Wendigo2064

Many re-released games do not stand up to their own legacy, fans loving them with the clouded eyes of nostalgia. Okami is not one of those games. Not only is it still one of the most beautiful, complex, and well designed action-adventure games of the last generation, the re-release is probably the best of this generation as well. When it came out seven years ago, many (myself included) dismissed it as a Zelda clone and left it at that. The truth is, the Zelda franchise has been slowly trying to capture the magic of "Ocarina of Time" without ever quite succeeding, tacking on more and more unnecessary gimmicks to hide its reliance on decades old franchise tropes. This does not mean Zelda is not still fun, but it certainly hasn't broke any new ground since 1996. "Okami" does not have this bogged down attachment to old tropes like a musical instrument, previous boss battles, set number of dungeons, creakily familiar plotlines. Every system is fresh from the ground up, from combat to level layout to world design. It is also surprisingly large for an action-adventure game, clocking in (for me, a side quest aficionado) at around 60 hours. Yet the game is so tightly woven -- nothing, absolutely nothing is worthless busywork (coming out of AC3, this feels pretty great). Every little collectible quest will actually give players tangible rewards, not just a worthless trophy. And it's easy to say a game is pretty to look at, but it's another to say the game's artistic direction actually matches the tone of the story and enhances it. Everything in this package belongs there, works together, and most importantly, feels fun. This is the first "10" I've given any game on this site, and for me it means I can't think of anything to improve. This is masterful work, and with the HD rerelease there is just no reason to miss this king of its genre.

If ever there was a series with incredible highs and irritating lows, it's the Assassin's Creed series. There are parts of Connor's story that are my favorite gaming moments of the year, and parts where I wanted to put down the controller and stop playing entirely. Like all AC games, the setting and research are the takeaway win. Ever wanted to play "People's History of the United States: The Game" ? Then again, I'm one of those nerds that actually sits and reads all the animus database history. Seeing that history come to life is why I play these games -- the "Frontier" map in particular is just so much fun to explore, glitches aside, like Skyrim with parkour. And I'll say it, it's really nice to see native people represented as something other than cliches and stereotypes. The research on the social and political structure of the Iroquois nation pays off in droves. The story... well, here's kind of where things start to fall apart. It's very clear Ubisoft bent over backwards to show a sweeping history of the U.S., from the French Indian war through to the end of the revolution, and in order to cover all that ground it takes a loong time. If you're a detail hunter, expect to wait about 10 hours for the world to open up. I'm not even kidding, it takes that long just to don the assassin hood. Each and every new feature has a stretched out tutorial mission, from hunting to tree climbing to basic combat maneuvers (all pretty self-explanatory), as if the developers were afraid we'd miss every single detail. Speaking of details, I'm a side quest fella, and the side quests in AC are always hit or miss. In AC 3 they range from the fantastic naval warfare (which could be its own game) to popular board games of the time (I honestly don't know why I kept playing those). Then there's some truly dull stuff, like exploring underground tunnels. Whether the side quests are fun or not matters immensely, because there's almost no payoff in the actual game. Money/Assassin partners are as useless as always, so all this trading and guild micromanaging is completely pointless and honestly a waste of the gamer's time. I don't want my time wasted, developers, remember this. Most importantly, their attention to detail and putting us in documented historical moments make the main missions feel super scripted, and it's pretty jarring to suddenly be scripted in a sandbox. The main missions are the worst the series has ever offered, just from their sheer dullness and frustrating fail rate based on whether or not I do exactly what the game wants me to do. A lot of the inconsistency in this game is a clear lack of cohesion - the guys developing the homestead "Sims" game was obviously not talking to the guys writing the story, and neither were talking to the naval warfare developers, and there was some nerd in the corner scripting AI for board games and no one knew where he came from. They went hog-wild for this game, and just couldn't wring themselves in. I know they cut "Philadelphia" pretty late in development, so someone must've said "no" somewhere, but the game feels, yet again, overstuffed. There was a lot of talk about their new anvil engine, but aside from a few new movement patterns and great graphical presentation, the game feels pretty much the same. Some of it pays off, some doesn't. Was this the... ahem... "revolutionary" new game in the series we were waiting for? Absolutely not. Is there great stuff in it? Yes.. But this is a troubled game, one I was really looking forward to and enjoyed only when climbing through trees to the top of a cliff and staring down at it all from afar.

