Real life, or larger than life?

With September and October completely gone,, I figured I should write a new post lest I go 3 months without saying anything. It seems like everytime I sit down and say I want to do this more often I end up doing it less often - maybe I should try it the other way around for once?

Comparing GTAIV and Saint's Row is not only a difficult task, but it is also a flawed one. Saint's row came out pretty early in the 360's life (compared to GTAIV) and is really the first attempt by developer Volition to break into the sand-box genre. Which, let's face it, EVERYHTHING is immediately compared to the GTA series - they are even called "GTA clones". It's not easy going up against this kind of prestige, that kind of entrenched genre where anything you do will be seen as a cheap rip-off. It's like making an adventure game without featuring Link or a platforming game without Mario. You will always be compared to games that have taken the genre to near-perfection and you will never be taken seriously. It may be more fair to compare GTAIV and Saint's Row 2 - especially considering Saint's Row is now a proven franchise and it has had more time to develop properly on the platform. That is, of course, if Saint's Row was even worth playing in the first place. So was it? Or was it all just hype?

You'll need some background on my history with the genre before you can fully understand my review and where I'm coming from when I write it: Playing linear RPG's and strategy titles all the time with hard limits and a set pace leaves me wanting every year or so a good, free roaming game that lets me choose what I do and why I'm doing it. I was one of those people that had not even heard of Grand Theft Auto until it's explosion on the PS2. To me, GTAIII was to Sandbox games as FFVII was to RPGs for others. It was really my first glance into sandbox style gaming, and coming from a person who plays most games in a linear, driven fashion it left me both paralyzed and excited. In GTAIII I loved the ability to do whatever I wanted - if I wanted to move the story forward, I could. If I wanted to do side missions, I could. If I wanted to just cause havoc, I could. As you moved forward in the game and you opened up multiple places to get 'jobs', it gave even more of a sense of freedom, as you could work on something else if one mission proved too tough or too annoying. The freedom was absolutely intoxicating, and even as you got near the 'end' of the game it always felt like it was fun even if you weren't moving the story forward.

After that came Vice City which, in my humble opinion, is the best of the three GTAIII games. It added alot to the existing GTAIII forumla (motorcycles, for instance) but it's best feature was improving the story and the characters. GTAIII's story gets lost in it's own massiveness, and actually only plays an important role to set up why you're a convict on the run and to wrap up the end of the game. They could just as easily made the game have NO story - chop it out completely - and the game would stand up just as well. That is absolutely not the case with Vice City. Characters and plot were essential to fully enjoying the game, and it made the sandbox experience that much better. Meeting and understanding the loony and bizzare cast of characters and exploring the (very well done) 1980's style environments were a breath of fresh air after the dark, dab 'liberty city' and the monotone, uninspired, often forgettable characters from GTAIII.

San Andreas tried it's best to improve on this but fell short, especially in my eyes. It was not a bad game by any means, but the game was SO massive that it was actually hindered by it's size. It took forever to get anywhere, none of the cities and locations were particularly inspired, the addition of 'rpg-like' elements really stole away from the "go anywhere do anything" feel and some of the missions were punishingly difficult or tedious. Despite the fact that it was larger, it didn't feel like there was as much to do as there was in Vice City, and Rockstar's attempts to turn the main story into an almost cinematic plot really fell face first on its awkward characters and bizzare situations. This was Rockstar's attempt to deliver "gritty realism" and to really try and "push the envelope" with the series, but instead it loses most of it's focus on gameplay and becomes clouded in its own priorities. I never got past the second of the three cities, and for good reason. Nothing held my attention and it felt like it took forever to do anything... only to fail and then have to take forever AGAIN. San Andreas may have been a technical marvel on the PS2 but it was an exercise in frustration from a gameplay standpoint.

OK, so on to the games at hand:

I received Saint's Row on a whim (it was a gift, but I asked for it partially as a joke) but was eager to try it out because it has been a really, really long time since i'd played an open world, sandbox style game. San Andreas left me with a poor taste and I'd played Vice City long ago enough that nostalgia was starting to set in. I was afraid for Saint's Row after seeing a roomate play it - the characters were over-the-top stupid and the entire getup seemed way to ridiculous and 'gangster' to even enjoy. Instead of deep, interesting characters (like in Vice City) there were absolutely ridiculous stereotypes and just an uneccessarily large amount of cursing and street slang. Now, I try to be a good Christian and try not to curse myself, and I find myself willing to allow a reasonable amount of cursing or sleaze if it serves a purpose (and, let's face it, the fact I've even played these two games shows I have a pretty loose policy when it comes to things like this). But in Saint's Row it really serves no purpose other than to be over the top and offensive, which I found to be very annoying.

The desire to play a sandbox game eventually overcame the hesitation, and while I certainly would not call this 'the best game ever' or even remotely close I think it fits well as a niche alternative to GTAIV. This is not because of the story or the characters - both so cliche and stereotypical that it really serves no purpose other than to give your game an 'ending' point or a reason to try something new - but because of gameplay. It is obvious that they knew they couldn't compete with GTA toe-to-toe, so they instead took the 'parody' route with the plot (giving us all the over the top cliches) while doing much to innovate and really try to draw out that fun, 'do anything' sandbox feel. Not since GTAIII have I had so much fun just roaming around the streets picking up odd jobs and doing weird or unusual things for the sake of doing it. The game does an excellent job of providing tons of spur-of-the-moment entertainment and new or innovative side jobs that can really pile up and distract you from the (hideous) main story.

