that Undertale possessed.

Its clear cut inspiration like Earthbound has done this. Perhaps a game that embraces its quirkiness in tone and gameplay like Katamari Damacy, and even an incomparable game like Lufia has already strung this particular beat in my heart, the similar string that Undertale embraces.

Undertale might be a great game, but I only found it to be enjoyable enough to finish it once. This is not to say that Undertale is bad, it just never managed to strike that chord in me.

Buyer's remorse.

Palworld is an elephant in the room. There's some novelty here and there, similar to Minecraft's kitchen-sink mod-packs. On the other side, Palworld is slop. Like a big-glowing, exclamation marked, light-bulbed, yellow-painted, with arrows all over, walking talking red-flag of a video game.

I've had my time with it, but I'd rather not do it again.

I don't know how to feel about Blue Archive.

On one hand, Blue Archive's lax gameplay provides me some comfort. It's neither frustrating nor too limiting. Its also chockful of QOL, but is somewhat ruined by the fact that its client isn't the best. Music does go hard, and the game seems to be generous enough.

Obviously, there's another side to that coin, and that is Blue Archive's writing and aesthetic is loudly perversive. It's overly sexual, and is made even worse by the game's high-school setting.

Do I recommend this game? I don't know. If you get satisfaction from Blue Archive through its character-design, I'd rather not talk about it.

From a standpoint where you enjoy collecting your favorite characters and exploring scenic vistas, Genshin Impact is perhaps the perfect game.

Beyond that, Genshin Impact suffers from its flat and uninspired systems. Decision-making is dull and almost non-existent, while its mechanics are inherently going to suffer when its cut and clear that aesthetics are its priorities.

I admit, I lost my interest towards Genshin Impact for over two years ago now.

Every now and then, I mull over the fact Genshin Impact still has something for me. The first time Liyue came into view, with Wangshu Inn towering over its landscape, is certainly a warping experience. But is it worth it if I have to trudge through my stocks of resin with disappointment? Nah, I don't think so.

A massive improvement to Genshin's design. Honkai Star Rail is much more digestible, gameplay-wise and time-wise. I know they aren't directly comparable, but Genshin Impact shares some of the core-design that is prevalent in Honkai Star Rail.

Something that I'll commend on Star Rail's part is its difficulty. Hitting the endgame and riding through its curve feels actually satisfying this time around.

Writing is also completely improved, albeit still suffers from time to time. Localization is often hilarious, but may not sit well with others.

Overall, I enjoyed my time with Star Rail. Fun, tight and ultimately an improvement in Mihoyo's game design department.

While I inherently play dozens of single-player, offline video games, I still take interest in playing live-service gacha games. Some may ask why, but the answer only lies on the fact that I love videogames. Yes, I dislike microtransactions and no way in hell would I endorse gacha and gambling in any form.

But Arknights is one of my most favorite gacha games that I've touched on this live-servicey mobile games era. Arknights is a very reactive tower-defense game. The game does encourage a lot of creativity on players' part, however, especially when you lack high-rarity units. By doing so, I get a lot of satisfaction from its moment-to-moment gameplay. A frantic back-and-forth of pausing, speeding-up, and re-deploying your units is something that I've enjoyed, Contingency Contracts even more.

I do have my qualms, however. This game's QOL is awful, and laughably bad compared to other gacha games that predated it. Arknights' writing is also particularly unhinged, not only by its storytelling, but also its length. You'll get smacked by exposition to and fro.

Still, Arknights is an enjoyable game. I've completely stopped playing, but I'd still recommend it. It's difficult, fun and has a lot of memorable moments, gameplay and characters alike.

Valorant is the first game that I'd think about when I hear the word "corporate-designed".

Yes, it's an amalgamation of your popular first-person shooters, particularly Counter Strike's mechanics with a side of modern hero-shooter sprinkled in. Yet, there's nothing really that stands out from Valorant's design; map-wise and mechanics-wise, Valorant is muddy and lacks any confidence. Even worse? It seems that the game lacks any trust for its playerbase, continuously streamlining and pigeonholing player experience into very specific playstyles instead of encouraging creativity.

The game's poor design choices are thankfully hidden by its aesthetic. A thin-veil that holds the game together, yet polluting the game in every sense. Skills are flashy, yet uninteresting, regurgitated and overloaded. Maps are overly-designed, each and every one of them is almost unreadable with the clutter decorating every corner. Every single map is also required to bring a gimmick in the table too, promoting style over substance, something that Riot seems to love invocating in their games. How can I forget the obnoxious cosmetics too? After all, they are all that matters anyway.

If it's unclear, I don't like Valorant. Unlike my past reviews, I'd rather not give it any score or rating. I believe that giving scores, may it be 1 or 5, means that I value something, even if it's the slightest, from that particular game.

Bad games are memorable because they're either funny or completely disfigured that every bone in your body clinks every time you engage with them. Good games are memorable because, well, they're good and standout amongst the crowd. Boring games are forgettable, bring nothing to the table, and lacks any remarkable impression to be discussed. Valorant? Definitely unmemorable.

With all due respect, I don't know how would I ever put The Last of Us in a pedestal where games such as Shadow of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4, Half-Life 2 or DOOM stood. These games are milestones hit by the game industry, honoring them because of their impactful innovation, most of which are difficult to recreate, that makes each and every entry unique. The Last of Us being billed as one of the best written video games of all time is hilarious, as it invalidates the past twenty years of well-written, and interestingly written video game narratives that have predated this game.

Game-design is tolerable and serviceable, with people telling you to play it at the highest difficulty to achieve what it offers best. Why can't it offer it at the intended difficulty, then?

I have nothing to say more about The Last of Us. Not an inch of praise, and not even a foot of criticism would I even spare for this game. Dozens and dozens of creative, quirky, soulful games get pushed year in, and year out. What makes you ignore them and herald this game instead?

A decent, yet baffling re-imagining of everyone's favorite video game heroine, Lara Croft. This isn't to critique Lara's appearance nor harp on the game's narratives. My main issue with this game is how dry and rigid the experience was. Before you can even raid a small amount of tombs, you'll have to dig your way through mundane systems, alongside several uninspired levels and set pieces.

I'm outright saying that my experience with Tomb Raider is mediocre. At its best, it does what triple A games does best, look pretty, but at its worst? It makes the idea of raiding tombs actually boring.