Unfinished swan is representative of its own theme

I feel like I'm missing something about this game. Ambient music, fast score-attack gameplay is usually my thing (I adored "Everyday Shooter" for example), but the dizzying tunnel layout of Dyad left me pretty cold. The challenge of the game seems to be how hard you can squint your eyes. The game itself is pretty simple, which is not a bad thing, adding just a few new controls as the levels progress... but if it wasn't for the tunnel vision, the game would be remarkably easy. The challenge lies entirely in how far ahead you can see at any given time, and with your speed up it quickly becomes a guessing game. Of all the games like this out there, I'm kind of surprised this is the one getting rave reviews. It's not bad, but I can't call it good either.

"Dishonored" sits comfortably in the mixed heritage of FPS games like "Bioshock," "Half Life 2," and "Deus Ex" without quite meeting the same great heights. Instead, it unfortunately is going to join my shelf of "Bioshock 2" and "Deus Ex: HR" as grand attempts that don't quite make it. It's a shame, cause on gameplay alone this really should be a 10/10... it just lacks that extra punch, and since the combat/stealth is so good, it's all the more noticeable what it lacks in payoff. The attack customization is top-notch - better, perhaps, than any of the above mentioned games - with plenty of player choices affecting later gameplay, if not so much the story. And the level design is pretty damn good, allowing exploration risk/reward while still giving a straight shot for those who aren't interested in every completionist sidequest and item. But (and this is a big But), the game is too short and the story is forgettable. Now, usually I'd argue a short game is just a good game without padding, but it really feels like there could've been some more missions if devtimes had not caught up with them. Or maybe they focused so heavily on making the levels excellent, they didn't notice how few well crafted moments they gave us. And the story is...well, it's there, but often I felt like I was supposed to be more wowed by the setting than the narrative. There are no real stand-out "wow" moments, something the greats of the genre make sure to give players almost every level. Some reviewers have argued that the best part is going back to try different ways through each mission and shoot for those ghost/deathless scores, but so many other games already have that great ****'s fantastic that the depth is there (and believe me, the depth of the level design is awesome), I just wish there was more of it to explore. I'd still highly recommend this game to FPS/Stealth fans, especially those that wanted "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" to be better than it was, but at the end of the day the game sits, for me, as an enjoyable "Aw damn. So close, yet so far."

The nostalgic pandering to my generation is obviously the game's selling point, but it's also my biggest problem with the whole experience. Perhaps I can't honestly call "Retro City Rampage" bad, but I can call it dumb. I know so many people, like myself, grew up with these other games, but where's the... well, new game? This is Wayan's brothers territory-- not a shred of original content, but plenty of references to something better. More often than not, the fun of "Retro City Rampage" is getting the references... but that's the end of the joke. There are hundreds of gamer in-jokes, but very few actually impact gameplay. Some, like a poorly designed bit-trip runner sidequest, are so shoddily put together you'll want to just go play the real game instead. Underneath all this referential nonsense is a perfectly decent sandbox arcade game, but it takes some digging to find it buried under the thoughtless parody. The controls are tight, the game has depth, the world is just the right size for plenty of delicious secrets... but something slipped in the game aping. It makes me sad to see indie devs sinking under the weight of referential humor, rather than simply trying to make a good product. There is so little value in a joke like "Look, there's the game genie! Get it?" That a decently made game becomes irritating. But that may be just me. For anyone who wants a trip down memory lane coupled with a decent arcade game, well here ya go. Personally, I'll stick to indie games with some originality.

Ah, the K.I.S.S. approach to gaming (Keep It Simple Stupid. Not the band). Will you be playing "Tokyo Jungle" an hour after the novelty of its post-apocalypse, "12 Monkeys" animal setting wears off? Probably not. Will you occasionally load it up to play dumb bouts with friends and whittle away a dull afternoon? Almost definitely. The rules are so basic (survive, collect points, eat things, dodge other things), it acts more like a complicated "Pac-man" table than a full game. There is little difference between animal types, only enough variation to barely justify new mission sets. Each time you gobble up enough points to unlock the next breed, you can't help but wonder how long you'll survive with a chicken, a tiger, a velociraptor. Then you start playing those creatures only to realize you are doing the same thing you were doing with the first animals. The novelty of this (excuse the pun) dog-eat-dog world will wear thin, and there's not much game to back it up. But... well, there's something so adorably 80s arcade about the whole thing, like a "Galaga" machine accidentally mated with a "Nintendogs" cartridge. It's not terribly engaging for more than an hour, but you'll probably play that hour about 50 times. A good ol' fashioned quarter eater, only now you just pay 10 bucks up front. "Tokyo Jungle" does not pretend to be any more than it is, and as a simple, stupid game it works like a charm.

