mtg837

The good: Beautiful design, from beginning to end. The imaginatively macabre vision of victorian england never fails to amaze. crisp, exciting new gameplay. familiar enough to souls fans while bringing a new level of speed and excitement. terrifying, menacing bosses. the difficulty remains, too. some bosses decidedly more than others (in traditional souls fashion,) which will keep you on your toes till the very end. no game has cooler boss fights than the souls games, and bloodborne keeps this true to form. great atmospheric storytelling. you really feel like a lost explorer traversing the unknown. the world is totally yours to discover. the bad: not much. i had one or two camera angle issues, but those were few and far between, and to be expected with the pace of the action (dodging into tight corners will happen.) i always play the souls games in offline mode, and i'd like a pause function. the end (SPOILER) gives you the option to not fight the final boss. I didn't choose that, but I thought that was kind of lame. Who plays a game 99% through then decides not to fight the final boss? He's arguably the coolest boss, too. (for those who've completed it, I'm referring to the The Fist Hunter, not Moon Presence. I'm totally cool with having optional bosses, but not an optional story boss.)

I picked this up because of the super cheap price tag on the PS Store. Some games are overpriced, some are steals, and with some, well, you get what you pay for. With Injustice: Gods Among Us, I paid about ten bucks. I got what I paid for. Let's start with the cons, since they outnumber the pros quite heavily: Cons: Poor graphics for a next gen game. Heck, If you played this side-by-side with a well polished PS3 fighter, a non-gamer would have trouble telling you which was on the PS4 and which was on the PS3. Game play is nothing special. No special systems, no deep character moves, very hum drum. Some characters feel like they're just repackaged versions of one another. I hate when games do this, it's a cheap way to inflate the roster. Pros: I got to play as Solomon Grundy.

I wanted to go back and write a review on one of my favorite PS3 games -- Catherine. This is a true puzzle game, one that relies on your ability to think both critically, and (as the game progresses) more and more quickly. The plot is fresh and well developed. You are a young programmer on the cusp of taking the "next step" with longtime girlfriend Katherine. All of a sudden, though, a young beauty interrupts your stable life. Her name? Catherine. The resulting conundrum forces the protagonist into a kind of metaphorical dream-scape, in which he must make his way to the tippy top of a series of towers, all by using blocks that he can push, turn and cilmb. As he makes his way through this trippy reality, filled with monstrous re-imaginings of life's key decisions (one boss is a gigantic, hideous baby,) he's forced to make decisions that will ultimately decide the outcome of his life. The game asks the player a series of questions, and by the game's end, you may end up with Katherine, Catherine, or, perhaps, you'll be doomed to live in this dream world forever... As far as game-play goes, Ezra Pound (who famously said to writers "make it new,") would be proud. Lots of games come out well polished with fun gameplay, but ninety nine percent of them feel like some kind of iteration of a different game. (Madden 2016 feels like 2015, MGSV feels like MGS1V, and every FPS ever feels like Unreal Tournament.) Catherine is a completely new experience, yet somehow also feels very polished, as if it's the third or fourth sequel in a series. Giant block puzzles need to be climbed quickly, because as you ascend you'll notice the ground beneath you begins to fall into blackness. If you don't want to fall with them, you'll need to think on your feet. As you progress the blocks fall faster, the puzzles get more complicated, and "trick" blocks will make things even harder (some blocks are covered in ice which you will slide right over, others have spikes that shoot out and kill you. Some explode.) These trick blocks need to be both avoided and used to your advantage, and the game does a fantastic job of providing puzzles which test the limits of your critical thinking and your imagination. Bosses are a blast as well. They're both visually interesting and more challenging, as they will sometimes hurl things at you to knock you off the climb. Overall this game merges a frame narrative RPG with a true puzzle experience. For smart gamers, this one should be on your shelf. .

i had to go back and review this title, as it is without a doubt not only my favorite fighting game, but perhaps my favorite game, period. Most fighting games are about trying endlessly to impose combo strains on your opponents, then just letting them fly. vf is like an ACTUAL fight. You need to use tactics, strategies, you need to read your opponent's moves and their patterns, remember what they did in prior rounds, exploit small weaknesses based on their playing style, etc. There aren't even "special moves," in the traditional sense, where characters have your basic p, k, heavy p, heavy k, three special, two supers, a block and maybe a counter. each character in VF is a meticulously sculpted work of art. they have dozens of moves (I'm talking fifty to a hundred moves per character), all lending themselves to a well tailored style that is realistic enough to drop your jaw and just arcade-y enough to maintain the escapist fun factor. To put it simply, going from virtua fighter to any other fighter out there, past or present, is like going from a Lamborghini to a ten speed bicycle.

