I had this game in my wish list for 2ish years because I knew I wanted to see how bad it truly was. Apparently a lot of people didn't get that memo tho- I looked up reviews and reddit threads about it, and I unfortunately saw some real Grinch fans feel so let down from this game- truly heartbreaking for all those hardcore Grinch Fans out ****'s be real here for a moment, if you take even a peak at a screenshot of this game, you can probably guess that it will be the worst game ever. It's not the worst game I've ever played, but it was just as bad as I thought it **** was made in the Unity Engine which says a lot, it's like 3-4 hours long, and it's basic "Kid Friendly" Platforming at it's finest. It feels weird to say that tho because I feel like anyone over the age of 5 wouldn't enjoy this. If you child just came out of the womb they may, but for the rest of you Grinch Fans, you'll be going hungry ****'s not good, at all, it's not worth picking it up on sale, just don't buy it man.
Hi Elijah Wood, I'm reviewing your game. I want to begin by saying I had absolutely no idea what this game was before playing it, and went in completely blind. I didn't even know of its existence until it came on GamePass. With that being said, I feel like this game is a bit over hated. There's a lot of eh in this game, but there is also a lot of good ideas here.What is the game? Transference is a "walking simulator," (Using that term very lightly, but also kinda not), puzzle, phycological horror game. It follows you the player going through the experience of a family breaking apart through the 3 family members perspectives.This is done by flicking light switches and getting transported to the same exact space, but it looks different based on how the family member sees the home. The dad sees it as a workplace, the child sees it as a broken and ruined dream like home, and the wife sees it as a **** actual effects and presentation of this game is its strongest element. Transference has a lot of things to critique, but its presentation isn't. It's a very pretty game, with a lot of glitch, sci-fi, and illusion imagery being used.I thought it was extremely cool how the entire room around you feels like it turns off, and back on again, I found the different cinematic sequences to be good, and the choice to have both animated and real world footage integrated is a cool artistic **** puzzles on the other hand are where most find issue. The majority of the puzzles are not inherently bad, and many are good, but the puzzles feel either too easy, or just kinda stupid. A good puzzle was the radio, magnet password, and opening one, but there are a lot of ones that are stupid easy like the piano, and clock **** finally the story. The story of Transference get's hated on for not being original enough. I can kind of agree- But most hate on the premise itself which I feel is not fair. The premise is, the mom and dad meet each other, the dad is a crazy smart scientist and engineer, and the wife is a very talented musician. They settle down (Or get an unexpected pregnancy with imagery pointing in that direction), and the husband is a piece of garbage to his wife and now son. He poured all of his time into his work and neglected the two of them. This left his wife feeling trapped because of her son, and his son feeling unloved and confused. Things get worse and eventually they get a divorce, with this entire experience being forever remembered on a flash drive that you can play through with a vr ****'s fine- the premise itself is okay and I don't have an issue with, but I do agree with many that say it's missing something. It's a game that feels like it keeps alluding to something more, but in the end has nothing more than that simple story. I feel they could have done one of two things to make the story better.A. Just make the game longer- Give the player more of a reason to care about this family. The game is about an hour and a half and most of that time is spent walking too slowly, and trying to figure out a puzzle. I personally would have liked a lot more of that run time to be spent better building up the narrative.B: Add lore to it. Idk what it would look like, but to be honest I think this is the type of game you could add actual secrets in to learn more about what's truly going on, but idk I think option A is **** a complete package it's fine. It's not bad, it just should have been much better.
I've said this about a few games- But this one may trump them. This may be the worst game I have ever played, and I'm not even sure it's **** the first single minute of this game, seconds if you're speed running it, you can stumble across an accidental nude shower scene of the protagonists polygons being shown.That's just about all I have to say about the game- I have a theory that the whole game was made to justify this guy having the shower scene on his computer.Other than that, what do you want me to say? The game looks awful, the story is awful, it's a clunk fest or crappy game design and truly is not worth anyone's time.I bought it as a joke, It delivered on the funniness and that's about it.Some indie games are rough around the edges, but have promise, and then you have games like **** give you a true idea of this games quality, I'm feeling a strong 0 out of 100.
Honestly, it's pretty half decent- That's especially because I bought the game for roughly $**** is an indie horror game which does mean it plays a bit rough, has a fairly insignificant story, and relies heavily on Jump-Scares. But with that being said there are still good ideas **** atmosphere itself is done fantastically and is by far the star of the show in this game. Every single environment feels like it's ripped out of a dream. It also helps that Graphically it's really good. The character bobbing is a simple addition to the game, but it's a welcome one. You are put in first person and it really helps add to the tension and **** computer segments are a bit long at times, but I really like that you have an entire character / plot progressor through a weird old school computer **** a whole is it the best horror game ever?- No, but it is a fairly competent horror game, that I would say is definitely worth playing.
