Go and grab your riot gear

What, you never played Crackdown? I'm not entirely surprised. Maybe you just wanted in on the Halo beta and didn't even notice it came with a whole game. Maybe you didn't even care for that. If you didn't liked the first, I'm not entirely convinced the second would really impress you. If you did play the first, I'm pretty sure you'll only end up disappointed. Crackdown 2 isn't exceptionally bad in any specific area, but it doesn't really feel like it moves the game forward in any significant way (except actual co-op support) and instead moves backwards. I was able to get through a whole playthrough and did get several dozen hours of playtime out of it, but by the end it leaves you with that bland taste of mediocrity instead of desperately wanting more.

The first Crackdown was good for a number of reasons, most of which was the interesting venture into new and mostly uncharted territories. Very few games allowed you the same sandbox-y freedom combined with a 'rpg lite' leveling system, over-the-top action and plenty of side diversions to keep you interested. GTA is comparable with the sandbox, but too bogged down in realism and story to just let you loose on the world. Saint's Row gets close, but has a poorly implemented sense of progression and many side events have no perceivable benefit aside from cash and killing time (or just being humorous). Both of the previous examples spend alot of focus and gameplay around the vehicle and driving/chases in general, and tend to focus less on gunplay and 'combat'. Crackdown attempted to take the best parts of these two (and others) and, despite some flaws, was a refreshing change of pace. Now that it has a sequel, though, the newness is gone and the flaws become more obvious.

Crackdown 2 is a disappointment in many ways, but almost all of them could have been avoided by significantly improving the story and the achievements. As an actual sandbox, Crackdown 2 is a pretty significant step forward over its predecessor, but this time around there is significantly less structure to the game. This is probably fun to many of those who just like to go around and do whatever, but in the age of achievements there is very little desire to do something 'just to do it'. The first game had achievements like 'Global Impact', 'Repo Man', 'Confiscator' and 'Shot-putter' to give you plenty of stuff to do on the side that is not already explicitly spelled out for you. Achievements like 'Pysch out' also reward you for beating things on higher difficulties, even if it is limited to just the time trials. Crackdown 2 has a few of these to play around with - 'Pebble Dash' and 'Yippee-Kai-Yay' are pretty fun - but is otherwise just a list of things already explicitly spelled out for you in game. The DLC gets a little better at offering up interesting challenges not explicitly tied to gameplay goals, but I really shouldn't have to wait for DLC to make a game fun or interesting. (Admittedly, 'Pysch out' is technically from DLC, but it's free DLC, so that's something.)

Perhaps the worst part, though, is the complete lack of requirements on difficulty settings. There is no reason to play Crackdown on anything but the easiest setting except for personal satisfaction. Given how hard it is to do many of the side items on higher difficulties (try looking for agility orbs with 5 turrets all trying to turn your face into swiss cheese), so the only thing playing on higher settings does is frustrate you more. I would have liked an achievement like 'Pysch out', or maybe some specific goals that required being on higher difficulties, to give the game a bit more of a challenge and replay value. I'm not one to promote forcing a player to go through a game 2-3 times to get all achievements, but I do like to see companies reward players for challenging themselves and trying their hand at harder difficulties.

Speaking of difficulty, the game almost becomes a joke when you stumble upon the homing rocket launcher. I like the weapon, don't get me wrong, but I sometimes wonder if we would be better served by having just a 'normal' rocket launcher and more varied combat and AI, than being given a homing rocket launcher and just jump-nuking everything within 5 feet. The newer weapons like UV Shotgun and old favorites like the Harpoon gun are fun to use but almost completely outshined from a usability standpoint by an explosive weapon that does decent-to-good damage that does almost all the work for you. Where's the fun in that?

The achievements probably could have been forgiven if the actual story mode had more meat to it (and I use the term 'story' very, very loosely). If you thought the plot points in the first Crackdown was lackluster, this time around they will seem almost non-existent. And I'm not even talking literal story here (on which both games are boring, bland throw-aways). What I'm more interested in is the integration with gameplay, to give your some kind of objective to reach towards. Instead of being interesting and entertaining, the game isntead opts for a 'do the same thing over and over again' approach, with predictable results. The 'story' goes like this

1) Go to Absorption Unit, stand on a spot
2) Repeat #1 two more times
3) Go to Freak Lair, defend light bomb thing
4) Repeat #1-3 ten more times, or until you die of boredom, whichever comes first
5) Fight the hardly-challenging final mission and be underwhelmed by a terrible ending

Really. That's it. Sure, there's tons of other things to do to disctact you (tactical locations, orbs, races, logs, etc) but in terms of progressing the 'story' that's all you get. It is not engaging or interesting in the slightest and gives you no real reason to want to come back to play... so why would you? The game is fun, especially for those of us who haven't played Crackdown in some time, but quickly loses focus and momentum. There are many who can take a large sandbox and channel their imagination and creativity into a lifetime of fun, interesting gameplay. For the rest of us, though, the game just feels extremely repetitive.

That's not to say there are not significant improvements at work here. The inclusion of an actual co-op mode is very nice, and probably one of the only reasons I actually played the game for as long as I did. Teaming up with 1-3 other friends to tackle the freaks (and each other) is much more fun than the co-op 'missions' from the first game. There are even a few achievements specific to co-op for you to work on as an added bonus. Co-op does make the game significantly easier (and, therefore, take less time), but I'd rather have more fun in less time than less fun in more time any day.

For all my fellow OCDers, finding all those collectibles is significantly easier now. You can 'ping' your minimap and it will show you any uncollected orbs nearby your current location, as well as check on your map for all the orbs you have currently collected. There are also a ton of new orbs to find - online orbs, renegade orbs, audio logs and wing suit stunt rings add to the checklist of things you will need to hunting through Pacific City to find to max out your achievement score. The main story may be skin and bones, but they definitely went the extra mile in trying to pack more things to do (and more rewards for doing so) into the world. There are some cool new perks for reaching your maximum skill levels, like unlocking a tank or getting access to a hanglider of sorts called a wingsuit. While the wingsuit takes some getting used to (the control mechanism is not exactly intuitive, and the explanation of how to use it is more confusing than helpful) it can really help you get from place to place easier and unlocks new areas and ways to get around that feels more interesting than just giving you 'jump level 6'.