The good part? A unique way to listen to new tracks by some great artists. The bad part? The music might not make up for some dull gameplay. Don't get me wrong -- the first few levels will amaze you, as each "coin" unlocks more and more of a song. But after some play, you'll be frustrated by some level sections and completely bored by others. The game mechanics are just so dull... Imagine "Gish" with amazing music, but you have to play the first section over and over again. Acutally, it's more like "Little Big Planet" with a music generator, since they're obviously hoping for some innovative user generated content. The level editor is far easier to use than "LBP," and my adivce is write your coin song first and design the level around it second. But the content isn't there yet, and the main game will probably take you an hour or two to finish. This might be great once some other folks start designing, but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed since the engine is just too watered down. Ah well, I really wanted to like this more than I did...

If you like narrative, low impact gaming in the likes of "Ico," "Journey," or "Heavy Rain," "Papo & Yo" is about as good as they come. However, don't expect a whole lot of... well, game. The puzzles are just enough to keep you interested in the beautiful world and allegorical tale of a son dealing with his father's addictions. There are some serious graphical hiccups, and the physics engine is extremely wonky. It kind of feels like a game that should've been in the PS2 era, instead of a PSN major release... which is both a good and bad thing. Games like this remind me that narrative can be strong enough to carry a simple game. Just... you know, don't expect 20 hours of intense play. "Papo & Yo" will be a love it or hate it game. I loved it, and the story is unforgettable, but I'll admit it's not as smooth a game as, say, "Journey."

More of the same is not always a bad thing, especially when the "same" was good to begin with. The real problem with "Assassin's Creed: Revelations" is not its similarities to its predecessors - no, the core mechanics are still fun, and the plot feels more resolved than ever by Ezio's final mission. The real problem? Unnecessary additions. As this series has continued, they've tacked on more and more utterly useless pieces, from the pointless leveling of your support assassins in "Brotherhood" to the abominably irritating "den defense" sections in this game. Even the "hookblade," extending ezio's reach, only makes you feel sluggish when you can't find a zipline in the painfully small Constantinople. Don't get me wrong, the core mechanics are fine, even if the fighting is still uninspired block-counter-rinse-repeat. But the core mechanics are what should be built upon in a sequel, not tacking on more stuff. Assassin's Creed 2 was a great game, with a little bit too much padding in its side missions. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was still an okay game, but with much more padding even if the multiplayer was good. Assassin's Creed Revelations is so padded, it's hard to see the good game underneath. Which is a shame. I actually enjoyed the plot in this much more than "Brotherhood," but it's buried under a pointless quest involving local politics. And dull bomb crafting. And den defense. And those useless other assassin's I'm supposed to micromanage. Here's hoping in AC 3 they try a "less is more" approach.

Remember when a new FF game was the talk of the town, a sounding call for all kids to rush to the nearest store and cast their vote prematurely for game of the year? Those days are gone. But FF XIII-2 is an okay game anyway. Better, in fact, than the last eight years of Square Enix's attempts to "update" (or ruin) their games. It won't escape from the scrutiny the series has received constantly in these years, and a lot of that has to do with the wooden characters. I actually remember when the cast of FF evoked real emotion, and didn't just play off their own stereotypes (the silent cool one, the broody one, the airhead "funny" one). Serah and Noel are just about the worst the series has offered, not helped by the terrible dialogue and the contrived plot, which isn't even worth mocking. So what worked? Well, the battle system and difficulty curve are much better implemented than its predecessor. The game smartly ripped off "pokemon" and "chrono trigger" with the monster collection system and time travel world-altering mechanics. In doing so, the game up and admits that "Final Fantasy" as a unique franchise has died, and square enix doesn't know what it's doing any more. Things like the world map, large cast of interchangeable-but-unique-in-battle characters, rebels against the evil empire distracted by clever side quests... it's all gone for good it seems. Yes, there are side quests, but they boil down to WOW style fetch quests. There are towns of unique NPCs but, since you always know where to go next, there's no motivation to explore these side characters and their trials against killing some specific monster type you've already battled a hundred times. And saving the world? I guess you do... accidentally, as a sort of means to an end of finding that broody Cloud/Cecil build that was Lightning. Yes, this is a return to form for the franchise, and the game feels a bit more like old school JRPG fun. At this point, there are better JRPGs to play, with cleverer plots in place of those frame-rate-destroying HD graphics. Try "Cthulu Saves the World" instead. Hell, even the Pokemon franchise is better than this. But it's a hell of a lot more involving than the last few FF games, and at least the series seems to be getting off the ropes. Here's hoping "Versus" or the yet-to-be-announced FF 15 will be better.