This game is not fantastic. I and many others have noted that the games concept and core is actually pretty good. the idea of a survival horror game based around driving through areas and making friends along the way is cool- But with that being said, this is a first game, and unfortunately shows. I don't think it's as bad as many say it is. The game doesn't explain anything for the most part (Not even controls, which aren't fantastic to start with), the game itself doesn't run super well which is strange because I'm playing on a series X, and there are a good amount of choices that felt like they were made for "personality" rather than **** instance the camera controls are very poorly designed. I get that it can maybe add to high stakes sections by making them more stressful, but as a whole they make traversal a slog because you the player have to constantly keep moving it (Maybe it's better on PC??).This game was made by Reuben Games, and this was their first game. Apparently the game suffered through a lot of delays before release, and unfortunately it still came out with many issues. I don't know the behind the scenes of this games development, but this game's concept and gameplay elements may have been a bit too much to lay on a team of a handful of developers as their first game. I'd like to continue to encourage them to keep going- again the concept is not the issue, the devs clearly have ideas to share, but there are levels of polish necessary, and certain gameplay choices that should have been more thought **** a whole, not fantastic, the concept is cool, and I hope the devs keep going.
It's a competent enough kids' game, but that's about it- it's competent. The worst types of Kids' games are the ones that are entirely designed for kids under the age of 7. The reason i say this is because there are games out there that can be played by kids under the age of 7, that are still actual video games.I think **** like Mario Odyssey (Which is very clearly what a large chunk of this game was inspired by). Yes it can be played by kids, they may not be able to beat everything, or truly get how to play Play it, but it still is clearly a blast because it's a better game than this. It's accessible, but it isn't stupid easy- It's colorful and bright, but it can have contrast- It guides you, but doesn't force you to watch a cutscene every single time the slightest change in level design **** Super Lucky's Tale isn't a very good game, but it is a fine enough kids' game. If your kid likes Mario, get him this- especially because it's where they took most of the inspiration and level design from. Even the 2D sections are clearly a Donkey Kong Country copy.I didn't like it- I think this Developer should try something new, don't carbon copy every idea they find from Nintendo, and instead use this game design as a stepping stone to new and fresh ideas.
I mean what do you want me to say? It's a free Steam troll game. It was meant to be a play on the Witness and make fun of it's puzzle format while messing witht **** a concept, it's funny, but it's kinda sad to see any development time being put into this game. But hey I guess it was free, so that **** gameplay is The Witness-esque where it has you look at screens to complete simple puzzles except when it wants to troll ****'s not very good and I wouldn't recommend it, but it's kind of funny.
Okay so let's be honest for a second. This game was a 3DS game so props to it, and it was a very impressive 3DS game, but we for a moment need to ask ourselves, was it actually a good game, or just kinda neat that it ran so well on the 3DS. I would argue that it isn't much if it's not on that hardware, it's a game you pick up and play for a bit, but compared to 90% of other 3DS games it falls short on minute to minute gameplay, and is not something you'd play again once you beat **** let's talk about it solely as a game, not specific to a console. I didn't play this on the 3DS, so idk if it was really that much better on there, but as a whole I thought this game was pretty weak. It's not inherently bad, but it's beyond forgettable.Most of the time a resident evil game will have one of 3 things be really really good: Horror/atmosphere, Story/characters, or Combat. This game has none of **** combat was designed to be played with a few buttons and a tiny thumb stick of course they can't make it that in depth.Additionally, because of the hardware, the overall environments they can put this in are fairly limited. Most of the time you'll be walking through hallways and small tiny pieces of **** only thing that is okay about this game is its story. It's not a good story, but it's not inherently a bad story. It's very meh even for the Resident Evil **** a whole, should you pick this up? No, in my opinion it has not held the test of time. If you're a big 3DS buff and it's your favorite console then yeah I guess, but as a whole, no- not even Resident Evil fans need to play this one.
This ones cool! I don't love a ton of rhythm games (Mainly because I'm not super good at them)- But this one is by far my favorite rhythm only ****'s a rhythm game entirely revolving around the psychedelic visuals and amazing soundtrack. It truly is always keeping you engaged. It also does the good thing where you don't have to get S rank on every level to enjoy it, but rather just encourages you to do **** mechanics are always introduced and then built upon, it never feels like the developers shoe horned something inn, but rather just kept making the initial draft that much **** play as a weird looking spaceship/bug/whatever it is, and learn how to turn, break, rush through, etc. all of the obstacles that are in line with the music.I don't fully know how to review this one, but if you like rhythm games and have essentially $5-10 to spare, this game is definitely worth picking up.
I played this again recently and I forgot how terrible it **** a whole there are two types of troll games: Troll games that are funny and inventive, but still have a bit of stupidness, and games like this and trap adventure. Games that were meant to be un-fun, games that were meant to get the Youtubers and Twitch Streamers to scream at it (Just as they **** has elements of funniness. At the beginning of the game I thought it was funny that while you're trying to get better at the stupid controls, Bennett Foddy talks over you. The problem is, this is a troll game, and he never stops talking, the controls only get worse because the terrain your moving through gets **** feels weird to give this a bad score because it does succeed fully at its mission- But the mission itself isn't good. And as it stands for 99/100 of sane people, this game isn't fun. It's not fun that the controls are terrible, it's not fun that the game keeps taunting you, it's not fun to not have save states and lose all of your ****'s not a difficult, but fair game, it's a difficult and unfair piece of trash and it doesn't matter how much you convince yourself otherwise, the game isn't fun.
