swavmirj

This game has a lot going for it. Approachable art style, addictive dungeon puzzles, simple and well-balanced deck-building combat. Sadly a fundamental flaw - at least for me - that makes it a waste of time: no character progression. Why make a connection with a dungeoneer when they reset to level one each round? Why focus on a build when all that loot disappears at the next run? I don't have time to waste resetting to zero time and time again. Beyond a lack of connection, it fundamentally removes any sense of progression. This is not a combination of mechanics that gels well for me, but I feel wonderful for those that enjoy this game.

Reminiscent of B-tier games of old, 'Mad Max' is better than it has any right in being. From compelling characters, satisfying driving and vehicular combat mechanics, through to a generally well executed and weighty brawling hand-to-hand combat system it is worth some time. Unfortunately, like most open-world games, it does overstay it's welcome. It's colour scheme is generally drab (though this can work in its favour during certain set pieces). It's infiltration missions are copied and pasted across the board. The AI is reminiscent of sentient potatoes. And there were missed opportunities for both base and colony management systems (the offering being extremely bare bones). All-in-all, try it out when it goes on sale.

The highest praise 'Shadow of Mordor' has going for it is that it leaves you wanting more. With so many sprawling open-worlds, it is refreshing to have something easy to knock over in a few sittings. With the Nemesis system providing a personal touch to encounters, the variety of approaches to combat (ranged, stealth, or balls/flaps-to-the-wall), and the well paced progression of skills and perks, 'Shadow of Mordor' is the pure 'Assassin's Creed's experience fans of the genre have been waiting for. Unfortunately, the risk of leaving a person wanting more does tend to lead to anti-climactic endings and a lack of replayability. None-the-less, well worth the full ticket price of entry and a playthrough to the very end.

TL;DR: This game locks out anyone wanting to share a console with a household by removing core game functions (story progression, infrastructure tools) to players 2 to 8, and only allows for complete collection of elements if players engage in local co-op with other game owenrs or they subscribe to Nintendo Switch Online (see below for details). 4.5 out of 10 seems a fair score to give a game that put in a huge amount of effort to create a beautiful, well executed, addictive game that alienates half its player base. For each player in a household to have the full experience, you would need to spend $408AUD per person ($79 for a copy of the game, $329 for a Nintendo Switch Lite). Safe to say, no game is worth $408. Here are some of the features that players 2 to 8 on a single game miss out on: Story elements, bundles of free recipes, and island editing tools (infrastructure projects, moving buildings/houses, terraforming). This would be the equivalent of BotW only allowing the first person to boot the game to fight the Divine Beasts and Fight Ganon, but allowing all other players to collect hearts, stamina, and resources for player one. Or, it would be the same as only allowing the first player to boot up Super Mario Odyssey to collect moons, while every other player could only collect coins. Furthermore, none of the promotional materials, nor any reviews of the game have indicated that collecting all the materials within the game is capped for anyone looking for a purely single player experience. As an example, a single console and island has access to a maximum of half the fruit species available unless they engage in local co-op with another owner of the game, or subscribe to Nintendo Switch Online. Datamining revealed that players visiting Mystery Islands will only be exposed to their Native Fruit, and a "Sister Fruit". No matter how many Mystery Islands you visit, these will be the only two fruits you'll be exposed to. The shady nature of the promotions around collecting, combined with the lack of autonomy given to all players beyond player one, is why this game is getting slammed by players. That is why such a beautiful game, with addictive gameplay, does not deserve the full praise it deserves, when it is so clearly trying to force people into purchasing multiple copies and consoles to fulfil the experience.

Darksiders is the epitome of a mixed game with each polished element attached to a flaw: - Its visual style is well executed, but extremely generic (though if their generic style was to match that of the generic story, then I applaud them for that consistency); - its colour palette is definitely vibrant and approachable, but it clashes with the overly serious tones of the writing (with humour as bland as the story and art style); - the combat is satisfying, but many tools are shoehorned in for individual missions, or entirely unnecessary wastes of currency; - the enemy variety is highly diverse, but the methods of dispatching them are close to identical across the board; - the puzzles are interesting (if a tad long), but the tools used in them follow inconsistent physics across various scenarios; - finally, it's guidance to the player leaps between unnecessarily obvious to entirely absent. Overall, I went into this game hoping for a mindless hack-and-slash. Instead, it turned out to be a puzzle-game with intermittent hack-and-slash game-play. Generally, I would recommend this game to anyone with $5-10 knocking about (particularly if it's bundled with Darksiders II) looking for a casual hour or two of game-play across a few weeks of lazy evenings. Knowing now what it is, I will probably play the sequel, but only after ticking several more compelling games off of my list first. As for the third... perhaps I'll revisit it when it's heavily discounted... not an experience worth the retail price.

"Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" was a beautiful game for its time, encouraging exploration of the entire map with compelling climbing mechanics and well-hidden treasures. Its action set pieces were mesmerizing and the views were gorgeous. The characters were well written, accurately reflecting the player reactions as the story progressed. That's it for the good. The rest? The one thing that kept me going for the first 80% of the game slapped me in the face after that. Anyone that introduces a random monster into the third act of an otherwise hyper-realistic environment, or setting, is a hack. So... the plot went off the rails for the final stages of play. The shooting is janky, though I will be the first to say all console shooting is janky for someone moving from PC. The climbing controls are clunky at times too, especially when coupled with environmental features that look scalable until it is too late. Adding a further gripe to the shooting, it is undoubtedly repetitive, but worse than that is that each shooting segment forces the player to be ambushed. This is despite their best efforts in attempting to spot enemies from afar or to play stealth-strategies... the game allows for none of that. When this style of play meets the *spoilers* zombies... the pacing of the game crawls. This may have been done to extend a very poor 10-hour solo campaign. I am relieved to have bought this on sale, after the hype, for $5, because anything close to recommended retail would've left a very poor taste. With the general lack of variety in its gameplay, content, unlockables, or replayability... "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" was the epitome of overhyped.