Fortunately, for a sandbox game, gameplay is much more important than story. I was OK with GTAIII's less than stellar plotline and easily forgettable characters. This was because it was still fun to play. I was happier when they actually added some flair to the games presentation with their release of Vice City, and I believe Rockstar learned a valuable lesson from the trip ups with San Andreas's slow, boring, tedious gameplay. Since Saint's Row takes itself far less seriously and opts to remove alot of the gritty realism and immersion, opting instead for some over-the-top thrills, the gameplay overall is much smoother and much more entertaining. New odd jobs, like insurance fraud, handily beat the more "realistic" side stuff in previous GTAs (like, "buy a business and then periodically drive by and collect cash"). Having multiple cars available to you in your garage instead of just 1 lets you collect all the nice, exotic, or just plain strange cars that you want without that annoying "only one car can be saved in your garage" limit. The fact that you can die or get busted - and when you're pulling wacky stunts or doing weird things, it happens ALOT - and still get to keep your weapons is an incredible boon. It was too annoying in the earlier GTA's to have to go around and build up your arsenal again before you did your next mission because you decided to try that crazy stunt jump or try and fly a helicopter in between.

Things like this may add 'realism' and 'consequences' but also add an invisible barrier to the game that actively discourages you from just just exploring and generally having a good time. In a sandbox game it is absolutely imperative that you interfere with the player's game as little as possible. The beauty of a sandbox game is freedom - the ability to go wherever, do whatever, whenever, and for no reason other than because you can. That is not to say that sandbox games cannot have a 'tiered' system or that you must have access to everything right away. You can still 'lock' certian areas, items and retain a sense of 'progession' and gives the player something to aim for or a separate goal to accomplish (new cars, weapons, locations or side quests). That's fine. But when you begin dictating what players can and cannot do, or adding consequences to choices (apparant or otherwise) that detract from the overall experience, it doesn't matter how revolutionary or how impressive these are, they still remain annoying nuiscances to the true gameplay. This is perhaps GTAIV's greatest flaw, but I'll get to that later.

So for all of Saint's Row's many failures (story, characters, offensiveness and lack of originality) it is more than made up for in gameplay. To be fair, the game feels like a giant leap forward from Crackdown in terms of depth of gameplay, size and variety but is severely hindered by it's "super thug" image and the both offensive and annoying story. However, as a game, Saint's Row delivers an enjoyable sandbox experience that is certianly more fun than San Andreas ever was. The developers really had something going here with the gameplay but everything else is so lacking that I probably would've been extremely agitated had I paid full price for it. This is certianly something worth digging out of a bargain bin, used or even as a platinum hit - don't rent it, though, as there's alot of milage to be had from the massive world, and if you feel rushed to complete the "story" or move forward you'll lose alot of what makes sandbox games so great.

Before we begin a direct comparison (although I'm sure you can already see what my complaints and praises to GTAIV are going to be) allow me to give a review of GTAIV on it's own.

Grand Theft Auto IV represents a great step forward for games. It proves the kind of amazing things we can do with "next gen" technology. It shows the kind of incredible storytelling, deep characters, numerous choices and limitless replay that can be placed into a game. As of it's release, it raised the bar for what the sandbox genre really means. The density and life of the city, the depth and interactions with the characters, the intrigue story that you decide, the realistic physics; these are all things that have rarely been done on their own, let alone as a group. Rockstar put a very large and commendable amount of effort in creating a vibrant city and populating it with an interesting and varied cast of characters. You can really tell the amount of work and time that went in to every street corner; hardly any part of the city feels 'duplicated' or like a simple texture remapping or pallete swap and each area is really given it's own life. What has been done on these consoles and the evolution from the GTAIII engine is not only a marvel technically, but also a milestone in terms of the size and scope that games will have in the future.

It is unfortunate, then, that they forgot you wanted to have fun while you play it.

For all the praise I can give it, GTAIV boils down to perhaps nothing more than an exercise in extreme frustration. It seems that for every new freedom or new gameplay they add, they tether you down with annoying and excessively repetitive tasks. Honestly, the only thing 'sandbox' about the game anymore is that the world is large and seamless. The missons are incredibly linear and repetitive, the gameplay becomes stale after about the fourth or fifth mission (even with the addition of the Gears of War-like 'cover' system), side quests and things to do are almost non-existant and what's there is punishingly brutal in how boring and monotonous it is. Added or new gameplay elements - 'friends', internet cafes, and the like - are not only incredibly uninspired but act as the games greatest weakness, so much so that it is oft made fun of by gamers (particulaly in webcomics). Compared to other GTA games, GTAIV stands out technically and in overall presentation but just falls completely on it's face in terms of gameplay.

It is almost painfully obvious that the game suffers due to Rockstar trying to really make the game as realistic as possible. They decided to make this great world, this amazingly detailed microcosm of American life and the typical american city (more specifically, New York) and this they do splendidly. But they take the idea too far, and gameplay suffers for the sake of "realism". Driving is now about as fun as having a root canal since controlling your car through any type of turn is next to impossible. Forget the GTA staples like handbraking through turns, adrenaline pumping police chases and dangerously weaving in and out of traffic at breakneck speeds. Instead, you must resign yourself to going about 10 miles an hour if you want to make turns without losing complete control and slamming into a wall, trying to get around traffic often ends in fishtailing (or running into something that causes you to do so) and you can just forget trying to do so into oncoming traffic.

This is because driving is now more 'realistic', which is obviously true. Yeah, if I took a 90 degree turn going 45mph or more I probably wouldn't make a clean turn. Sure, if I was weaving in and out of traffic I'd probably clip something once or twice and cause my car to fishtail. Of course people would try to get out of my way if I was coming at them in the wrong lane. However, none of these facts make it fun, and often make the gameplay frustrating or slow. Instead of 70 mile an hour car chases through downtown avoiding cars and doing my best to avoid telephone poles, I'm resigned to 10 mile an hour pleasure cruises (while my 6 star rating has helicopters shooting at me) and a nice trip through the windshield should I even look at a lightpost the wrong way. Driving in this game is almost as bad as it was in Crackdown, although even that became a little more manageble once you 'skilled up'. When you make perhaps the largest portion of the game - the Auto - an unenjoyable and aggravating experience, it does not bode well for how people are going to enjoy the experience, regardless of how 'life like' it may be.