What do you want me to say?I didn't make any maps, but this game is a lot like Mario Maker where you'll be thrown into a sea of garbage. The only difference between this and Mario Maker, is MM will give you a lot of garbage, but there are some levels in there that are really worth playing- Dreams doesn't have that.I know many would give this a good score because it's funny to interact with poorly made games and animations- and the answer is- it is funny to find those. I couldn't stop laughing at some of the garbage I found on here. But that is all it is- ****'s not good because you can find some random 12 year old kids poorly made game, it's just funny because the game died at its concept. This games direction feels very tone deaf. The intention was to inspire gamers to truly create something **** one did that, and no one was ever going to do that because that's not the demographic that plays your games.This is all just rambling on and on, but as a whole, it's a load of comedy genius that's on there, but it all came from a crappy game.
I'd like to speak to all new game designers like this one. You do have interesting ideas, and you should try making games, but you should know the limits of what you can currently do.This game is a prime example of a concept that is interesting, but it's not able to pan out perfectly because the developer themself doesn't have the talent to get it there. This was very clearly a first game, and that's okay, but it's not wrong to say that this was a bad first game.When you combine poorly designed controls, concepts that don't make sense for any other reason than "Okay I guess you can do that," the game will quickly fall flat. The idea of being observant to find clues, and "Lore," Is fine, but it can't pan out when nothing makes sense. You simply cannot throw a player into a situation where nothing is explained and you simply have to figure something out using trial and error. You can, but you need to be more intentional about it. Don't throw players into a learning curve, but ease them into how your thought process as a game developer **** a whole, I bought this for $1, it was not worth it unfortunately.
I had this game in my wish list for 2ish years because I knew I wanted to see how bad it truly was. Apparently a lot of people didn't get that memo tho- I looked up reviews and reddit threads about it, and I unfortunately saw some real Grinch fans feel so let down from this game- truly heartbreaking for all those hardcore Grinch Fans out ****'s be real here for a moment, if you take even a peak at a screenshot of this game, you can probably guess that it will be the worst game ever. It's not the worst game I've ever played, but it was just as bad as I thought it was. It was made in the Unity Engine which says a lot, it's like 3-4 hours long, and it's basic "Kid Friendly" Platforming at it's finest. It feels weird to say that tho because I feel like anyone over the age of 5 wouldn't enjoy this. If you child just came out of the womb they may, but for the rest of you Grinch Fans, you'll be going hungry ****'s not good, at all, it's not worth picking it up on sale, just don't buy it man.
I've thought a lot about this game and its story. I feel conflicted because it’s both sweet and nice, but also kind of messed up. The rest of the game leaves a lot to be desired in its 1½–2 hour story. There are only 2 main things to analyze: the core gameplay and the story.(Quick review — the gameplay was bad because there essentially was none, and the story, while a bit charming, felt like something off a fan fiction website.)Gameplay:This was presented to me as a walking simulator, but most of the time you're just standing there reading or waiting for audio logs. The gameplay doesn’t benefit from being a game — it feels like it could’ve been a short story online. Most of the gameplay is walking and reading. They try adding interactions, but moving objects and inserting things doesn’t make good gameplay. A big part is “finding” secret entrances, but the game basically tells you where to go. It was neat the first time, but got less cool each time.Some notes are hard to read due to poor handwriting; a transcript would’ve fixed that **** only positive is the visuals and atmosphere. The house feels lived in yet creepy. It doesn’t load perfectly, but I only had one issue. While the interactive parts are weak gameplay, they do enhance the atmosphere.Story:The story is the strongest element, which isn’t saying much. Director Steve Gaynor intended it to be hopeful, but it doesn’t feel that way.Spoilers: The main story follows Katie returning home to find her family gone: her mom Janice, dad Terance, and sister Sam. You find Sam’s note saying she left and not to snoop. You then explore the house to uncover their stories.Terance: Failed writer whose dad gave him the house. His story ends with a publisher accepting his book. It’s the weakest.Janice: Park ranger who fantasizes about a friend Rick but ultimately recommits to ****/Lonnie: Sam is shy, gets bullied for living in a “ghost house,” then meets Lonnie. They fall in love, but it’s messy. Lonnie is the “you don’t get me” type — red hair, rock band, supernatural stuff, military program. Their relationship affects Sam’s grades and home life. Eventually, Lonnie leaves, calls Sam saying she doesn’t want to go, and Sam immediately runs away to meet her. This is meant to be a hopeful coming-of-age story, but it doesn’t feel hopeful. Two 18-year-olds with no plan drop everything for love. Romantic? Sure. Hopeful? No. It’s a cringe message to end on. Overall, I didn’t like the game. The gameplay was shallow, and the story felt unfinished and ended poorly. Strong 2 to light 2.5 stars (4–5/10). It’s the most I’ve analyzed a game I disliked.Dear Edith Finch Players:This game is not What Remains of Edith Finch and shouldn’t be compared. They share similarities, but Gone Home in 2013 took baby steps so Edith Finch in 2017 could run a marathon. Don’t treat them as equals — they couldn’t be further apart.