Some of the new weapons and vehicles are interesting additions as well, the magnetic grenade being the best of the bunch. You can use these to 'stick' one object to another, either for a very useful affect (like sticking a helicopter to the ground or a vehicle to the wall) or just for hilarity's sake (perhaps creating a 'spider web' of cars floating in the middle of the street). In terms of playing around and having it's very nice to have around, but functionally in the actual 'game' it has almost no purpose because almost nothing challenges you enough to require interesting or unique tactics beyond 'walk in and rocket stuff in the face'. The sticky, jumping SUV is also a nice bonus and makes for some very cool stunt ring challenges, but controlling vehicles is still a bit stiff and so the races and renegade orbs that "require" a Kangaroo SUV are more of an exercise in frustration than fun.

Overall, Crackdown 2 suffers from being stale and playing it safe instead of really trying to branch out and make a niche for itself. The world is nearly the exact same from the first one (but now destroyed), the story is almost non-existent, hardly any of the achievements are interesting and despite being 'open world' there is a lack of variety in gameplay. Despite this, I still had a good amount of fun playing this with a friend to completion. This makes it such a hard call: on one hand, the game offers up almost nothing to warrant a purchase except for 4 player co-op and a few new gadgets and gimmicks, while on the other, you can wring a good dozen or so fun hours out of it with co-op play. I can't outright recommend the game unless you find it sifting through some kind of bargain bin, but if you've got a few friends who really liked the first game, this may be worth looking into.

The World's Worst Space Mining Simulator

(Alternate title after patch: Mass of Text 2: Revenge of the Paragraph)

Guess I have a lot of ground to cover if I want to meet my goal for this year (which was a very easily achievable 12 reviews), but whining about it will only take away from actually doing a review. On top of that, I can't let 'New Game +' newcomer Nick be the only person on my blog to have reviewed one of the best games of 2010; that would be just plain wrong of me, and do an incredible disservice to Bioware's latest creation. (Yes, I know that by the time of this writing the Dragon Age: Origins 'expansion' is already out. Thanks for reminding me how late I am with this...). Let's get this party started then, shall we?

Let's get the bad out of the way (don't worry, there's not much). Possibly the most different - and most aggravating, to many Mass Effect fans - is the change over to a more 'modern fps' style game. This means 2 things: ammo management and regenerating health. The first is mostly just a minor inconvenience, put in place most likely to prevent players from simply using one really powerful weapon and instead forcing them to use their entire available arsenal. While I like this idea in theory, as you definitely could do 80%+ of the first Mass Effect using the same weapon, the implementation just makes Mass Effect 2 feel slow and puts you into very, very tight spots when ammo becomes scarce. This is especially true of powerful, specialized guns (like the sniper rifle) which for some classes can only hold a handful of ammo at one time. This actually can cause the same problem they are attempting to solve - using a single weapon type most of the game - because you feel like you need to save that powerful weapon for a big fight that never happens (or does, then you run out of ammo and have to go back). I would much prefer that the weapons be given different, obvious strengths to encourage the player to use them in appropriate scenarios than attempts to force the player's hand in using different weapons due to scarcity of ammunition. It also goes against the 'lore' of the first game (though they attempt to explain this away as a tech 'improvement' in an attempt to actually include the change in the story of the world), which many find to be a bit lame. This is not a deal breaker by any means - it is inconvenient at best, and unnecessarily debilitating in only a select number of places - but is most certianly an unwelcome change from the first game. At least they were kind enough to have 'ammo' apply to most weapon types ('heavy weapons' excluded), which makes the system a bit easier to use across multiple classes.

Perhaps the more insulting change, however, is the move of the dreaded 'regenerating health'. The first Mass Effect was one of the few remaining shooters to stay with a static health pool - one that would only increase with use of a medi-gel, which were not exactly rare but also not pointlessly plentiful. Regenerating systems tend to encourage poor use of strategic cover, boring downtime waiting for your health to return, and significant difficulties with portions of the game where it is difficult to find cover but you desperately need to get your health back. This is perhaps the most jarring change from the first game, and takes some time getting used to for veterans (though veterans of most other first and third person shooters will be able to jump right in), and I believe causes the game to have extremely wild swings in difficulty from a player perspective. On one hand, easy difficulties and easy fights are made easier as you can simply ignore your health and overpower the enemy from a completely open area without fear of losing much health or wasting many resources, as they will just take a few seconds to recover. In higher difficulties and extremely difficult parts of the game, however, relentless enemies will hardly (if ever) give you much time behind cover without flanking which leaves you with no way to recover health whatsoever (medigels are now used for reviving allies and, as such, are made much more rare).

An interesting (but poorly executed) change made in Mass Effect 2 was the drastic change made to mining. In the first game, mining was nothing more than a side quest that had little to no reward aside from perhaps some experience and a bit of cash, which in the first game was pointless. In ME2, however, mining is practically a secondary economy that must be found by the player to perform research on upgrades for your ship, weapons, armors and powers. Unfortunately, mining ends up being implemented as a mind-numbingly tedious chore that is almost force upon you due to the incredible power afforded to you by the upgrades it provides. Players must take their ship to remote planets and 'scan' them for minerals (the same process is used for some side missions that involve beacons) and send probes to the surface to retrieve them. This takes time - in the form of moving from planet to planet, as well as meticulously moving up and down the planets surface at a snail's pace - as well as a monetary investment, as neither the probes nor the fuel are free. You can't even carry that many probes until you get a mid-to-late game upgrade for it, which makes the task before you that much more aggravating. It is easily Mass Effect 2's 'level grinding' equivalent and acts more as a 'hours completed' buffer than any sort of true gameplay enhancement. Which is unfortunate, because I really liked the idea - especially since it could be a 'reward' for spending the time to visit Bioware's vast and detailed universe - but instead feels more like a punishment. Bioware eventually patched the game to make the scanner quicker, and while this is a greatly appreciated improvement, as a whole the system still feels more like a time sink than anything else.

As a minor gripe, some of the decisions, especially near the end of the game, have unpredictable or unintended consequences. There is still something of a disconnect between the dialog 'choice' and what your character says or does, and occasionally NPC's reactions to your choices are strange and contrary to your intentions. It is possible this is on purpose - either to drive story or to shake things up again on players who are methodical or trying to play it 'safe' - but it makes it aggravating when you have the power to choose but not the power to determine what that choice will do. The 'choice' feels much less like a choice and much more like player driven RNG when your choices and consequences do not seem to follow a logical path. 