That is, of course, assuming the rest of the game played well. Which it doesn't.

The number of things wrong just climbs up from here. 'Friends' are a great addition to the game because it really helps you develop relationships and learn more about the characters of the series, giving you the opportunity to to expand upon that portion of the game's presentation if you choose to do so. Therein, of course, lies the rub: IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. I am amazed and perplexed by the fact that the makers of the defacto, genre defining 'sandbox' game could make something so disrubtive. The beauty of the sandbox genre is the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and for whatever reason. It's not an RPG, where you must grind levels to fight a boss or to get out of a specific area. It's not an action adventure game where you are limited to a single dungeon or zone while you look for a specific item. It's not a point and click adventure where you move along a set path and do events in a specific order. So why, for the love of all that is holy, did they make this feature so disruptive?

Here is how the game occurs during a typical playing session. You are just kind of going around, maybe working on a mission or doing a side quest or running from the cops or whatever. Suddenly, your phone goes off. Oh, it's your cousin. He wants to go to play some darts. But, of course, you're tied up at the moment. "Maybe later", you say. Whoops, he doesn't like that. Then your girlfriend calls. You haven't called in a while, and she wants to go to dinner. "Kinda busy" you reply. More bad rep for you. This continues. On. and on. and on. They are relentless, always bugging you and never giving you the time of day to accomplish anything worthwhile. When you finally cave in and DO agree, are given a one hour ultimatium on how long they will wait for you, regardless of your current location. Police chase? Better end it soon. On the other side of the city? Don't mess up a single turn! Trying to tie up a few loose ends? Sorry, restart it and finish it later. Because if you miss them, they'll be even MORE mad (yet still bother calling you within the next 10 minutes to start bugging you again.

To make matters worse, getting in touch with THEM is impossible. They all keep different schedules, none of which I bother to memorize (because honestly how often do you want to call the people that bug you the most) and if you call them at the wrong time, BAM, bad rep again. Take them someone they don't like? Also bad. Not to mention that stuff you do with them is generally very, very boring. Bowling? Sitting in a Comedy Clubs? Darts? Drunk Driving? This is all they could come up with? You are rewarded for your incredible patience and for giving up all that limitless fun and adventure you could have in this huge and bustling city with a rousing game of... bowling. Yeah, wow, great idea there.

But this is what I mean when 'realism' just gets in the way of fun. Sure, people would really do that. They would get annoyed when you turn them down for stuff. They would also get annoyed if you called them in the middle of the night. They might even nag you if they havne't heard from you in a while. But why include this if it makes the game annoying? Why do something for the sake of realsim at the cost of fun? Especially in this case, where the returns of doing stuff with friends (back story, character interaction, funny moments, in game rewards like free taxi rides) already include enough incentive for players to do it on their own? It boggles the mind.

These two things alone make me never want to replay GTAIV (something I did repeatedly with GTA III and Vice City) and may even prevent me from purchasing the future 'DLC' material. It may not be enough to make you quit on your first playthrough, where the story, characters and initial exploration can carry you until the end, but once that is over and done the only thing left to do is be constantly and endlessly bugged by your friends while you attempt to do something new or interesting. It's like someone saying they would have preferred Otis to interrupt the more in Dead Rising; it just won't ever happen and really broke up the pacing of an otherwise fine game. When a sandbox game has very low replayability and next to no variety, well, things don't look good for a game that fails in the two very things it is supposed to excel.

However, where character development really shines in the support cast, the development of Nikko is often unbalanced and generally poor. He always claims to be running from his haunted past but almost effortlessly returns to a life of crime again and again, to a point where he just gives up attempting to retain some level of morality and who's only concern is 'what's in it for me'. This makes it difficult to see him actually becoming emotionally attached to ANY character, let alone his girlfriends or his dumb-in-the-head cousin, who Nikko often times goes well out of his way to protect. It feels like they tried to make Nikko plasy a prominent part in two completely different worlds simultaneously - the ruthless, revenge seeking madman who will kill for money and harbors no pity or remorse, and the friendly, happy go lucky boyfriend wishing his cousin all the luck and staying close to family and those nearest to his heart. Instead it makes for a confusing display of an almsot schizophrenic man who on one hand tells his girlfriend he doesn't like the bad things he's doing and then immediately turns around and tells the mob he'll kill anyone they want if the pay is right. And this is someone we're supposed to relate to? It's almost impossible to believe and is perhaps the only negative one can have against the story telling, as you'll never know which Nikko will show up this time: the murderous, vengeful one or the caring, friendly one.

The list of nitpicks just goes on and on. Why can't I have more than 1 car saved at a time? Why are stores spaced so far apart and so difficult to get to? Why so few customization options on what to wear? The list of questionable decisions and gameplay choices just goes on, and on.

Of course the game is not ALL negative, but for a game that recieves a '10/10' by and large in the media one must focus on the negatives to point out just where they are wrong. The cover system works very well (when it lets you actually use a wall or the camera feels like being helpful) and really enhances the fight elements over the GTAIII installments. The missions are really well tied together and often times feel 'epic' or eventful, like you are making a lasting impact on the world and the people around you (even if it has none to your main character). The choices you are given lets you craft Nikko's destiny in a way you choose and even affects the ending you receive, something that is nice for a genre that prides itself on choice and freedom.