I'm upset. Nintendo is by far my favorite game developer, but in all honesty, we're like 4ish months into the console, and I'm beginning to be done with Nintendo, and this game kinda gave me the reason to do so.20$ is not too much money for most people, but I can say- this is not worth that. These levels should have been free, or if not, 5$ **** total, you receive 12 levels- and those levels aren't really all that good, innovative, or impressive. They're very middle of the pack eh, levels with not too much great about ****'s cool to see Kirby's new transformations, it's cool to see a bit of a remixed version of some levels, but I enjoyed the free post-game in the base game exponentially more. Additionally, don't let anyone say it's a feature of the upgrade pack that it runs in 4K60, I bought a 500$ console to play games in 4K60, I should not have to pay 500$ and 20$ more for an upgrade pack that is essentially selling a feature of the consoleBut I'm kinda done buying all of these upgrade packs and overpriced games. I love the Switch's library, and I own and played the majority of the Switch 1's exclusives. But games like Mario Tennis Fever, Kirby AirRiders, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, the new Hyrule Warriors, etc, I won't be picking up unless I see a good price cut.There are a few I want- like Metroid Prime 4, and the DK Bananza DLC, but even those are questionable for me.I'm upset, and I'm not alone, but I'm getting to the point that I'm almost done with this company completely.
Disclaimer: I'm not paying full price for a bad game, so I did the trial.Much like many of Ubisoft's games, Skull and Bones is a sad game, this is not some random title that they put out; this was a game with a 650-850 million dollar Budget and an 11-year game development cycle. For reference, a good contrast is GTA5, which had a 5-year development cycle and a 250ish million dollar budget. It's sad to see this much time and money being put into a game with this level of unpolished gameplay. At the same time, it's not; it feels like this was a cash grab- get the money and go **** me break down the first few hours of Skull and Bones (Which is the longest you should play this game for. You hop on, the game, you're forced to make a UBisoft Club account before playing the game, you start playing the game with this cinematic battle going on, and die not matter what. You get brought back to shore and now you have a crappy unpowerful and unfun to control ship and have to play 30ish hours to get a better ship.I think companies like Ubisoft don't understand what fun Gameplay is. They think that **** has a long story, complicated skill trees and menus, millions of side quests, and a material-based upgrade format, people will like the game and play hours of it. Along with that, people will spend tons of money because of how fun that is.Skull and Bones' Development cycle was spent on just that; it wasn't focused on the fun part of the game (the combat), it split its attention to all of this bloated garbage that makes the game **** skull and bones should have been, was a at sea game where you're on your ship, battling other boats not only as a boat, but actually boarding other boats and having combat there- and that's it. It didn't need a complicated skill tree, a story, or anything else; it just needed to have an idea for the core gameplay and deliver on that **** again, the core gameplay is fighting other boats- the issue with splitting your time between the fun part and the unfun part of the game is that the fun part **** controls, the majority of the time, are sloppy and sluggish, and the combat is mindless; you shoot cannons, ram into ships, that's essentially it unless you spend a million hours unlocking everything else.This is not to mention all of the performance issues- the game itself can look good, there are good lighting effects, and the textures can look good at times. As a whole, though, there is constant clipping in and out of things, objects in the background that appear and disappear, along with the edges of objects sometimes being pixely.I clearly have mainly bad things to say about the game, but this is not the worst game I've ever played. I did have elements of fun in it. But once again, it's bloated by Ubisoft crap.
It's a competent enough kids' game, but that's about it- it's competent. The worst types of Kids' games are the ones that are entirely designed for kids under the age of 7. The reason i say this is because there are games out there that can be played by kids under the age of 7, that are still actual video games.I think **** like Mario Odyssey (Which is very clearly what a large chunk of this game was inspired by). Yes it can be played by kids, they may not be able to beat everything, or truly get how to play Play it, but it still is clearly a blast because it's a better game than this. It's accessible, but it isn't stupid easy- It's colorful and bright, but it can have contrast- It guides you, but doesn't force you to watch a cutscene every single time the slightest change in level design **** Super Lucky's Tale isn't a very good game, but it is a fine enough kids' game. If your kid likes Mario, get him this- especially because it's where they took most of the inspiration and level design from. Even the 2D sections are clearly a Donkey Kong Country copy.I didn't like it- I think this Developer should try something new, don't carbon copy every idea they find from Nintendo, and instead use this game design as a stepping stone to new and fresh ideas.
I always thought of SM3 as a slightly upgraded Mario 1. I didn't see it as anything all that special, or groundbreaking, or truly worth playing today, until I fully played it and beat it.This game is considered one of the greatest of all time, one of the best platformers ever made, and the thing is, that's completely true.Super Mario Bros 3 is a wonderful experience that is still worth playing ****'s creative, it's different, it set up platforming as we know it today. It is truly baffling that Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros 3 came out on the same console, as they are eons apart in **** level design is great, Mario feels great to control, the powerups are plentiful and wacky, all feeling different from the other ones. Even ones that do feel similar, like the Tanooki and Racoon Suit, are still different from each other. There's also not just one that's the best at everything; every power-up has a distinct use case, and there is no one-size-fits-all in ****'s also wacky in tone; there are ideas and weirdness that you don't see as much today. But there are still issues with it, and there are some areas where it doesn't age perfectly. Firstly, the NES is known for it's stupidly designed difficulty spikes. This game is not crazy difficult or anything; it's very much not a Castlevania or Ninja Gaiden, but there are still portions that have too many enemies, jumps that aren't perfectly placed, or ideas that don't always pan out.Letting these issues blind your enjoyment of the game is foolish, though, as these don't truly downgrade the game that considerably, but they are definitely worth **** a whole, I loved it- Is it the best 2D Mario Game? Maybe, in my opinion, no, but it still redefined 2D platforming, and is still worth playing today.