There are also choices with regards to the story elements of the game that can drive players to near insanity. Specific story missions are forced onto the player after certain conditions are met, which are unknown to the player until you've already triggered it. This means that, sometimes, missions are unavoidable and you are unable to do things like upgrade powers, weapons, or your party. It can make story missions exceptionally difficult if you were otherwise unprepared, and this is extremely frustrating as a player as you can do absolutely nothing to anticipate this or to escape it. I understand this makes the story more believable - after all, your enemy is not going to wait for you to be ready to make their move or show you their hand in advance of playing it -  but I feel that the restriction to player choice and preparation easily outweighs the players' feeling of urgency. Mass Effect's story is, for the most part, extremely non-linear, so why force the few linear plot points on the player so abruptly?

All the cons aside though, Mass Effect 2 is an otherwise shining example of how to do a sequel 'right'. Improve (or remove) the bad parts, focus on what did work well, and add new features to try and expand upon your proven idea. The story is still uniquely Bioware; that is to say, well delivered, extremely deep and detailed and almost completely driven by player choice. While the first game was equally a choice focused, many of those decisions do not play out until the second, delivering a completely unique story experience catered to your own choices made over 2 years ago (assuming, of course, you brought your character over). And your choices from *this* game have an even stronger affect on the world and characters, making it unlikely (if not impossible) to ever play the same game twice. 

Speaking of characters, if you loved NPCs and character development from the first game, the second will absolutely blow you away. The amount of time you can spend talking and learning about your fellow shipmates is impressive, and the loyalty missions do a great job of fleshing out their story and driving that bond between player and the characters, new and old alike. The fact that your squad mates speak up and react to the world around them, as well as any conversation you take place in, makes them feel much more like they are a part of the team instead of just blindly following you until the next time you need to put a bullet into something. Old comrades (those who survived, anyway) all make important cameos if you look hard enough, but not all of them are willing to return to Shepard's side. The new faces are generally a welcome change of pace from the original game and really add to the diversity and character of the new team. New recruits like Mordin (perhaps my favorite addition to the roster) and Thane give the player new playable races to work with, while characters like Archangel and Legion give players genuine surprise in the way the universe has changed since ME1. The 'Cerebus' choices, unfortunately, are somewhat more bland and uninteresting by comparison, although Zaeed and Jack help to give humans their fair share of 'interesting character' representation (Zaeed's recollections of past wars are especially fun to listen to, though he otherwise lacks serious dialog).

Perhaps the best new character - both through mastery of writing as well as voice acting - is the enigmatic 'Illusive Man'. He's one of the best characters I've seen in some time, and reminds you of just how convincingly good voice actors can get at really selling the character as an actual person. The Illusive man is that perfect blend of 'good' and 'bad', mysterious yet obvious, smooth and calculating. It is difficult for the player to tell if he is really friend or foe, and many times I felt like I could trust him even though I was a Paragon (and, theoretically, against Cerberus). Martin Sheen gives him the perfect voice, lending a sense of credibility to a man who is otherwise a cold businessman at heart, helping to leave the player constantly wondering about the true intentions of their 'benefactor'. Making him the central player in the second game was absolutely the right call, and I cannot wait to see what happens with him in ME3. 

The overhauled inventory system, despite my gripes at the beginning of the review, is a huge improvement over the first game. The number of available weapons per type is now much more limited, which makes choosing the 'best' one for a job much easier. Ammo power ups were moved to the 'skill wheel', making it much more convenient to switch mid battle, allowing you to actually want to use them to gain an advantage over your enemy instead of being too tedious to deal with. Weapon upgrades are also streamlined into the new 'research' system, applying to all weapons of that type so you don't have to constantly swap those in and out as well. Unfortunately that means there are significantly fewer choices and options available to the player for weapon customization - I'd definitely like to see more weapon options, and maybe some unique upgrade choices that prevent you from getting other things - but overall such a needed improvement that the game benefits much more from the streamline than it is hurt by it. This is especially true since the first system was so cumbersome and difficult to deal with that most players just ignored it entirely, and never used it to it's full capacity.

Another benefit to tossing the old inventory system? Money now actually means something! In ME1, you easily hit the cash cap without really trying, and even have tons of leftover spending money after purchasing all the big weapons and upgrades. This is not really very interesting to the player, who can get anything he want and can just 'outgear' much of the early-to-mid game by simply purchasing as much as is available to you. In contrast, money is much more controlled in ME2 and really causes you to think about your decisions and your upgrades, perhaps causing some frustration to people who want everything *now*, but really just another way to show that player choice does matter. Near the end of the game, with enough side quests and exploration, you can afford most (if not all, with DLC) of the upgrades... but by then, you really, really need them. 

Two words on this next improvement: NO MAKO! Need I say more?

Another noticeable improvement - though not something most people will be interested in - is the available DLC. DLC for the first game was extremely mis-managed. The first pack did not come out until 4 months after release and was generally considered by most to be overpriced, especially considering the lack of new original content. The second suffered for much the same reasons - released 5 months after the first DLC, and viewed by most as overpriced for the 2-3 hours of repetitive gameplay that it provided. ME2, on the otherhand, has included several small, free* DLC packs that included a wide variety of content: new weapons, new missions, and even new playable characters for your roster. These were made available starting from day one, all the way up to 2 months after game release, helping to keep ME2 in the news and constantly give players new content to play with. Actual paid content started just shy of 3 months after release, adding in new characters, missions, and plot stories at various prices, most of which are considered 'fair', giving the game at least 1 new DLC per month since release. I have yet to play these, but I'm glad to see this kind of support model being adopted for high profile console games (the 'screw you, used game purchasers' is not appreciated, though). 

Overall, Mass Effect 2 is a well polished, greatly improved addition to the main 'Mass Effect' series that continues to prove that Bioware's attention to detail, characters and story are almost completely unmatched in the industry today. It leaves the player wanting more (the semi-cliffhanger ending makes sure of that), but all good games feel like they end too soon. It really makes me wonder what they can possibly be able to do to make Mass Effect 3 feel as impressive, but I suppose if anyone could do it, it would be Bioware. This game comes highly recommended, with the normal stipulation of 'you better like text'.

*Only 'free' if you bought the game new, or purchased the 'Cerebus Network' download after purchasing the game new

I'm ASimPerson, and This is My Favorite Mass Effect Review on the Citadel

Observant readers of this site have probably noticed another contributor sitting up in the top left for sometime now. That person is, in fact, me. I'm not as verbose as Chris, but I hopefully be only slightly less skilled a reviewer.