You know, it really makes you think. Assassin's Creed is, in many ways, in the same boat as GTAIV. Sandbox games with great stories and characters that fail to impress in replayability and variety. Of course, at least Assassin's Creed's core gameplay is fun and unique as opposed to GTAIV's horrendous driving. But, here we are, GTAIV recieving scroes as though it is the best game ever made and sporting so many '10/10' reviews that it makes me wonder if these reviewers recieved the same game that I did, or even played it at all. Did they want to be the first to review this overly hyped game so bad that they played 10 minutes and then rushed off to write the review? Did they gloss over these errors and annoyances for fear of a customer backlash? Did they give readers what they expected just because it would be what drove the most traffic and sold the most copies? Perhaps. It certianly would explain why Assassin's Creed recieved such terrible marks and GTAIV received such high praise.

Of course, all you were here for is a comparison, right? Well, I gave it away in the title, but it really comes down to what you are looking for. Gameplay, larger than life presentation and a focus on freedom and fun? Saint's Row. Looking for gritty realism, deep characters and a stunning narrative? GTAIV. You'll probably have more fun with Saint's Row (even if you can't bring yourself to admit it) and you'll definitely remember the story and characters from GTAIV more. My recommendation? Play Saint's Row to have fun, GTAIV's story can wait until it's bargain bin. Or maybe pick up Saint's Row 2? I don't know, haven't played it yet...

Here's a breif glimpse into the future: Hopefully, that won't be 2009...

Currently playing:
WoW (in anticipation of WOTLK)
Eternal Sonata (360)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)
Rock Band 2 (360)

What should be next:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)

Nintendo Juggernauts

I'm way behind on games, and as such a ton of very high profile games has gone by without me so much as saying a word. For now, I'll focus on some of the older ones - Smash Brothers Brawl and Mario Kart. They may be 'old hat' by now, but as 2 of the biggest names in the Nintendo arsenal (in company with the likes of Zelda, Mario and Metroid) these games may remain the last 'high profile' remake that Nintendo churns out for a while (Mario, Zelda, and Metroid having already debuted on the Wii).

Since it came first, I'll start with Smash Brothers Brawl. The anticipation for this game could not have been higher - melee was perhaps my most played multiplayer game of last generation, competing only with World of Warcraft in terms of time played with friends. The original Smash Brothers game helped to define the N64 as the multiplayer console of choice (along with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, F-Zero X and Mario Kart 64) and Smash Brothers Melee took the low budget, almost 'technical demo' feel of the original Smash, improved upon it ten-fold and polished it until it gleemed. To improve upon melee was in and of itself a nearly impossible task, and yet while this was accomplished impressively, I can't help but feel let down by Brawl to some extent.

In many ways, Brawl suffers from the hype and build up that many high profile games eventually fall prey to (especially long-development games). For all that Brawl was, it could not stand up to the imaginations of it's rabid followers, and since Melee was so incredible people were expecting things that could not feasibly be done. Give them Sonic, and suddenly they want dozens of third party characters. Give them a stage builder and suddenly then they demand it to be massive in scope and customizable to an increidbly detailed level. Give them online and they want an entire infrastructure with dozens of customization options, flawless latency regardless of personal connection and 100% up time starting on day 1. Give them single player and suddenly they want the story mode longer and more complex and more involved. The list goes on and on.

Now, I don't think Brawl was a "10/10", if one must think of such things on a numerical scale. In fact, the only game in recent memory that I have played that felt even remotely close to 10/10 was Portal. This includes GTAIV (to be discussed later). But just because a hotly anticipated title does not reach perfection by no means makes it a 'bad' game. Smash Brothers in an incredible game, overflowing with so much content that to complete it all might take you the entire life of the system to accomplish, if not more. Brawl will still be some of the most fun you'll ever have with 4 people, and it even significantly beefs up the longevity of the game for someone who plays it alone as you now have both an entire single-player story mode as well as online play to keep you going strong.

To me, Brawl is the defacto Smash Brothers experience. When all is said and done, it takes the near-perfection of Melee, expands the roster, throws in new items, modes, options, levels, tprophies, customization AND adds online play. I would never return to Melee to play Smash Brothers, there's no reason to unless you prefer some of the subtle nuances in Melee's (broken) physics system. From here on out, Brawl is the new standard in terms of what a 4 player fighter must to do push the envelope and remain on top. It does exactly what a sequel should do - take an established franchise and find new ways to push the envelope, expand the game and build upon the core experience, all while remaining fun to play. In this, Smash Brothers Brawl excels more than most, providing an astonishingly huge amount of new content, experiences, options and modes in a genre that typically only updates the graphics and rosters.

Are there problems? Sure. Some people say that online doesn't work (although, in my experience, it works fine). The fighting is not quite as tight as it is when played locally, but for a game whose entire experiences revolves around millisecond response times, it is enough to make the game playable and enjoyable. What really hurts the online experience is the puzzling lack of voice chat. Even if only available in a "Lobby" setting, thise would have made choosing games online with friends far less awkward and confusing. You can get around this by playing locally or perhaps communicating via IM or phone, but then you are rushing to make contact as you fight against the clock to choose your character and next stage. Then you don't even know why your friend left, or if he wants to leave soon... it takes all of the fun out of the multiplayer and boils it down to what might as well be you playing a (possibly) more intelligent AI. Despite the fact that online works for me, I still wait for friends to come over to play Brawl - this, to me, is the full extent of the multiplayer experience, not small text bubbles and taunts.

The stage 'builder' is a great idea but suffers from complete lack of originality and a depressingly small number of items to build from. I've seen a few nice ideas come from the stage builder mode - the 'daily' customized stage is also a nice feature - but compared to the enviornment and character of the levels shipped with the game they look absolutely bland.