Does it ****? Yeah, it ****, alright. This game is nothing more than a crappy, poorly optimized, terrible-looking Mega Man. But while they copied a ton from Mega Man, they still ruined his **** you like this game, I feel bad for you. Trust me, if you like this game, go play more 2D platformers. I'm telling you this is one of the worst platformers I have ever played. It's not bland or boring; it's just **** illustrate this, let me name a bunch of the big-name 2D platformers that came out before Mighty No. 9 (It's also a really stupid **** 2014, we saw DK Tropical Freeze and Shovel Knight, 2015 gave us Ori and the Blind Forest and Downwell, and 2016 gave us Inside, Owlboy, and Unravel. Out of these games, Mighty No. 9 is nothing by comparison. But even compared to eh 2D platformers, Mighty No. 9 Stands alone as one of the most incompetent and poorly created games I've played up to this **** goes on sale often for 2.99, it's not even worth that.
I replayed this game after a while- It's not very good after seeing what came **** was still great. It was definitely in the same vein of quality as Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart **** had a lot of issues- item balance, battle mode, and a weak character roster, but it set up what would later become Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which took everything great about 8 and perfected it.
I am one of the only people reviewing this game in 2025 who can truly judge its quality. I am now a maxed-out Town Hall 17(The Highest Town Hall at the moment). I've spent hours and hours playing this game, and I can truly say I do enjoy it.This game is LONG if you really think about it, taking years of time and dedication to truly reach the highest town hall. It requires a lot of dedication and patience, but I will say it is a lot of fun- Just not one I can truly recommend to **** there is a lot of good in this game. First off, many treat this game like a base builder- of course, it does have that in it, but Clash of Clans is a strategy game first. Meaning the appeal of this game is its battles. At lower town halls, those battles are unfortunately not anything very special and require very little effort or knowledge of the game. The good part is that the higher you go, the better not only what you get, but the actual battle gameplay as a whole. The more you commit yourself, the more you'll enjoy other portions of the games like Clan Wars/CWL, Clan Games, Raid Weekends, and special **** only problem with this is how many people have the patience and dedication to give to this game. Most of the people I know are in the Town Hall 9-13 range, which is very far off from Max.With that being said, I will say a large reason many quit is because of how they themselves play the game.Many people I've seen shoot themselves in the foot by taking a break, coming back, and rushing town halls, sometimes even all the way to maxed. I'll tell you from personal experience that this is not at all how you should play this game. A big part of the enjoyment I found in this game was slowly working my way up and appreciating the Town Hall I was at, at the time.There are a lot of negatives with this game (Time sink, bugs, balance changes, Builder Base, and the element of Pay to win that's still there), but there are also a TON of positives to this game. In my opinion, this is one of the Greatest Mobile games of all **** COC devs are some of the most passionate and creative people to ever touch the mobile game industry. The fact that this game is still getting not just small changes and updates, but huge game-changing updates is insane and truly worth applauding. Yes, there are still elements of pay-to-win in the game- But don't ever compare it to games like Clash Royale, or the crapy mobile games filled with **** reality, the devs have spoken a lot about how they want to remove most of the pay-to-win aspects of the game and instead move over to cosmetic items(Which is great to hear).I also know many are upset that those elements are still in the game, but if I can for a moment give them the benefit of the doubt, 13 years later, this mobile game has no ads, gives every single piece of content for free, and as a whole is still a free game.Lastly quick note- the COC community of players and creators is also very friendly and fun :)In conclusion, I have spent way too much time playing this game. I will probably retire at some point, but not rn at least. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to try and play COC, see if you have the patience to play, and if you do, you will not regret spending time on it.
Now this is a Mario Party game. This took the ideas that were in MP1 and made them even better. The boards, mini games, costumes, and atmosphere made this so much better than the original in every way they could ****'s still great in the grand scheme of things aswell. It's definitely not the best one in the series, but it's pretty high up there in the ranking. For a game that came out in 1999, it is still just as brokenly fun as it was when it was released. Still has issues, but it's pretty great.
The beginning. It has a lot of issues- Most of them come from the Board layout and minigame controls, but as a whole, this was a good game.There aren't many party games that can match Mario Party's level of ease of play, but also uniqueness. It's a board game-style mini game collection, but it does it so well and has been since this game's release. It doesn't reinvent the wheel with every new game, but instead continues to add another layer of polish to what this game laid ****'s a bit dated compared to a new entry, but it's still a lot of fun.
Definitely one of the weaker NSO games, but it's still a great concept. It's no Tetris 99 or Mario 35- but it is a solid Pac-Man **** has nothing to do with the online support or community- It mainly comes down to F-Zero not completely lending itself to this format super well.That sounds weird to say because it's a racing game, just with more racers. Unfortunately, it makes it a bit more chaotic than fun at times, and if you're in the back, you can get to the front, but it's not super simple or intuitive.