You'll be challenged - Not by the puzzles, which are a chore, but by the story itself. Since Finding out it had a moral choice system that typically results in one of two relationships, I decided to go for capital "C" catherine, the bad one, the "evil" option. Part of this decision was an attempt to undermine the game's attitude towards monogamy, since the "evil" option at least hints at multiple partners (Though Catherine does threaten to kill you if you cheat on her). I mean, the whole plot revolves around a character cheating and refusing - REFUSING, despite all options given to the player, to tell his current committed partner that he got drunk and cheated on her. It's not much of a choice system when the most obvious choice is one that is not there. Nonetheless, the dual-morality system is a bit more nuanced than, say, "Infamous," where the evil option means decapitating children and the good option means martyring yourself for a bus full of nuns - in other words, no real grey area. "Catherine's" morality challenged me, though not how I thought it would. I honestly couldn't tell at many points what the "right" decision was. Maybe this is because of my 5-year committed polyamorous relationship, making the code of monogamy baffling to me. Despite actively trying to be with "Catherine, Vincent was swinging back to Katherine, the "good" option. My answers confused the game. I believed in multiple partners (BAD!), but believed strongly in honesty for all involved (GOOD!). Now I could keep ranting about how out of touch this system is with **** identity, but I won't. I didn't expect much from a morality system anyway. What's interesting is how the game "Translated" my beliefs into the pathetic cheating monogamist I was supposed to be. It felt like real roleplay, as opposed to the kind of roleplay where I can kill everyone in a town one second and save the world the next. This alone made Catherine interesting. Oh yeah, the game - it's a dating sim with block pushing puzzles. The puzzles try to represent inner challenges Vincent faces based on his daily moral conundrum. It's neat, but difficult and is completely unrelated to the development of your character. You probably won't play the game for the puzzle system, You'll play it for the story. And the story is weird, but surprisingly challenging. For people like me, anyway.

This game is a "greatest hits" album, one for a band long dropped from popularity. It's weird how these "greatest hits" can make me feel nostalgic for an era in gaming I didn't love. When I was a boy and the Mario/Sonic wars were at its peak, Sega couldn't do what Nintendid. Sonic always looked desperate for attention, with unnecessarily difficult speedy platforming that required level memorization - It wasnââ

This game is a "greatest hits" album, one for a band long dropped from popularity. It's weird how these "greatest hits" can make me feel nostalgic for an era in gaming I didn't love. When I was a boy and the Mario/Sonic wars were at its peak, Sega couldn't do what Nintendid. Sonic always looked desperate for attention, with unnecessarily difficult speedy platforming that required level memorization - It wasnââ

It's almost too easy to find **** faults with most of the big hitters in 2012 (Skyrim's bugs and dull combat, Uncharted 3's terrible platforming and shooter controls, Batman's disappointing enemies/plot, Portal 2's dumbed down story campaign, etc.). "Rayman: Origins" is almost pitch perfect. It's not an attempt to be those huge orchestral epics, but rather the catchy ditty you heard in a bar one night and keep whistling the rest of the day. If you like old school video games, youâ

It actually pains me to give "Skyrim" a higher score than "Dark Souls," particularly after being one of those snorty know-it-alls dismissing "The Elder Scrolls" and other Bethesda RPGs as bland excuses for a game. But I can't deny how INVOLVING this bland excuse for a game can be! Yes, the battle system is godawful compared to that wonderfully intricate hack-slash-block-dodge system in "Dark Souls." (Would it kill Bethesda to add a lock-on system so the fights don't feel like a floaty slap-fest somewhere three feet ahead of my player?) And yes, this game is as glitchy, if not more so, than "Dark Souls." (My personal favorite was a fight with a dragon who decided to fly right through a cliffside and kill some villagers on the other side like a sandworm.) Now here's what they did right with this game- they filled it, and I mean really filled it, with stuff to do. Confession - I've never been able to play more than five hours of a Bethesda/Elder Scrolls game before. Even "Fallout 3," one of the most critically acclaimed games of this generation, just felt like a whole lot of walking through the desert, talking to people who don't have anything interesting to say. In Skyrim, not only does every character have a hundred neat little quests to take on, they're actually DIFFERENT from each other. I got a fetch quest early on and had a sinking feeling I'd be collecting wolf pelt from respawning enemies WOW style for the rest of my life. But no. They really vary it up. And Skyrim,though large, is simply packed with unique moments. You can't walk for more than a minute before some new adventure begins. Admittedly, the game starts to gloss over after your 40th hour, but for once I can honestly say that my loss of attention was because of too much stuff to do, as opposed to samey grinding. I'm not giving it a higher review than 7, because the glitches really do ruin some of the immersion, and the battle system could do with a lot of work. But, unlike Dark Souls, none of the glitches felt game breaking. This is probably because it's practically impossible to do something wrong with your character, but hey. It's an adventure. You won't be challenged by this game, only immersed in it like a grand painting. And that's really not so bad.