Story mode is entertaining perhaps once through, but it has very little to make you want to come back for more, much less at higher difficulties. This may be because the fighting characters are tasked with performing strange and often times awkward platformer-esque elements while being chained to their fighting style. What's worse, co-op story mode is an awkward wreck that at times punishes players for bringing a friend instead of rewarding them for playing together. The 'stickers' provide the basis for a great rpg-esque way to imrpove your characters that revolves around rewarding you for collecting items and playing more, but it fails to remain addictive considering the amount of painstaking work that must be done to obtain many of them... only to lose them if you decide to use it to power up your character. It starts off very impressive, with each character beginning in their own location and allowing the levels to cater to the strengths and weaknesses of those characters. As you get near the end, though, and you may choose your poison, larger and less mobile characters are more likely to lead to frustration than fun as they start to fail some of the more complex portions of the 'platforming' sections of the game. Overall, the "Subspace Emissary" was an enjoyable experience and a Nintendo Fan's greatest dream materialized onto disk, but only the most dedicated of trophy/sticker collectors will come back for a second or third attempt at this awkward platformer.

All these faults aside, however, the Smash Brothers experience is still not one to be missed. Whenever I have 4 friends over, Brawl is still the standard go-to for 4 person multiplayer, Rock Band being a close-to-distant second depending upon player skill. To say that the game is "bad" or that it is not worth playing because it being a few flaws short of sheer perfection is nothing more than a rabid fanbase being let down by their own wild imaginations in anticipation. If you own a Wii and like the genre, you should own this game. Like Melee, it will probably end up being the most played game on your Nintendo system this generation.

Now it's time for (yet another) largely multiplayer affair: Mario Kart Wii. The Wii is well known for being that all-inclusive, local player party console. Ironically, Nintendo has been that way since the N64 with the inclusion of 4 controllers on a single console. What started with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart 64 and Smash Brothers has continued in spirit through the Gamecube and Wii. Meanwhile, the PS1, Ps2 and PS3 are known for largely single player affairs and the Xbox/360 are known for networked games over Live. Up to this point in the Wii's lifetime it was not known for excellent online games (Mario Strikers? Pokemon? Even Brawl was troubled for some people) so hearing that Mario Kart was going online with 12 people was not met with the same enthusiasm as perhaps I should have had.

The Mario Kart series has always been fun to me, but at the same time I don't 'love' it like many people would. I completely skipped over Double Dash (despite actually enjoying the dual-kart mechanic) and the Super Circuit (for the GBA). It even took me several months of having the DS version of the game before finally starting to get into it, but I was largely wrapped up in the single player portions and challenges.

I'm not an enthusiastic fan of racing games, and a game like Mario Kart - where you vie for first place by use of objects that generally lead towards equalizing the playing field - is not won on skill nearly as much as luck/opportunity. The same can be said, in a sense, for Smash Brothers. Obviously, there is some skill involved, but when the only reason you lose is because you were hit by 2 blue turtle shells right before the end of the race, it doesnt' feel that way. This makes for close games that tend to spread the fun around - great for local parties with close friends - but as an online experience it is almost as frustrating as it is fun. So while the online is fun, well integrated and almost flawless as an experience, the game makes me tend to play offline instead of online. I have played online with friends - which is how I know the system actually works smoothly - but the limitations of communication really hold back and prevent it from being a 'great' online game.

Offline the game is a blast, and the wii wheel actually improves the experience instead of retracts from it (a first, IMO, from a cheap plastic peripheral). Your control isn't quite as precise so obviously professionals will want to stick to the controller, but there's something about a room full of people madly leaning left and right to try and eek a bit more turn out of a controller that makes the game that much more entertaining and involving. It also makes the game much more accessible to the coveted 'casual' market and means you can play with your parents or grandparents or even little siblings without having to spend hours trying to get them to wrap their head around confusing button placement and combinations.

Unfortunately for Mario Kart Wii, it's greatest fault is that it has to compete with so many other multiplayer games that, for the 'core' gamer, it will go largely unplayed. Most of these gamers will spend their time playing Brawl (or CoD4, Halo, Rock Band, etc) than they will Mario Kart. However, for the 'casual' gamer, such as my parents or younger siblings, Mario Kart represents probably the best of what Wii has to offer: a multiplayer experience that is boiled down to simple, intuitive controls that is enjoyable for everyone regardless of who wins or loses. Expect to hear core gamers frequently complain about how they never play Mario Kart and how you shouldn't get it, but if your father is getting tired of play Tiger Woods and your mother is looking for something more social than Brain Age, Mario Kart Wii represents that perfect Nintendo blend of simplicity and depth that will help make your family holidays that much more enjoyable.

Mario Kart single player is your standard fare, drive through cups to win 1st place and unlock stuff. Nintendo definitely went all out with Mario Kart Wii, though, throwing in more than a half dozen unlockable characters and tons of unlockable bikes/karts. Unfortunately, most of these can only be unlocked in single player so if you only like to play with others then you're stuck with the bare-bones, out of the box options. I find it somewhat curious that special things must be 'unlocked' - I understand that thought process behind it (give people something to aim for and a reason to keep playing) but at the same time it almost feels like a punishment for those who don't have time or skill to play that much. I much prefer Xbox360/Steam achievements - that give you goals and bragging rights outside of the standard game - as that means you are not limited to the content you can access.

I personally am only halfway through the 100CC class and have barely scratched the surface on time trials so the number of characters and vehicles that I've 'unlocked' is paltry at best. Most of my time is spent playing Mario Kart multiplayer with friends and family, and my single player time is devoted to other, more single-player oriented games (currently Eternal Sonata and FFTA2) to have time for Mario Kart's frustrating game of "dodge the blue shells to victory". I'm not one of those people who feels the AI is more 'rubberband' like than it was in previous games (despite having skipped several), but with 12 carts on the same track you are bound to have more items on the field at all times. It is just annoying to finish 3 races in first only to have bad luck ruin your fourth and final race and set you back a whole half hour's worth of effort. For someone who's time is becoming a more and more precious commodity, to have things like this occur become more and more irritating. It's a fine line between 'difficult' and 'frustrating', and Mario Kart Wii definitely falls into the 'frustrating' category at times.