My plan here is to start off with Bioware's blockbuster sequel to, um, its 2007 blockbuster Mass Effect. For reference, here's Chris's original Mass Effect review.

Mass Effect 2 (PC)

If Mass Effect (ME) was Bioware's attempt to get first person shooter gamers into RPGs, then Mass Effect 2 (ME2) goes even further in that direction. Oh, there's still character customization - Shepard can now customize his (sorry female Shepard fans) individual armor pieces according to function and can apply any color he wants. However, almost as though it was a reaction to the terrible customization UI in the first game, the broad range of choices for armor and weapons is now gone. For each kind of weapon Shepard can equip there anywhere from 2-4 choices at the end of the game, and there is no inventory for weapons and armor. I'm not crazy about that, but it does at least mean the death of the "you have too many items" dialog box. All characters (excepting class requirements and the rare character-specific items) can equip any weapon. Class still does play a role here, though, as the weapons characters are proficient with will have more ammo available.

Yes, I did state that correctly - ME2 brings back ammo management. While the first game's weapons could overheat but had unlimited ammo, ME2 has finite ammo. I'm personally not a fan of this change, as it seems to contradict some of the other changes. In addition, this now means that ammo needs to massaged and managed. While occasionally this calls for strategy (for instance, the "best" weapons for non-soldier characters only have 20-30 shots, so they need to be saved for when it's neccessary) this mostly just means most players will have to waste time looking for SMG clips on the ground, which isn't really a lot of fun.

The character abilities have also been simplified in ME2. Instead of allocating points to abilities, skills, and force powers biotics, each character has 6 areas to allocate abilities to. Experience and ability points are earned very sparingly - while Shepard still gains levels, experience and points and now earned only after missions. This also means the ability system is simpler. Instead of the Knights of the Old Republic style 3/6/9 points system (where each ability generally levels up after so many points, but you only expend one point at a time) like ME did, ME2 uses a 1-2-3-4 system (where the first level of an ability is 1 point, the second is 2, etc.). At the 4-point level, the ability gives you some stat bonuses and that's that.

Missions are definitely more discrete in this game than in ME. Each time a mission is completed in ME2, the game tosses up a summary screen with some text and how much money, experience, and ability points were earned. While some folks may welcome this, I found it sort of jarring—especially early in the game where upon completing a mission I was sent back to my ship, while I still had things to do back on the space station I was just on. Nonetheless, that's a pretty minor complaint.

I will complain about the mining, though. Those who played the first game may remember the infamous mining subquest. Well, at least that one was at least optional. In ME2, minerals are required to build weapon, armor, ship, and character upgrades. The only way to acquire minerals is process which I personally referred to as "strip mining the galaxy". Upon visiting a planet in a solar system, the planet is scanned for minerals, and then automated probes are sent to pick them up. The scanning is, at best, tedious. At least on the PC version (which I played), the mouse is dragged around a globe representation of each planet while a chart tells you the concentration of each mineral in the area over which the scanner currently is. To add insult to injury, the probes used to actually pick up the minerals are not free and must be bought (also, fuel is not unlimited either, but this only applies to travel within local clusters, not solar systems). Given that your ship is actually smarter in this game makes this even worse (i.e., why can't the ship scan the planet?). I suppose the only way this could be worse than it already is if I had to drive the Mako down to the planet and get the minerals, a la the first game. (Good news: no Mako missions in this game!)

Of course, this would not be a Bioware game without a healthy dose of plot. Being a sequel, it's pretty much a given that this game is darker than its predecessor, but fortunately it trends more toward The Empire Strikes Back end than, say, the second Prince of Persia game. NPCs now swear more, and Shepard's "neutral" dialog options are even a little more, well, angry than the first game. Of course, this is still a Bioware game, so everyone is still pretty much transparently good or evil, including Shepard. ME's "dialog wheel" is back, and again the vast majority of conversations will have three options that progress the conversation: Space Goody-Two-Shoes, Space Switzerland, and Space Nazi. Based on my experience, players will generally end up on one of the two extremes unless they're purposely switching around.

Choices made in the first game can change the second somewhat significantly - the core plot will still be there, but just about everything around it will be different. (Hint, though: the "default" or "canon" choices from the first game are, fitting in the tone of the second, mostly the renegade options.) Your crew will be a mix of newcomers and old faces, and some other NPCs interactions are also flavored by choices you make in the first game. I think that's about all I can say without getting to plot spoilers, which I'd like to avoid for either game. Basically, your job is to, once again, save the galaxy against statistically long odds. The game makes it abundantly clear there will be a third installment as well, so go ahead and clear out some space on your 2012 day planner.

I'm late to the Mass Effect party. I only played the original after getting on sale on Steam back in January, figuring I should see what Chris and my brother had been going on about for the past two years. Turns out, they were on to something, and after beating the original I pre-ordered the second game. Since I finished the first game on a couple days before the second came out, this meant I had over a month of uninterrupted Mass Effect goodness. This is basically the gaming equivalent of getting into a TV show during the middle of its run, and then realizing that now you have to wait for the rest of the episodes to come out, just like everyone else. And here I am, waiting with baited breath with the rest of the Internet for the remaining downloadable content packs and the announcement of Mass Effect 3.

asim's "tl;dr" summary: they "fixed" inventory from the first game by getting rid of inventory management, combat edges closer to the FPS scale, but there's still a rich, deep RPG here that's addictive and fun. It's darker than the first game, but avoids overdoing the "edgy" thing.

In Memoriam

Last April 14th, the plug was pulled on the authentication for the original Xbox Live servers. Once the king of Live, and quite possibly the reason why Live still even exists, today Halo 2 is all but dead, as those who've managed to keep their Xboxes online since then are the only ones left. I played a lot on the last night and was hit with a wall of gaming nostalgia that I thought was only possible with games from my childhood. In particular, it brought back all those nights in college spent with my roommates from 2005 and 2006 when we'd go on there as a party, continually seek out the shotguns and plasma grenades, and make incessant "Juggernaut" references. ("I like your raincoat!", "You can't run!", "Jugs ain't got no power steerin'", etc.) So I guess what I'm trying to say is... thanks for the memories, Bungie.