Considering I was one of the many on Naughty Dog's Forum who complained of Drake's Loading Ring of Death, take my "6" as a darn good review. No, the game is not an instant classic, the plot is terribly derivative of previous titles (not to mention the third Indiana Jones movie), the platforming is still just linear "jump by pressing X while pointing with directional pad no skill/timing necessary," and the gun mechanics are wonky. Outside of that run-on sentence of ill will... well, the game is still fun. Granted, the fun parts are played for you, like watching a nifty 8-hour action movie that pauses if you don't hit "play" every time Drake is supposed to jump to the next pole waiting to break under his weight. I went ahead and played hard mode after trying normal for the hour it took Drake's Ring of Death to kick in (more on that later), because otherwise "Uncharted" starts to make my eyes glaze over in a haze of nondescript non-U.S. folk I'm massacring for dubious reasons. If I wanted that, I'd play COD or any other FPS from my screwed-up country. No, Uncharted masks its racism with that 90s Spielberg/Lucas sense of adventure. Except Drake doesn't even bother saying "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM." No, he's more honest about his sense of entitlement. He wants the money. Or something. It's not really clear whether Drake is after treasure this time because of money, revenge, heroism, or some unexplained drive for self-worth. "Unexplained" is really the right word, since none of this will be resolved by the hail of awesome explosions we see along the way. The game goes by painlessly, in a series of spectacular set pieces that really are a pleasure to play, no matter how many times I cursed the aiming and stealth system (Does he really need to be glued to that wall when I'm trying to sneak-kill the guy standing two inches away?). But, in all honesty, the set pieces in the more-racist predecessor were better, and yes I know that sentence was an awfully back-handed complement/insult. If you wan eight hours of meaningless fun you'll forget as soon as you put the controller down, turn the channel to UPN. Or play Uncharted 3, whatever. Oh, Drake's RIng of Death? Well, an alarming number of gamers reported a glitch where their games would not load after their first time exiting the game. "Uncharted" took over a week from purchase to load after my first try, during which time I had foolishly deleted my save in hopes of appeasing some data god. So I had to play the first six chapters again, like being forced to watch a protracted recap of the most straightforward Keanu Reeves movie imaginable. (Speed, Maybe?)

"Portal 2" Does almost everything its predecessor did. The new things? Well, that's where valve made some decisions I don't agree with. The whole game feels play-tested to a fault, every puzzle practically screaming at you how it should be solved. In the story campaign (yes, it's brief, but I consider that neither a good or bad thing), I never felt for a moment like I experimenting with different methods to find my way forward, because all the puzzles were shoved into my face. There were no tantalizing moments where I saw a crack in the wall and thought "Look, an escape!" The escape is programmed in for you. As a result of this hand-holding, I don't think I was stumped for more than a few minutes at any time. This was clearly to make sure every player gets through the game and enjoys the clever narrative and excellent voice acting (Wheatley is truly a great character). But this wasn't a battle of me against a disembodied threat. This was me being hand-held through a movie. There was hardly any of those clever immersion moments that valve is so good at creating-with its gameplay. At several points, the game took control away from me and- by god, a cutscene? Why can't I move when the threat is right in front of my face? Puzzles are interrupted halfway for the story to move forward, when I do have control of the story I must do things where I'm thinking "Hm. This seems like a bad idea," and there really is, at some points, only ONE place to put your next portal. The multiplayer is neat if you have a friend who is EXACTLY as good as you at solving puzzles so neither finishes the game for the other, but don't try solving puzzles online while using symbols "Demon's Souls" style to communicate complex thoughts that aren't "Immenent fire," and are more "Put the portal here, I'll jump through it get a portal over there and ****." All criticism aside, this is a well made game, and plenty of fun to play if not much of a challenge. Almost too well made. You'll enjoy it, briefly, and move on. Just as long as you aren't looking for anything too ground breaking, like, y'know, "Portal."