In the end, Mario Kart Wii remains a very good game that is held back by a flood of other multiplayer games (Smash Bros, WoW, Rock Band) and a (sometimes) aggravating single player experience, which is feel has always been the case for Mario Kart games. It has definitely been worth the investment - my family loves it and it is something that everyone can enjoy without needing much experience or being too overwhelmed (as opposed to Smash Brothers). It has usurped Tiger Woods Wii as the 'time with family' game of choice. There is enough here to make the game worth the investment over time - especially if you find yourself wanting games to play without people who aren't quite 'gamers' - but don't be surprised if your close friends will prefer challenging themselves to Rock Band on Expert, fragging each other in Call of Duty 4 or duking it out in Super Smash Brothers. That's how it was on the N64, that's how it was on the Gamecube, and that's how it will always be - but that does not make Mario Kart Wii a 'bad game'. It just makes it a niche one, and it fills it quite nicely.

Sorry it took so long to finish these reviews - crazy things like PAX, hurricane Ike, work and other personal reasons have prevented me from having as much free time as I like. I'm trying to work towards a more stable update schedule - I may not make 'weekly', but I'd at least like to challenge myself to have these done in a timely manner so it's not a guessing game for you as to when they are done. Speaking of what's next:

Currently playing:
Eternal Sonata (360)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)

What should be next:
GTA IV (360)
Saint's Row (360)
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)

Looks like next blog may be my comparison of GTAIV to Saint's Row. You might find my conclusions somewhat surprising.

Buy 1, get 2 free!

Recovering from my China trip and my bike accident has put me ridiculously behind schedule, more on writing reviews than playing games, so I'll give a 3 for 1 deal here. One time only. Maybe. (Saint's Row and GTAIV will likely be a 2 for 1 as they'll be compared together anyway).

First let's start with the bad news: Undertow.

First of all, I only got this because it was free, and boy, am I glad that was the case. While the game itself is not terrible, it has so many flaws that you can not enjoy it as the sum of its parts, but instead hate it for what it attempts to be yet falls flat on its face doing. Please understand that, when I say this, this genre in no way appeals to me so it is fighting an uphill battle from the start. I am certainly willing to accept new genres if they are presented well or end up being fun (Half-life or Goldeneye, for instance, despite my dislike overall for FPSs').

Perhaps Undertow was too big for the restrictions of XBLA. This doesn't seem likely, though, as graphically it is very impressive - especially considering size limitations and that fact that it is 3d. Unfortunately, 3d on XBLA is like 3d on the DS or n64, at least in terms of quality. I'd rather have an artistically well done 2d game that uses the HD resolutions of my TV than a 3d game that, while impressive, looks awkward and poor at higher resolutions. Some 3d games can live within the size limitations caused by 3d (see: Penny Arcade game, although that is a different story) but I still probably would've preferred a sharper 2-d based game even with that. 3d games with restrictive graphic requirements must be done by a very artistically talented team (i.e. most anything Blizzard has ever made and some of the "3d remakes" done by Square-Enix on the DS) in order to be pulled off well.

Graphics in this case, however, are irrelevant. The game itself is very uninteresting, the gameplay was wonky and hard to figure out (the tutorial, as long as it is, hardly helps), and overall the experience falls flat. I certainly couldn't get into the single player campaign and, even though I beat it, only did so to try and see if the game had any redeeming qualities later once you unlocked stuff (it does not). Two player almost made it worse - with the exception that the game could now be "MST3K'd" - and we never even made it past the first few levels.

Maybe I'm just hating on the genre. Maybe I'm not competitive enough for the multiplayer or not interested enough in the "deep" strategy (hint: faster == less powerful, SO DEEP). Maybe I'm being unfair... but that's OK, because I didn't like the game and that's how it is. I've certainly played worse on XBLA (Yaris, I'm looking at you) but even for free, I couldn't really see myself recommending this. It shows some promise but compared to, say, Geometry Wars it is hardly worth the investment of your time, let alone your money.

Next up, the good news: Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness.

If you've never heard of Penny Arcade, you should go online and read some of the comics assuming you like any of the following (more is better):

- Video Games
- Technology
- Cartoon Violence
- Vulgarity
- Big Words

The Penny Arcade Game acts as a sort of 3d cartoon, where you are thrown into the world with well known heroes Tycho "I like big words" Brahe and Jonathan "Simpleton" Gabriel (nicknames my own). The plot is unique and the humor is spot-on for the series, and the animation parts are even extraordinarily well done, especially when you consider it was done in Flash and not by Gabe. Tycho does some of his best writing in this game, using the narrator, item descriptions and sequence of events to both mystify and humor you at the same time. Gabe's artwork is well mimicked and translates decently into 3d - the characters at first glance don't look quite right but as time goes on (and you focus less on them) you become more accustomed to it. Gameplay is solid and incorporates an interesting twist on the turn based RPG genre, similar to how the Paper Mario series works (timed buttons to gain extra defense or miss attacks, minigames to do extra damage with special attacks, et al). The learning curve is quite steep and the timing on some attacks feels very unnatural and is hard to get down, but if you play enough and pay enough attention you should be well prepared to face the final boss. I especially like how items are actually useful in this game (in most RPGs they are ignored as they are a waste of your turn).