LOST Odyssey (Polar bears need not apply)

There are many things that make a good JRPG: story, characters, the battle system, leveling curve, amount of grinding required, etc, etc. Few - if any - are able to excel at one at the expense of others, although more often than not flaws may be overlooked for a more "sum of it's parts" view. This is the perfect way to describe a game like Lost Odyssey: while often times not perfect, as a whole the game is more than enjoyable and deserving of praise. The usual list of exceptions applies: this is still a turn based game, still requires leveling up, is still a very long and time consuming game, and there are still large chunks of time that are not devoted to killing stuff. But let's be honest; if you go into just about ANY traditional JRPG expecting these things to not be the case, there is something wrong with you. If you are familiar with and enjoy the occasional JRPG, Lost Odyssey will not disappoint, even when it does... disappoint.

More often than not, the one major feature players claim to be most interested in when playing an RPG is a story. You want a good story to carry you through your progression as a character, something to give you that drive to play just a little bit more or to get just a little bit more powerful so you are ready to face the next challenge. Something that can keep your attention over the 40+ hours of gameplay when all else fails to be exciting. This is a broad net though: we are not just talking the 'overarcing' story, but subplots, characters and character development and backstory. It's not good enough if just one enemy in the story is interesting if it takes 30 hours of being completely bored to get to that point.

Where Lost Odyssey fails in this regard is that overall plot is extremely simple, but in many ways this works as much in it's favor as it does against it. There is no convoluted "he's a good guy but really a bad guy but really a good guy playing double agent" type story to merely keep you guessing at what is really happening. There is no cliche "hidden" bad man or "higher power" that remains mysterious (or missing) for most of the game only to suddenly be revealed on the last disc. The premise is simple, the setup is clear, and the story plays out almost like you would expect, but on some level we've been taught so often that nothing is as it seems (because it is easier to surprise the player if they just haven't seen the real enemy at all) that you will often times find yourself wondering if perhaps it is too simple to be true.

This works out well for the game, though, because the real story is not in the standard issue good vs evil struggle that most games focus upon: it is about the characters, their experiences and their "story" they each have to tell. It is here that Lost Odyssey excels where few have before; each character is unique, interesting, has something to say that is communicated effectively to the player. The 'immortals' all have dreams (which are really memories of their past), and each one is in itself a short story that almost always succeeds at stirring up powerful emotions and thoughts. This gives you better insight into who the character is and why he/she acts the way they do, which helps you understand (or empathize) with the choices they must make and the problems they must endure over the course of their adventure. People may fault the game for having a 'simple' story, but really what it is doing is not using a single person as a crutch for storytelling and plot progression and instead trying to emulate complex human thought and emotion into a cohesive, rational story. Does it always succeed? No. Was I impressed countless times and sucked into the world? Of course I was. Even many of the mortals, at first nothing more than story props for the main, immortal characters, eventually become their own unique identity and become characters you feel vested in. It makes those tense, dramatic moments much more powerful when you actually like the "person" it is happening to, instead of just want to get it over with so you can move on to the big bad boss.

Which is why the characters needed to be so strong in Lost Odyssey, and fortunately many of them are. One or two fall short - some of the NPCs feel a little rushed or underdeveloped and a few obviously exist for nothing more than to help move a plot or quest forward, and a few of the playable ones are weaker (i.e. not as well fleshed out) as the others, but overall the quality is high. The English voice overs - usually terrible and left to rot while I listen in Japanese with subtitles on - were so good that I left them on, and in fact prefer them to the Japanese voices. Having a good voice actor really helps solidify a strong character and gives you something tangible to grasp onto when you think of them, and this really shows off in Lost Odyssey.

Jansen, for instance, is one of my favorite characters on any RPG I have played. He's a very seedy character at first, generally unlikeable and comes across a little rough around the edges. As you progress through the game and Jansen changes as a character, he becomes more serious and likeable while remaining a fun, 'comic relief' feel. Jansen's voice actor (his English one, anyway) possibly gives him the biggest boost of character, delivering lines with such perfect inflection that the funny stuff gets funnier without making the serious stuff seem unreasonable.

Kaim is not the best main character by any stretch of the imagination, suffering from the usual 'main character' flaws that we've seen since the explosion of Final Fantasy 7 (that is the aloof, depressed emo), but his back story is so well explained that it certainly feels much more believable. He also comes to terms with himself in a much more rational way that other characters do, so it feels more like the character is actually growing than the plot needs him to stop being heartless and start caring about others (I'm looking at you, Squall). Unfortunately, good intentions don't make the early game any more bearable during his "it's so painful" and "woe is me" moments, but maybe making him that drab in the beginning helped make his growth that much more apparent. He comes through in the end, but it takes a few dream sequences to really set him up as an interesting character to the player. His voice actor is perhaps one of the worst in the game - which is not to say it is terrible, it is just not as good as some of the others - and it really makes his character difficult to really get into sometimes.

The other playable characters fluctuate from 'good' to 'great' for most of the game and bring their own unique experiences to the story. The two children are interesting in that they bring a very innocent, 'child like' perspective on many difficult "grown up" situations. It's also nice to see strong women on the roster that aren't all about the T&A (although Ming doesn't exactly dress for winter) but instead are strong individuals with emotions that run deeper than "I'm madly in love with that hunky main character dude!". Tolten's character, I feel, is far too weak and it is often times very difficult to watch as his struggles with suddenly accepting the heavy load of personal responsibility and challenges he must face. He does eventually embrace his destiny and overcome his own faults, but it is neither fun nor encouraging to watch one of your playable characters act as a pushover for a large portion of the game. Overall the cast of characters does an excellent job playing to each others strengths and it makes group dynamics very interesting. All that being said, they definitely help make an otherwise bland story teem with life and emotion.

Which, of course, is bolstered by the great graphics and cinematic presentation. While technically speaking the game is a disaster of epic proportions - insanely long and frequent load times, nearly unbearable slowdown during spellcasting, exceptionally bizarre looking hair, and a pretty bad case of the "realistic browns and greys" - overall the game is well presented and, often times, even stunning. Considering the game is nearly 2 years old now and not produced with a budget or experience behind such games like, say, Final Fantasy XIII, it was enough to keep me interested and, on occasion, even impress me. What is most interesting is the size and detail of many of the cities and areas you visit, one of those subtle but nonetheless important details often overlooked in a lower quality game (or a higher quality one with something to hide). It wasn't something to really write home about, sure, but the parts that were good were just as soon forgotten as the framerate slowed to a crawl when trying to cast a spell or you had to load the game (again) because you went through a door. Another one of those "not bad enough to detract but still bad enough to note" type games, I'm afraid.