Older series' with such a huge swath of fans have a difficult job. They have to both satisfy existing fans by giving them what they expect, while simultaneously innovating enough so that fans don't roll their eyes at the "same old game, repackaged." As any series grows older and older, this tightrope, per se, gets thinner and thinner. With a game as old as Mario, that wire is basically a piece of spaghetti (yes, that's an Italian joke and no, I don't care.) Knowing this, I tried to divorce myself of prior Marios as I played this game and pretend (as best I could) that it was the first in the series. I knew the mental trick wouldn't work entirely, but perhaps it could give me some fresh perspective on what is a very well executed title. The story is simple enough: you are Mario, your friends have been captured, and now you have to recapture the mushroom kingdom level by level in order to rescue them. But nobody plays Mario for the story, so let's talk about the rest of the game: Graphics are crisp as Mario makes his HD debut, with bright and inviting colors that will immerse you in the 2D world. The music is vintage and the sound effects are satisfying (the woo hoos, the boink as you stomp an enemy koopa, and the whoosh of the flying suit are all fun. I must say, though, the sound of grabbing a star coin (Ching!) is especially satisfying, as is the huge applause you garner when grabbing all three. I seriously could almost feel the pleasure sensor in my brain trigger as I accomplished this feat.) Game play is responsive and fluid with almost zero bugs. Mario has all kinds of cool moves to utilize, too -- the jump, the running jump, the double jump, the wall bounce, the ground and pound, the throw, the slide, various powerup moves -- and you'll need them all to get all the unlockables. The unlockables brings me to another great aspect of Mario, which is fluid difficulty. As a long time gamer I love super challenging games, but I do sometimes have to knock games that aren't in some way inviting to a novice. What's great about Mario is that even though it has no adjustable difficulty setting, players can adjust it themselves depending on how they want to clear a level. For instance, beating a level while gaining zero stars is somewhere between easy and medium, beating a level while getting all 3 stars is typically between medium and hard, and beating a level while earning all 3 stars as well as unlocking the secret exit is somewhere between hard and extreme. I'd have liked one or two more special suits, though the flying squirrel was a blast. Aside from that I really don't have any other negatives. Super Mario U, IMO, is a must own title for Wii U users.

Longtime fans of GG will likely pick this game up no matter what (like myself) so I'll restrict my review to those contemplating an initial purchase **** game. I imagine these fans to be fans of 2D fighters, and wondering what GG does that separates itself from the competitors. Here's my breakdown of what GGXRDS does right, and what you may dislike if you are new to the series: Pros: Gorgeous animations that look beautiful on the PS4. The characters appear 2D until the camera pans during specials and victories to show beautifully rendered 3D models in crisp, dazzling animation. Characters are all different, interesting and thought provoking. (As opposed to Ken in a Gi, Ryu in a Gi, Dan in a Gi; Scorpion in a yellow ninja suit, Sub zero in an identical yellow ninja suit; Marth and marginally different Roy; you get the picture...) Each character is meticulously thought out so that form either cleverly masks style or accompanies it beautifully. They're all fascinating, often evoking of religious, mythical or literary theme. Crisp, responsive game play. Pro/Con: For some this is a pro, for others a con: Guilty Gear is not for novice gamers. Sure there is an "easy" difficulty mode, but the game isn't truly satisfying on an "easy" mode in the same way something like Street Fighter or MK is. You'll find yourself unable to perform huge combos or awesome specials, but rather just throw basic attacks. To deliver the satisfying combos, the kind that make you go "oh, yes, that felt right," you need to put in the work. This is because in a lot of fighters, they simply rely on you putting in the right sequence, and something like X,X,O,X, R1 might unleash a huge barrage of attacks. In GG that same combo might need to be entered X,X, (wait for character to fall) O, (wait for gun to unholster) X (wait for spin move) R1. The point being, instead of just having sequence to worry about, sequence AND timing come into play more than most other fighters. And while this can be frustrating at first, it is hella satisfying as you keep going. Hence, a pro/con. Cons: The story mode isn't fun. Maybe that's just me, but I found myself sitting around for ten or fifteen minutes sloshing through dialogue. I'm not saying this is a huge con, since a lot of fans really liked the "anime in a game" aspect of GGXRDS, but it wasn't for me. The online play left me wanting. It didn't have as many modes/features as contemporaries, and a game like MKX really put it to shame in that regard. Lag isn't really an issue, but more work could have been put into this part of the game. Overall I highly recommend GGXRDS to any fan of 2D fighters. It offers incredibly interesting and beautifully rendered characters; deep, responsive game play; and hugely satisfying rewards to hardcore fighting fans. The benefits far outweigh the faults.