The problem with the game honestly is not the presentation, gameplay, story or graphics... but price. For $20 - a kingly sum on the XBLA - Penny Arcade Adventures can make you feel like you aren't getting what you paid for. The entire game takes a paltry 3 hours to beat, assuming you do 100% of everything (that include running around looking at all the item descriptions). The number of character customizations you have available are almost pathetic, although that is probably because every item has to be translated into 2d for the flash movies. The replay value is slim to nil as the number of enemies is pre-set and your level caps out 15, presumably so you can carry your character over to the next episode. While those 2-3 hours you play will be filled with laugh out loud moments and some solid, challenging RPG action one can't help but feel that the game is... lacking. Compared to the next highest price game on XBLA, Puzzle Quest, which offers dozens if not HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay with an RPG twist, it's a hard sell to make. I played through PAA and enjoyed it, but it really would be up to you as to whether or not you think 2-3 hours with of Penny Arcade humored gameplay would be worth the investment.

And last but certianly not least, the Great: Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords.

I'll be upfront and honest. I haven't beaten it yet. I'm probably only halfway there. And yet I've already put over 20 glorious hours in this game. It is really hard to try and explain what is so great about Puzzle Quest, when I first heard of the concept and saw screen shots I personally thought it was nothing more than a flash-based "Pop Cap" like causal game being pawned off to the DS crowd. Then I lost one friend to the game - so much so that he stopped playing WoW, perhaps the most addictive MMO available today, just to play more Puzzle Quest. Then another friend. Then another. I even saw the Penny Arcade guys write several comics about it. And while I'm a stubborn guy, I'm also open to the idea that sometimes I can be wrong. I tried finding it on the DS almost a year later - no dice, couldn't find it anywhere, even used. Then I saw it was available on the 360's XBLA in all it's HD glory and for a measly $15.

After playing it, I probably would've paid $30 or more for it. As is, $15 is practically a steal. It is a game that just does everything well and while it may not excel in any one area and has flaws, the overall game is still incredibly enjoyable. The gameplay mechanic - essentially "match gems" - is simple enough. As a big fan of puzzle games, this might have been enough to keep my interest, and yet, it gets better. They take this simple gem matching game and wrap a deep RPG-esque battle system around it, complete with Hit Points, Mana, casting spells (offensive and defensive), leveling up, buying items and even item creation. The system seems to be much better tuned on the xbox, where some of the super-powerful spells on the DS have been toned back to be more reasonable (or have cooldowns). There are several classes to choose from, each with a different approach to how they do damage or how they fight and each requiring a unique approach to how you match gems. I played a druid, who relies more on green and yellow magic to do damage, and so it comes with certian benefits (more powerful spells than say a warrior) but more weaknesses (relies on mana so early levels and enemies that drain mana or do damage based on mana reserves are more dangerous). The length of the game is not in the puzzle system, which may take only a few minutes or possibly 10-15 if you play more conservatively, but in the fact that these smaller puzzled games are strung together over an RPG-like "arc" where you play game after game to level up your character, obtain new items, complete storylines or quests, or take over towns. There are also different "twists" on the game mechanic for special rewards, such as clearing a board of preset gems to "capture" enemies (you can then learn spells from them), collecting "scrolls" for new spells or "anvils" for new items without getting a game over and even playing with a specific turn time limit to level up your mount.

As such, puzzle quest is not the type of game where you sit down and play it all in one sitting (although this theoretically could be done), but the smaller gameplay sizes and a feeling of progression make this game very easy to pick up and put down again. So not only will the game last you 40 (or more!) hours of true, "human time" gameplay but you will likely play it in between playing other things (or, if on the DS/PSP, on the go) which will help prevent the game from feeling too repetitive. The possibility of playing as another class adds even more to the replay value, as the game mechanics would play so differently that you would be more inclined to find it interesting than if the differences were more cosmetic or subtle. Different classes require very different strategies and completely alter how you play the board and which enemies are harder/easier to you.

The game is by no means "perfect", but then again no game is. The actual "story" feels weak and trivial given the size of the game. The story is not "horrible" and in no way gets in the way of actually playing the game, but I doubt that many (if anyone) are playing the game for the story. Often times you will feel that the game is not truly "random" and that the computer seems to almost know what is going to fall down when they make a move, but perhaps this is equal parts paranoia and truth. Obviously if played for too long at one time, the game can begin to feel repetitive, and this is not helped by the fact that random monsters are spawned on the road. As the game world gets bigger and bigger, more monsters will spawn than one could actually hope to keep off the map, meaning that getting from point A to B (especially for quests that require travel over long distances) could require that you beat 10+ enemies on the way there and another 3-4 that have respawned before you could make it back. When you are attempting to get somewhere (a town to buy new spells or make new items) or when you are trying to finish quests, this can become frustrating as it feels forced. The ability to "skip" over these random battles would have been a great addition to the game, even if it was limited to monsters you had already beaten several times. Some of the final-level items you can make also require a painstakingly long amount of time to "craft" and you can lose hours and hours attempting to create since, even if you get a "game over" with only 1 anvil or scroll left, you must start all over. When this is caused by the random placement of items on the board instead of a mistake by the player, this is especially frustrating. Overall, its flaws are forgivable given the price and the amount of fun gameplay and replay value offered.

I'm already looking forward to the promised XBLA expansion, including new classes, spells and areas, as well as the true sequel, Galatrix. I missed the boat the first time, but I'll be sure to make it this time around.

Since you last heard from me I've started (and promptly finished!) Bioshock, perhaps the most refreshing FPS I have played in some time. I've also taken Final Fantasy Tactics Advance 2 for a spin (25+ hours) and am generally pleased. The World did NOT end with me, as I have beaten The World Ends With You and I've also started the (so far incredibly nice looking) Eternal Sonata, who has already piqued my interest with crisp, bright HD graphics and an interesting spin on your standard RPG battle system. This also includes games that I'm way behind reviewing (Mario Kart, Smash Bros, GTAIV, Saint's Row) so be on the look out for more in the coming weeks and months.

Also, going to PAX at the end of the month. That should be a blast!