Gameplay, on the other hand, is tight and controlled. While combat is 'turn' based, the system includes a number of substantial upgrades to make combat more involving and more rewarding of sound tactical decisions rather than "mash A to win". One such improvement is what I like to call action order, and is  similar to how the combat in Blue Dragon worked. Essentially, different actions have different initiative orders and occur before other actions of different types. As an example, using an item almost always occurs first in the turn order, whereas casting powerful spells tend to occur last. In fact, more powerful spells can take several turns to complete, and casters who are interrupted before their spells are cast get 'pushed back' to later turns. What this means that if your melee focuses their attacks on enemy casters, you can delay really powerful spells from going off (or cancel them entirely) by interrupting them with an attack or item before they end their cast. Of course, the enemy can do the same as well, so planning out your order of attack and making sure to bolster up your defenses is incredibly important.

Speaking of defenses, Lost Odyssey introduces an interesting (but somewhat clunky) concept to the 'Front Row / Back Row' battle order than I've seen in some time (apologies if this is in some other game and I'm just now seeing it). Basically, the characters on your front row represent a 'wall' of defense for those in your back row, so those in the back remain well protected from enemy attacks. As your front line is whittled down, however, their ability to effectively guard the back (called 'guard condition') is severely lessened. As your party's guard condition is decreased, units in the back start to take larger amounts of damage, something your spell casters and ranged characters are not so capable of taking. This adds a bit of defensive strategy to the game and is nice to see implemented in an RPG, even if it only takes a few levels of grinding to have "total offense" still be your best battle option. As long as human time is a factor, "spam damage to win quicker" will be the most preferred method of random-mob execution.

The ring system is also a welcome addition - actually giving you something to pay attention to in battle instead of watching your character's animation sequence endlessly loop as you press the same button over and over again (though I still like the combo system presented in Legend of Dragoon then best so far). Allowing characters to switch rings in combat to make most effective use of their abilities is nice, but the UI for doing so (coupled with the number of rings eventually available) makes it far too cumbersome to use in something other than the most dire of situations. This is just one of many areas where the idea behind the game is solid, but Lost Odyssey's menu system is so hopelessly deep that performing even simple tasks requires several minutes worth of fidgeting to accomplish. Add to that complex things like crafting rings, linking skills, assigning skill slots, swapping equipment, moving characters, using spells and checking status and you begin to spend huge chunks of time in the menu system just trying to navigate yourself around a labyrinth of options. It's nice that the game integrates all of these things well into gameplay and that they feel useful and have a set purpose, but without a decent UI system it is almost more frustration than it was worth.

Another fault of the gameplay system is that it heavily favors the immortal characters towards the end of the game. With a huge array of skill slots available, immortal characters can be fine-tuned for any battle as necessary and quickly become absolute powerhouses in battle. The usual mortal has their own pre-defined list of slots, plus 1-3 accessories available to them (certain characters are allowed to equip more than one) and start to fall significantly behind immortals in martial prowess and utility about midway through the game. The story 'remedies' this by forcing you through many portions where only specific characters are available to you at any given time, which only helps to enforce to idea that mortal characters are significantly weaker than immortals and causes you to feel like you are being forcefully handicapped. Once all characters meet up again, however, there is absolutely no reason to choose mortals over immortals and the unique aspect of having 9 available characters is destroyed when you feel forced to use the 5 most powerful ones available to you at all times. Most of each characters' story has played through by the end, so it is not a major loss, but it is unfortunate that they spend so much time giving each one a unique voice and story only to have them be thrown away on the gameplay side at the end.

Which is especially terrible considering the huge amount of side questing and 'harder than the last boss' dungeons you will want to do before wrapping up those loose plot lines. Some of them feel very 'grindy'  - the Temple of Enlightenment is an especially brutal place and you may find yourself having to cut your teeth for a few hours on the outer monsters before you can hope to even survive one encounter with the inner monsters. And the DLC is even worse, a massive dungeon of 25+ levels with no save points and almost a requirement to farm out the new items in order to have a fair shot at defeating the last boss (even I have yet to beat this after some 90+ hours behind the wheel). Fortunately for most of you reading this, the balance of story and gameplay through the 'main' portion of the game is well apportioned and you will hardly ever feel like you must grind out levels in order to succeed. The one notable exception to this is the first few levels, where you are still learning the system, bosses seem extremely tough and are frustratingly deadly. Past those, you will have enough experience with the system that difficulty will fall back in line.

Side quests like the 'backyard' are especially fun and challenge you to defeat encounters in specific and unique ways that you absolutely cannot win by just spamming a single button or command. Backyard will require you to use the full gambit of options available to you at all times and really explore the intricacies of the battle system - from effective usage of rings, to properly using specific skills, to even planning out cast times and "guard condition" management. You can play through some of it early on but unfortunately, by the time you get to the really challenging stuff you either already have figured that out for yourself or are kicking yourself for not knowing it most of the game. I really liked it, though, and would love to see more of that kind of challenge in other JRPGs.

Overall, Lost Odyssey is an superbly high quality game that keep you enthralled and entertained for hours on end, even if it does occasionally fall short of it's lofty goals. In a world of "When is the next Final Fantasy?", it's nice to see a game so similar in style be executed to such perfection, even if it does take the original creator of the series to achieve that. If you have an Xbox 360 and are looking for the perfect JRPG to sink your teeth into this is one I can highly recommend. (As if the thousands of words prior to these didn't already convince you of that...)

What ya gonna play?

GHOSTBUSTERS!

Whoops, sorry, got a little carried away there. But what can I say? When you are talking about the Ghostbusters, you can't help but get excited. From the very first moment a Ghostbusters themed game was announced in 2006, I was curious. Partially because, hey, it's the freaking Ghostbusters, and partially because - who has seen or heard anything about the Ghostbusters in the past decade (or more)? This could definitely be interesting.

And then it starts: the inevitable development nightmare. Not having licensing rights. Changing developers. Even losing their publisher due to the Acitivision/Blizzard merge. Things were really starting to look bad. But then Atari comes out of nowhere and actually picks up the game to publish (to be published alongside the blu-ray releases) - finally, an end was in sight. But could new developer Terminal Reality overcome the standard "terrible movie tie in" problems, or would be become a quick cash in on a dated franchise? Well that's what we're all here for, right?