It's fine. I kind of like the original better. This one technically is better- it runs and controls better with more in-depth mechanics behind it- But it feels like a pubescent version of what would become F-Zero GX.
This game is still worth playing nowadays. The controls aren't precise; often, you can't control where you actually want to go, and the tracks can be far too confusing and **** instance, if I'm playing Choco Mountain, there are no guard rails- meaning that if I fall off the egde I don't get put up back to where I fell off, but have to turn around and drive all the way **** more you play, the better you get obviously, but this is in the time period where Mario Kart was nothing but a party game.With all that being said, the game is still fun, still has great tracks- visually and layout, and still worth playing today.
Here's a hot take- This game is better than Super Mario Kart. I feel that most people treat Super like it's the better game because it's more well-known. The issue with that is Super Mario Kart took what made Super good and made it much better. They both have almost an identical roster, controls, and core gameplay. But what makes this game better is its track layout and variety. In Super Mario Kart, there are a bunch of tracks, but many of those tracks are reskins. There is an element of that here, but there is far more variety in visuals and design.This is also a great portable game. In the era of the Switch 2, of course, most aren't carrying around a GBA anymore, but to think that this is a portable Super Nintendo game that arguably controls and runs better than the original is amazing.
It's pretty bad. Hitman Sniper assassin in the real game is pretty fun, but in this more standalone side game, it fails to be even decent. The main reason is how inconsistent sniping in this game is. It's unfair, it's far too focused on the very strict time constraint, and as a whole leaves much to be desired.
This Review is retrospective. I recently remembered that Multiversus ever existed. It's now mid-2025, and the game officially was shut down, making its lifespan a little under 3 years. I feel Multiversus was and is exactly what much of the gaming industry gets wrong about Multiplayer games today.Multiversus, from the beginning, was clearly a shallow shell **** that was entirely based on the wacky roster of characters. It added little to nothing interesting to the fighting game genre. It was packed with battlepass-like microtransactions that no one wanted to buy because the game itself wasn't good. This game was created to be an "Alternative" to Smash. The only problem with alternatives is- Why would I go and play Multiversus, an alternative to Smash, when I could just go and play Smash?As a whole, this game was awful. The Roster was its main appeal, but the roster was solely cosmetic. It wasn't fun to play as Lebron James because his move set added to the game's playability and complexity, but instead, you play as him because it seemed funny to play as Lebron James. Outside of the character roster, the core gameplay itself wasn't there. The fighting was floaty and inconsistent. The online game not only ran terribly, but was terrible at matchmaking. Often, you get put with a person, and you either destroy them or they destroy you. It was an inconsistent, cash grab, smash clone, shell ****, and I feel sorry for those who believe it was ever something more than a crappy advertisement.
This was pretty rough. 90% game is backtracking and saying, "Okay, I guess you can do that now." It has very poor gameplay with little to no logic or reason behind any of it. I feel the majority of people are going to play this game and like the art and visuals, and maybe vibe with a song or 2. I'd make a bet that those same people will play, not know what to do, look up a walkthrough, but still give it a decent score because it has an interesting concept.
This very much feels like a student-made, first-time game designer type of game, and if it is just a get-acquainted with the beginnings of game design, then that's great, but this game as a whole leaves much to be desired, especially for a concept such as restoring color. As a whole, very underwhelming.
Not to mention the game is about 20 minutes long.
This is one of the most controversial opinions I have in gaming, but I don't think sticker star is bad. Is it as good as the others? -No, definitely not, but it does still have interesting ideas. First off this is very great adaptation to fit on the handheld. I feel like this is a fantastic game format for the 3DS.