MKX is the surprise great game of 2015. With retooled mechanics and surprising depth in both roster and content, Mortal Kombat is no longer a simplistic gore spectacle. That's not to say there isn't gore, there's buckets of that, but this time it's accompanied by a well developed fighter that plays as smooth as sub zero's ice puddles. The character models and level design are all labors of love with incredible detail, and extras in this game litter the "krypt," an underground treasure hunt filled with campy jump scares. Some key positives: Game play is thrilling, smooth, and fatalities/brutalities are disturbingly satisfying. Each character has three different modes, giving the game even more depth in choice, and allowing for a learning curve that both invites novices and rewards experts. Voice acting is also superb, taking the immersion to another level. Old favorites (Sonya Blade, Liu Kang, Johnny Cage, etc) collide with new, well conceived challengers. There are awesome outside cameos from The Predator and Jason Vorhees, also. Online play is smooth and engaging, the different modes give you great variety. Negatives: the one GLARING negative, which cannot be overlooked, is the price gouging. To get the complete game (Tremor, Tanya, Predator, Jason) you'll be shelling out $80 or more (you may have to also pay for Goro, depending on when/where you got the game.) It looks like there are other characters on their way as well, meaning the total cost of this game could exceed $100. While I'm all for paying for good games, this just feels like pick-pocketing. It's really a shame that such insidious business practices sully an otherwise great game. I'd give it a 10/10, otherwise.

When I completed Metal Gear Solid IV: Guns of the Patriots, I thought it was the perfect ending to an outstanding series. When I heard about Ground Zeroes, and it's semi-sequel "The Phantom Pain," I met the title with a kind of hopeful nervousness. Could it live up to the jet-setting brilliance of "Patriots?" After such a complete wrap up, was "Phantom" even necessary? "Phantom" travels back in time and follows the story of Big Boss, nine years after the events of Ground Zeroes (so, the 80s.) You've lost an arm in a chopper crash, and awake weakened in a hospital when the enemies come to kill you. After a daring escape with the help of Miller and "Revolver" "Shalshaska" "Ocelot" (yes, his name is three nicknames) you venture to "Mother Base" the ocean fortress you are tasked with turning into your own personal army. And that's where things veer wildly from the other MGS titles. In all other MGS games, Snake is dropped into enemy territory lightly armed and without much hope. (Typical starting gear includes a communicator and a pack of cigarettes.) Weapons are scarce, as is ammo, and must be used sparingly. In "Phantom," that's not the case. Within the first 5% of completion you'll have a machine gun, a sniper rifle, a grenade launcher, a wicked cool horse, a chopper that can preform devastating air strikes, and a base that can send in additional supplies as needed (C4? you got it. Ground to air missile launcher? On its way.) There's a two pronged idea behind these innovations, it seems. The first is to turn Big Boss into an ACTUAL boss. You are no longer the lone hero, fighting against the "powers that be." You are the powers, and it's a pretty cool feeling. The second is to provide players with multiple ways to accomplish a mission. For instance, in older MGS games, there were very specific ways you needed to clear obstacles. Now you can clear them in any number of ways (tanks can be dispatched by grenades, by airstrikes, or by getting ahead of them and planting C4, that way you're never spotted.) I think the "any route to victory" gives players a more immersive feel, like they aren't bullied into one course of action, even though some courses will be more fruitful than others. For instance, if a hostage is about to be killed, it's best to create noisy distractions with grenades. If you're trying to steal a valuable item, it's best to move quietly and use tranquilizers when necessary. It's more true to life, this way. As far as game play goes, I'll come out and say it -- "Patriots" was better. For one, the roll has been completely replaced with a "dive" move. This means no more rolling away from enemy fire and into cover, and no more strafe-rolling whilst aiming (a BAMF move in firefights.) They've also eliminated some on-ground moves, which is upsetting. Aside from this, game play is still solid (no pun intended.) New innovations include "crag climbing" (a lot of buildings have cracks, which you can climb up) new driving controls, and (obviously) horse riding controls. They all work very well. There are issues with trying to insert a sandbox format into an MGS game, though, and this is where "Phantom" suffers a bit. For one, the story doesn't propel itself, which leaves you feeling kind of wanting. What made other iterations so fun is that it felt like you were playing a movie. You had to accomplish these difficult feats, and after each one Snake found himself deeper in trouble, deeper in enemy territory. Now you have this kind of ambling feeling, like you don't even have to participate in the story if you don't want. Instead of being a soldier trapped behind enemy lines, you're kind of like the world's meanest bully. Also, Ocelot occasionally pesters you about spending too much money or needing more troops for "Mother Base." You'll feel like you're succeeding in MGS while failing at Sim City, which is annoying. Most folks shelled out sixty bucks to play "Tactical Espionage Action," not Rollercoaster Tycoon with guns. Lastly, the open world fails at making the true "fortress" feel. I think it's an overlooked aspect of prior games. Breaking into the Speznaz base in MGS3, or Shadow Moses in MGS 1 & 4 felt like a true military fortress. All the good stuff (Rex/Ray) was hidden at its core, which took hours and hours to reach. There was a genuine sense of discovery and danger that escalated as you advanced. The bases in 5 are much smaller due to the open world, so breaking in kind of feels like holding up a McDonalds in comparison. It just isn't as rewarding. Not to mention Afghanistan's deserts aren't exactly eye candy. If "Phantom" were the first in the series, I'd give it an 8 or 9 out of 10. But following "Patriots" leaves a sour taste in my mouth. This game is fun, innovative and well executed. But it's a considerable letdown from "Patriots," and there's just no way around it.