It helps tremendously that the game not only got script help from Aykroyd and Ramis, but voice help from what is essentially the entire cast from the original movies. It really helps to immediately grab you and pull you in when you walk up as "the rookie" only to hear the very familiar voices of Dr. Venkman, Ray, Egon and Winston cracking jokes and blabbering on in techno-jargon like it was 1984 all over again. (Fun fact: I wasn't even alive when the first movie came out)

The plot is nothing fancy or far-fetched (for a story about paranormal activity, anyway), but it gets the job done. What really makes it great is the comedy and the voice acting - extremely top notch with plenty of laugh out loud moments and great Ghostbuster in jokes and references. Granted I liked the movies so liking the game is only natural considering how much of the original cast is involved, but being the 5th member of the team as they romp around town destroying everything in sight is definitely something to experience.

There are a few awkward points, though. Terminal Reality (or perhaps Aykroyd and Ramis) try their best to include just about any and every possible reference that they can from the movies; and while many of them work out quite well, a few feel rather forced. The Stay Puft marshmallow man, for instance, is a great icon from the first movie but really feels out of place in the game, especially since the humor of the 'big reveal' from the first movie is completely gone. A giant man made of marshmallow just isn't as funny when you expect him, I guess (and you do, since he displayed so predominately on the box).While the fan service is appreciated, it feels a little lame to have something so fondly remembered from the movies be shoe-horned in just for the sake of it.

Gameplay wise, the game is decent but honestly nothing to write home about. Wrangling ghosts is fun at first but the method used and control scheme is finicky enough that it often becomes more frustrating than anything else. You will often accidentally cross streams with your rather brain-dead AI teammates, frequently will lose track of ghosts or simply be unable to keep them down in a trap properly, and good luck even trying to think about not doing crazy amounts of collateral damage to whatever room you just stepped into. It's good enough that it gets you by and entertains you between jokes and gags, but on the higher difficulties it just begins to pile on the aggravation in droves. The complete lack of precision, occasionally misread controller inputs and overall lack of well thought out gameplay design do not complement each other well in this game, that is certian.

Which is probably OK considering the game's length - playing on an easy difficulty with no real interest in exploring, achievements or 'taking in the scenery' and you are sure to be in and out of the game in 8-10 hours. There is plenty to keep you coming back though - harder difficulties, tons of secrets and collectibles and even a multiplayer mode, which unfortunately does not work split screen and only works on Xbox Live (boo!). Achievements will give you more challenges to shoot for, like doing very little damage over a single playthrough or completing tasks in the multiplayer "campaigns". You may not get 100+ hours of entertainment out of it, but it's engaging enough to be worth some investment without being dragged out to the point of wearing out it's welcome. Which is good enough for me - no way I would have had the patience to play through that if it were tied down with an extra 10-15 hours of busywork to try and make it seem like a better 'entertainment investment'. It does exactly what it sets out to do, does it marginally well and rather quickly, and doesn't ask for any more of you than that. I think that's reasonable enough to ask for, don't you?

I wish I could speak for multiplayer, but as I picked up the game very late and know very few other people who actually still have copies of the game (and still want to play it), I was unable to really give it a fair test. Thems' the breaks when you don't have split screen co-op, people.

Graphically the game is not going to really blow you away, especially if you've seen any decently created "next gen" games (can we start calling them "current gen" yet?), but I can say that the work done behind the faces and characters really paid off in helping to sell the Ghostbusters feel. Sure, you can tell they aren't real people, but they are convincing enough facsimiles that it almost starts to feel natural to hear them talking by the end of the game.

As you can see, the game is far more 'mediocre' than most of the big blockbusters out there, but for whatever reason being a Ghostbusters game was enough to really pull me over the edge and have lots of fun with it. I also have every intention of going back and collecting some of the other artifacts and water fountains for achievements, although I'm not sure I can bring myself to play through the entire game again on Professional difficulty. Overall I would suggest it to anyone who may have been a fan of the movies as you will certainly get your monies worth of enjoyment from it (especially at going prices), but if you didn't like them or really only have a passing interest the gameplay probably won't hold itself up alone for more than a few hours at best. And honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you told me you were too busy playing Mass Effect 2 or Bioshock 2 instead. Because - at least in the case of the former - that's exactly what I'm doing.

Speaking of - were you here looking for a review of Mass Effect 2? Well good luck, I'm already 30 hours into the game and probably not even half way to finishing, which is nothing compared to the 2 play throughs it would take to really get a good idea of what the game is really like. Until then, why not relive a blast from the past and check out my Mass Effect 1 review? You should really be playing that if you haven't already. Otherwise, you'll be completely lost. More of a shooter fan? Why not read through my review of the first Bioshock.

Let's do the time warp again

The Xbox Live Arcade has really come through in the past year or so in terms being able to release quality content at reasonable prices. Great new games like Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords, 'Splosion Man, and Penny Arcade Adventures have found a happy home with quality remakes and re-releases like Worms, Banjo-Kazooie and Uno. But one of the best parts of the service is the fact that small games can be made for small budgets and released to a real audience without need for huge marketing pushes and big box co-operation. This allows for a bit more risk, and where there's risk there's innovation, and that can makes things very interesting.

Leading up to its release, Braid was the XBLA golden child - the definitive proof that people pointed to when they wanted to show that arcade games could be as "big of a deal" as retail games were. To many, it was going to be the proof that downloadable games were the future and could compete directly with retail in terms of sales and revenue for game companies. Considering it was receiving heaps of awards when it was still in its infancy (2 years before being released), that should be no surprise. But even (and perhaps especially) with all the pomp and circumstance, Braid had something to prove in an area that was still largely new in the console space. So after all the hype and fanfare, did Braid make a case for 'triple A' downloadable games or was it simply more chaff? After playing it, I have to say that, in every way, Braid proves that you really can do some impressive things with limited space and budget. And here's how.

The game begins as what seems like a simple platformer but quickly goes beyond that, using time itself to take platforming to a whole new level. Oh, sure, time manipulation has been tried in games before, but Braid handles it so well it becomes nearly seamless in execution. It's not the familiar that makes it so good, but the unfamiliar that really helps it to stand out. The interesting uses in some of the later levels - including position-dependent time, 'shadows' and time warping - are what really solidify it as an innovative, original game.

Which is amazing, really, because time manipulation is a very difficult gameplay mechanic to get right. You have to hit the sweet spot between too simple and too complex, balance the completely obvious and the ridiculously obscure, all while trying to maintain enough diversity to keep the game feeling fresh. Even the slightest drift too far in one direction and the house of cards begins to tumble, easily taking the game from 'fun' to 'frustrating'. Braid does all this and more, always evolving and continually challenging the player with new play options and twists. At first it's just a simple jump-stomp platformer, then they mix in a bit of the all-too-familiar "hey you can rewind time" mechanic, but after that it's anybody's guess and everyone's surprise. Most 'puzzles' are fairly obvious and become a simple matter of executing properly (or determining how to execute properly), which keeps players from getting frustrated because the goal is clear and the tools are all explicitly laid before you.