A lot of people hate the sticker format of combat. I know the criticism, and I get it, but I don't fully agree. The idea is cool, I like the idea that you can collect stickers and attack based off of what you currently have, not just get so over powered that you'll destroy everything. I will say, it is dumb that some bosses are gate kept with particular stickers. The fact that you can't beat a boss off of pure skill and understanding of the sticker and boss is incredibly dumb. Secondly: The world in this game is very neat. It's all very simple in appearance, but the puzzles that are in those worlds are great. In general I find them very enjoyable to explore. Lastly: My largest problem with this game is it's dialogue and humor. It's not funny, or witty, it's kind of boring in narrative, which for a paper Mario game isn't something you like to see
I beat The Witness. Now, after hearing other perspectives and ideas, I’ve decided to replay it. But even with all the theories, hidden layers, and analysis, I still don’t fully get it—and I feel like that’s kind of the point. It’s meant to leave me conflicted. I’m not sure if this game is a masterpiece or just a beautifully frustrating waste of time. I loved playing it, but grew frustrated. I beat it and was left finished, but it felt like I had barely scratched the surface **** that isn’t even there. I have a lot of thoughts, so let’s break it down.Gameplay:At its core, this is a puzzle game built around environmental and perspective-based line puzzles. Most of your time is spent staring at panels, trying to understand abstract rules, or in the post-game, wandering the island looking for hidden puzzles. When it clicks—like the scratch marks in the Desert Ruins—it’s incredibly satisfying. I had similar “aha” moments in the Swamp, Treehouse, and Quarry. But the game never explains its mechanics. You’re expected to figure everything out yourself. That works sometimes, but not always. Some mechanics—like the Tetris blocks and star symbols—never fully clicked for me. I got by, but never fully understood them, and the game just keeps moving forward, compounding the confusion.Guides:If anyone says they beat The Witness without ever using a guide, they’re lying. Not everyone, but 99 out of 100 definitely did at some point. The open-world structure is great for post-game exploration but hurts the main game. You can go anywhere from the start, which often means hitting a wall, quitting, or looking up a guide without learning the mechanic. For me, it was the pitch sound Jungle Area—easily one of the worst-designed puzzle sections I’ve ever played. I sat there for an hour, looked up a guide, still didn’t get it. And here’s the issue: if you’re tone deaf—or deaf—you literally can’t play this part. That’s fine for rhythm games, but this is a puzzle game. I’m not tone deaf, and I even sing, but I still didn’t get it. Worst of all, this game breeds elitism. There’s always someone saying, “I understood it just fine—you just didn’t get it.” But it’s not about “getting good”—it’s about whether the design respects the player's time and cognitive diversity.Story:The Witness doesn’t have a story—or at least not the one it alludes to. As you play, you feel like something bigger is going on: confusing statues, lasers, environmental puzzles, audio logs, secret pages, and more. You see spoiler warnings in reviews and expect a grand reveal. But when you beat the game, it’s… nothing. The twist? You’re a game play tester, playtesting The Witness. It’s interesting, but not grand—it almost feels like a slap in the face. And that’s the point. The secret ending shows real footage of a designer seeing puzzles in real life after playing the game. That’s what the game is about. A fun puzzle game that feels like the devs were testing how far they could push before being called out for bad design.This creates two types of players:A – People like me who enjoyed it but saw through the devs’ game.B – People who say, “I understood it just fine—you just didn’t get it.”I loved The Witness and think you should play it—but only if you know what you’re getting into. If you want a grand story, an accessible puzzle game, or something that respects your time, look elsewhere. This is a line puzzle game—it probably should’ve been a mobile game—but I loved what it stood for, and I loved the gameplay too.
I don't know how many Overwatch/Valorant clones are going to be made before game devs realize that 99%. This game runs and plays fine, but that's kind of all it is - fine. If you don't want to play Valorant, then I guess you can play this. The menus and overall presentation are cool, but a lot of it is confusing and overcomplicated for what is essentially just a very average game.
I also don't appreciate the fan service characters. I feel the same way with Marvel Rivals.
I liked it. It's not super deep, it's super fleshed out, it's not super long, but it's just enough of all of those to make for a very enjoyable experience.
It's such a unique puzzle game. The concept of focusing on small, minute details in order to figure out the path to go is a very, Very Good idea. Furthermore, it's weirdly creepy. The game definitely is creepy in tone, even without anomalies, but with them, it adds that much more merit to it. My biggest hope for this game is that it gets a sequel or something like it. I'd like to see it with more to it. I want to see it fleshed out in length, in "lore," and in different stages. I feel like it would be awesome to have this game concept be playable in much larger environments. But with all that being said, it was just enough to be interesting and well worth playing.
I get the appeal, but it's going to lose a lot of people in the beginning of the game. I don't know how you can make a tutorial **** so awful, but they did.
The game as a whole is fine, it's just nothing special. It's a tycoon essentially, but it tries to be more than that.
I think much of my issue with this game comes from when it treats itself as anything but.
It's good.
It's very self-explanatory- what you see is what you get. It's a simple, short little game about riding a bike.
The physics are great, the game looks really good, and as a whole is a great experience- just not anything to truly write home about.
It's Bad. Lately, I've been wanting to play a lot of terrible games, and this one definitely delivered on that.
If you like crappy visuals, sound design, poor atmosphere, and weird and disorienting game design, then you will LOVE Damn Dolls. If you'd like to not waste your time here, what you do. You walk around and don't at all know what to do because the game barely explains what to actually do, finally either look up a turtorial or somehow figure out what to do, then get "Jumpscared" by dolls and try and aim at them with the worst aiming I've ever seen in a video game, then eventually figure out what to do and beat a game that is essentially 10 minutes in length once you know what to do.
Additionally, this is meant to be a horror game; this is the furthest thing from a horror game; the only thing that is remotely scary about this game is how poorly it runs.
Now, with that being said, the most fun you can have with video games is either when a game is a 10 or a 0, so yes, this game was very fun to laugh at.
Now this is unplayable. It's not an over exaggeration, it's not review bombing, it's not forced online hate, it really is that bad. First and foremost, this game barely runs. The amount of frame dips, glitches, and load times I had playing this game is abysmal.
But even if the game did run well, it still ****. The concept itself is really where its conception should have ended. The idea of playing a game where you play as Gollum, the most useless and least powerful character in The Lord of the Rings, is truly baffling. How this got approved in the first place.
And the gameplay shows that the majority of what you do in Gollum is boring, trailing missions, climbing (Not just climbing, poorly optimized and bad climbing), and slow and boring stealth missions.