So, I loved "Batman: Arkham Asylum." I went into "Batman: Arkham Asylum" expecting a piece of overrated franchise nonsense, and I still loved it. It had a refreshing, if unoriginal, mix of Zelda, God of War, and the stealth of early Metal Gear Solid without any of the talking heads. But "Batman: Arkham Asylum" adds nothing new and plenty wrong. Quantity does not trump quality, and the city of Hugo Strange seems to agree with me. There's too much nonsense and none of the intrigue. Instead of my expected "game of the year," I've got an overstuffed sandbox full of pointless side missions and two dimensional villains. Seriously, is there some rule in the batman universe that every sequel has to include twice as many villains and less character development for each? Unfulfilled story aside, the gameplay is solid, if you like this sort of thing. One button attack, another to counter, a few gadgets to flesh out the hordes of villains you'll be fighting on your way to the next actual challenge, and plenty of animations to make you at least feel like you're doing more than mashing buttons. The riddler challenges are less riddles and more fetch quests. The world is bigger, though not in actual "dungeons" (or "things not on the overworld map.") Let's face it - this is the assassin's creed of batman. I liked the second assassins creed, but "AC Brotherhood" made me feel how bloated the world really was. Is there more content in "Arkham City" than its predecessor? Not really. But there's more level grinding, empty sandbox environments, and character cut-outs. So it's bigger. It's certainly not better. If you wanted a bloated, dull version of Arkham Asylum, here you go. Good riddance.

Like my poor wanderer after the hundredth death at the hands of undead, I'm split in two over Dark Souls. On one hand, it is challenging, beautiful, complex, and a worthy sequel to Demon's Souls. On the other hand, the game's glitchy hit mechanics, dropped frame rates, and broken targeting system make a near perfect challenge feel like a mistake. Don't get me wrong - I'm about 60 hours in, and enjoying every minute of the fight. Even the cursed frogs in the game's depths, growing in their infamy with every angry gamer on the web, only felt like a welcome side adventure to explore an underwater city filled with previously impervious ghosts. But when an AI skeleton suddenly falls through a wall, a self-healing dragon miniboss glitches to its death with one arrow, and I can't see how close that poison blowdart is to my skull because the frames have dropped yet again, the challenge feels lopsided. Dark Souls is purposeful in every unfair death, up to the point where my PS3 seems incapable of handing the evil and freezes yet again. I almost want to make the argument these glitches are part of the gaming experience, that the designers of From Software wanted to throw us abused players a bone with every enemy who doesn't notice the archer shooting from out of their AI radius. This is probably not the case, but one can hope. All the programming mistakes aside, I could say Dark Souls is the most involved action RPG since Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, with every corner hiding a secret and a battle system that has no end to its variety. There is no perfect weapon combination or stat build for your character, only a giant field of possibility to get you through the next seemingly impossibly area. A poisonous swamp? I be there's some poison resistant shadow clothes somewhere. A lava field? Hmm, how can I walk through fire... The storytelling, though scarce in dialogue, comes mainly from your own actions, making a hero's journey that other games can't match. Most games borrow heavily from other mediums, like film, to tug at your heartstrings or amp up the excitement. Most of Dark Souls' quests are self chosen - try to infiltrate the dark forest or delve into dangerous caverns first? Should you join this NPC's covenant and define how the next 8 hours will be spent, changing the outcome of a drastically long game? "Heavy Rain" tried, somewhat successfully, to force your empathy for predefined characters by giving you loose control of an 8 hour film, pushing the player onwards no matter what mistakes they made. Dark Souls makes you py for those mistakes, making them feel like real consequences. The adventure is imposing and up to you - and its excellent battle system keeps it exciting every deadly step of the way. Almost. In a game this unforgiving, every moment must be calculated, and it's hard to do that when you can kill difficult enemies from afar or glitch out their AI. It's cheating a great system. Conversely, if my sword is nowhere near that wall yet still bounces back, I'm being cheated. I'm giving this game a mixed review, with the acknowledgment of my love for it. I'll plow on, mistakes aside, through my second quest, because I know it has more depths than the mariana trench (or a certain new elder scrolls game with a placid difficulty curve and blandly familiar game experiences). If you can see past the problems, through the dropped frames, you'll find the greatest game of this year.