There is one puzzle in a late level  that did throw me for a loop and begin to frustrate because you think you know how to work it but it seems to just require absolutely perfect execution. Instead, a bit of dumb luck and a realization of my own mistakes causes it to become an actual point of pride when I was able to work it out the correct way.

Perhaps the only true fault of gameplay is that there just isn't enough of it, but like Portal, that is almost a guaranteed statement for a game that you really enjoy and would like to continue playing. It is very easy to say "the game went on too long and became repetitive" and blame the developer for trying to stretch too much gametime out of a single concept, so I find it difficult (if not impossible) to actually blame a game for being "too short". I would rather the game be shorter and very good (see: the Half Life 2 Episodes or Portal) than try to forcibly extend the game for fear of it being "too short" (see: backtracking in Halo, excess travel in GTAIV, or level grinding in RPGs). A reviewer knocking the game for being "too short" really translates to (the significantly more positive) "does not overstay its welcome", and is more the sign of a desperate reviewer digging for something negative to say than an actual flaw in an effort to appear unbiased. Either way, it is fair to say that Braid will leave you wanting more.

...or if not more, at least a book of references, because the story is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Braid's story, while almost completely baffling upon closer inspection, is perhaps one of the best proofs that video games add a completely new dimension to entertainment that, when used properly, takes storytelling to a whole new level. Books are something of an interactive medium, feeding you information but allowing you to use your mind and imagination to fill in the gaps and recreate the scene. Movies are visually impressive and often stunning in execution, but leave very little to the imagination and offer little in terms of stimulation aside from bright lights and big sounds (a few exceptions aside, of course). Video games, however, are designed as an interactive medium and allow the player to feel deeply invested in the story (like books) while maintaining a very impressive visual clarity (like movies). Most games try to really fall back on one of the two sides to carry them to greatness (the classic graphics vs. gameplay argument), but Braid finds a great story to tell with a great gameplay system that mesh together so well it leaves you almost stunned speechless at the end. It is difficult to explain without giving it away, but the last level alone is one of the finest moments in entertainment and requires almost no words or fancy visual effects.

That's what makes it so sad to say that the 'real' story - depending on who you believe - is so confusingly hidden and ambiguous that is it really takes away from the experience as a whole, assuming you bother to look long enough. Braid is really telling almost 4 different stories at once, sometimes jumping back and forth between them with no real clear indication that it has done so. As you play, it seems like it makes sense (granted, even the most basic of interpretations seems very weird) but as you near the end it just explodes into a tangled mess of plots, subtle metaphors and completely blank holes. Even now, you can search far and wide on the internet for different "interpretations" of the games plot and events (do yourself a favor and do not do this until you've played it at least once) and almost all of them will be different. There is something to said for stories being "open to interpretation", especially with regards to character motivations and thoughts, but when you can't even piece together the basic plot of the story it starts to cross a line.

Some say this is a reason to put Braid above the rest - that it deserves praise for not dumbing down the story and for being a bit more open to interpretation than, say, "a plumber that fights a dinosaur to save a princess of a kingdom of mushroom men" - but I'm going to have to disagree. It does not detract enough to really punish the game for it, and in fact it does a good job of getting people to continue to talk about the game after the fact, but a story does not have to be cryptically written to be good.

Graphically, Braid is arguably the perfect blend of stunning art and wonderful artistic direction. There is not a single point about it that leaves you with the impression that it is a simple downloadable game, and it is even more impressive than most AAA titles released that year (in terms of production quality). It really shows off the true power behind HD gaming and makes you wonder what could be done with a full retail title in 2D. The amount of detail in the scenery, incredible use of colors and smooth animations all add up to a beautifully rendered, completely unique look that really captures your attention and refuses to let go. Couple this with the soothing violin playing in the background and you can easily get lost in the splendor of it all. While graphics can't make bad gameplay better, it does act as a very nice bow to wrap up an already strong package.

Despite all of the praise it received, Braid was still a magnet for criticism, mostly surrounding its length and price. I've covered the whole 'length' argument at length (ba-dum-tsh), but cost is an entirely different issue. I think one of the biggest reasons why cost was even such a big problem for most people is because 1) companies had been burning people on the cost of DLC already (see: Horse Armor in Oblivion), 2) A pattern was starting to emerge that XBLA games were $10 so that is the price people expected, and 3) players tend to directly compare cost with perceived length to determine "value". Braid was bucking that trend, and it brought up bad memories of companies trying to overcharge for downloadable content, which is often cheaper to distribute than going through retail channels. Penny Arcade Adventures ran into the same problem when they released Rain Slick for $20 earlier that year. Couple that with the noticeably short playtime and it really set some people off.

For some reason, video games are still the only medium where a direct correlation is drawn between cost of the product and length of total entertainment. I've almost never heard of someone complaining about how they could pay $10 for a 3 hour movie instead of $10 for a 2 hour movie, without mentioning the quality of the film at all. Sure, video games work with numbers that are significantly larger (20-60 hours in some cases for $50-$60) but why is it that gamers do not wish to think of their purchase in terms of quality, but instead in terms of quantity? $15 for 4-8 hours (more if you're into speed runs) of gameplay is not a terrible investment considering the length and cost of other entertainment options (many full price games, the movies, etc). Granted I purchased the game when it was a "deal of the week" for a mere ten dollars, but that was because I had always wanted to buy it and was pretty sure it wouldn't drop to that price again, not because I felt fifteen was unreasonable. If you have any appreciation for good games with very high production values, $15 is a great price.

To me, Braid remains one of the biggest surprises to the (potential) quality of XBLA games and the power of downloadable games as a whole. Before playing it, I had purchased few (if any) XBLA titles, and the ones I had purchased were 'safe bets' that were from companies I knew or extensions of known series. Now, I'm much more attentive to what is coming out each week on Xbox Live because you just never know when you might find the next "diamond in the rough". Considering how long it took me to purchase and then play it, the information is now a tad dated, but if you have yet to play Braid you should definitely look into purchasing it (or at least downloading a demo). And, hey, now it is available other places too - PC, MAC, and even PSN. So you don't even need an Xbox 360 anymore to enjoy it. So go out there, faithful readers, and do the time warp again!