Now, there is a cool idea in this game. I find the concept of slowly choosing Gollum or Smeagol is a neat concept, and isn't inherently a bad one, it just doesn't seem to have a ton of impact on the true gameplay, so it's a bit worthless. The game also looks awful. The environments are fine, but Gollum himself is one of the ugliest renderings of a character I have ever seen; they truly butchered his appearance. Also, in most games, sound design is not something you bring up unless it's either really amazing or laughably bad.
This game's sound design was laughably bad. Every line delivery and it's audio placement feels off. Gollum game does this thing where it puts voicelines in one ear of your headphones, (Idk if that was just my headphones, I've heard it in online videos aswell, so I don't think it's just me). As a whole, a terrible experience in just about every way imaginable, don't buy it even if it's on sale.
Okay, the year is 2025, so this is a VERY different game than it was when it came out. I want to first and foremost say that the support this game has gotten since its release is truly commendable. I've never seen a game truly take this much of a facelift after release.
With that being said, I don't really like No Man's Sky that much. I find it's gameplay very monotonous. The visuals and atmosphere are really where this game shines, but the gameplay does have it for me.
I feel weird about this one. To be honest, there is some stuff to like here, but I didn't like a lot about this one.
It's cute, and it's sweet, and it's cozy, but that's about it.
Bioshock in 2025 is still just as interesting as it was when it came out. I feel like most modern-day shooters, and especially during the PS4/Xbox One era, most FPS felt very copy and paste. This game from 2007 blows out most that come out today. The controls are not perfect, and there are elements that feel dated, but the vast majority of gameplay mechanics are still just as interesting today as they were then.
The story of this game is difficult to pick up on fully. It's a bit confusing, and it's the type of story you need explained through a YouTube video after, but the story itself is still great.
How does a game like Balan Wonderworld even exist? I'm not exaggerating, this is legitimately the worst game I have ever played. There is nothing good about it. It looks and runs like crap, everything is a blatant rip-off of Mario Odyssey, the power-ups are all terrible, good level design is not in these dev's vocabulary because A the level design ****, and B all of the levels can be completed in max 3 minutes each. Additionally, by far THE worst part of the game (Which is difficult to pick) is the copy and paste balan bout QTE sequences.
There is nothing redeeming about this game, and if there is a good idea, best bets is that it was probably stolen. I give it a single point instead of a zero because the prerendered cutscenes do look okay, even though the storytelling through them is terrible.
There's a lot you can say about Wii Sports, good and bad.
Mainly good though, I feel like this specific experience is still by far the best the all in Wii motion controls ever were. To pick up Wii Sports today and have it be just as fun as the day first played it is legitimately amazing. To get it for free as a packin title makes it even better. I'd say my main critique is A: This is a game, but kinda Isn't, it in reality is essentially a mini game tech demo.
And B: Sometimes the motion controls can be all over the place in quality.
This game isn't as good as many of the other LEGO games, but it does have a lot of ideas and polish that have merit to it. The main issue are the levels. While they have a lot of new ideas and it's not inherently terrible, they're very forgettable and very boring. The open world is okay. I like the ideas of the planets, but as a whole I don't really think it panned out as much as they probably wanted it to. The main reason comes down to all of the planets feeling similar other than the **** with that being said I do like some stuff about this game. The story is very good for a kid friendly LEGO game, the character roster is incredibly good, the game visually looks great... but doesn't run very well even on better hardware.
Once again, Toby Fox cements himself as a masterclass in indie RPG games. Everyone obviously sees this game as Undertale 2, but in reality, while it shares many similarities to Undertale (Being in the same style of storytelling, environments/graphics, and combat) this game still stays incredibly fresh. *SOMEWHAT SPOILERS*
The overarching gimmick of storytelling, where your decisions don't matter, I feel, is absolutely awesome. With a fanbase like this, who went down all the different routes in Undertale, to then tell them that nothing they choose or do truly has any difference, I find to be super interesting and very funny.
Speaking of Funny, this game is super funny and is able to very effectively communicate jokes through all of the limitations this game has visually.
My only real criticsm comes with the games length and plot. This games story is pretty good, but you can tell that it was meant to be a 2 parter rather than a standalone that ties into future games. It's not a huge deal, but i think it's worth mentioning.
As a whole, where Undertale felt like a love letter to Earthbound, like RPGs, Deltarune is able to take that and add even more personality onto it
The First time a played this, I though it was fine enough, but now I realize that it's really good. If you like any form of Tycoon/farming type game you will like this. It's exactly what you think it is. It's a tycoon type game that actually has some fairly in depth Mechanics to it. I find the presentation very sweet and charming, and as a whole absolutely what it should have been.
My only true criticism comes down to small knit picks. For instance the music is all good, but I feel like it would be better to have a few more tracks to it, and I wish you could pick which song to listen to.
You take a game as good as ACNH a game that already has tons of replayability, but at a point ends, and add onto that replayability making it even better. This adds so much to the game, and is 100% worth picking up if you enjoy Animal Crossing. I'd say my only criticism is I wish there were a few more buildings on the archipelago, and some requests are so weirdly bizarre that I don't know why you would ever pick them.