Mass of Text

I've been playing "catch up" on the Xbox 360 since I purchased it last November, and so many good games have been coming out for it lately that I seem to be farther behind than I was when I first got it. Assassin's Creed, Rockband, Mass Effect, GTAIV, Beautiful Katamari, Lost Odyssey and Penny Arcade Adventures have all been released since I started playing the 360, and those were piled on top of the nearly half-dozen older 360 titles I was trying to dig through. With the exception of Lost Odyssey, I've at least made an attempt to play all the 360 titles I own, so I may actually be nearing the end of my stack. Of course, that doesn't include the Wii titles I am still chipping away at (Fire Emblem, Mario Kart) or would like to start (Baiten Kaitos [technically a Gamecube game], Okami, Boom Blox, No More Heroes, Lost Winds, My Life as a King... amoung others) or the dozens and dozens of DS games I am trying desperately to catch up on (just finished Dawn of Sorrows, although I got the "bad" ending so I may go back and try to get the better one, trying to start The World Ends With You). By then it will be fall, with its promise of AAA 360 titles (Banjo Kazooie, I'm looking at you) and possible surprises from Nintendo on Wii/DS. Just when I get a chance to catch my breath, things will start to really heat back up again.

That being said, however, I seem to be moving through games a little faster than reviews, which is why I am here: This week's item of interest is Mass Effect which, surprisingly, may be relevant to some because it is coming out on PC soon. So, allow us to begin, without delay!

Mass Effect

Mass Effect, at first glance, is BioWare's attempt to take your largest 360 install base (people who love FPS's) and entice them into playing an RPG. The battle system is not your standard RPG turn-based battle system: it is much more fluid and action oriented, leaving a large majority of the 'RPGis' portions to be done between battles. I've personally never played Knights of the Old Republic (a travesty, according to many) but I hear the battle system is similar to how those play. You can still 'pause' combat, when you are attempting to make some kind of choice - to use an ability or switch weapons, for instance - but generally speaking your battles will be much more fluid and fast paced than standard RPG's tend to be.

In many ways, I approve of these kind of steps forward in the genre. The RPG essentials are there - leveling up, inventory management, special skills, party members, experience, etc - but instead of being wrapped around a battle system that has been designed, perfected, and then run into the ground repeatedly, Bioware introduces a completely new, fast paced battle system. Think of it as an advancement of the genre - like Active Time Battle or FFXII's Gambit system - but instead of trying to improve upon the old model, they just threw it out and started from scratch. While I do love standard, turn based combat (Blue Dragon, FF everything, etc) it is nice to see a new twist to the battle system every now and then. Several other games have proven these kind of action-oriented RPGs could work (Diablo, etc) so it's no surprise that Mass Effect's approach works very well.

That is to say, of course, it works whenever you are actually able to battle. The amount of preparation necessary to keep your party up to date and ready to battle is borderline insane. The weapon customization options available to you are deep, so deep that you will often find yourself lost in a whirlpool of tungsten bullets and medikits. With a possible 4 weapons, dozens and dozens of customizable weapon mods and ammo, and 2 other (current) party members to keep track of, you will often (I can not stress that enough) find yourself sitting there sifting through all of your items and messing with your party's equipment for 30 minutes or more. Add to this that you are almost always swamped with items after each mission (one look into a medicine cabinet, next thing you know you are knee deep in Assault Rifles... no wonder these people we came to find are all dead) and the sweet, delicious, run-around-and-kill-stuff parts of the game are completely overshadowed by the constant "YOU HAVE TOO MANY ITEMS, PLEASE SELL SOME" spam you see each time you decide to look down at something. This makes it difficult to play Mass Effect for extended periods of time, as you will slowly begin to become annoyed by the constant barrage of seemingly meaningless, yet utterly important, inventory management.

It does not help, of course, that the menu structure and buy/sell mechanics surrounding items are, at best, an annoyance and, at worst, an obstacle. Sometimes I felt like my character should level up in mercantilism (which, FYI, is not really a stat) because of the work it took me just to search for a new upgrade or sell all of my unwanted items. With no discernible way to search, sort, or even organize the nearly 200 items your characters are dragging with them through each of their dangerous, life threatening misadventures, the process of trying to determine whether an item is worth saving or selling becomes not only unbearable, but moot. You are likely to stumble upon 50 new weapon mods and 20 new guns on your next mission to save someone's puppy (who knows how), so if you did really need it you are bound to run into it (or something better!) during the next fun part of the game. If the game was even the slightest bit more intelligent on how it managed your items - let's start by letting me equip items while at the store, or even just letting me see what my party members are currently wearing while shopping on the Normandy - it might become less of a chore and more of a chance to really customize and tweak your party for each new planet. As it stands now, however, your best bet is probably to just plow through as much as possible, selling anything you pick up as you go. Once you start having a really hard time with enemies, spend 20 minutes (the same amount of time it would have taken you even if you had been updating all this time...) and put your spoils of war to good use.

Another gripe on the battle system is your squad mates which, as is the standard with co-operative AI, are completely useless at best and often a hindrance. I cannot begin to count the number of times my teammates stepped into my line of fire, or would just blindly run out and get killed by the enemy. Other times, they would take cover in some of the better positions... and then do nothing (or next to nothing). The game is nice enough to let you at least manually control their special moves, which is nice in pinch when you could really use another classes ability other than your own. It makes you wonder, though, why the enemy AI does not suffer from the same fate. Ruthless and cruel, the enemy (especially in the early levels) seems to dauntingly out-number you at every turn and often times you end up dead, a fate only further frustrated by the poorly designed auto save feature.

I suppose, however, that is not to say that the AI is crafty more so than the tutorial is, well, non-existent. Even for someone who has been a gamer all his life, the endless list of buttons, menus, options and skills is available to you almost instantaneously, and without proper introduction. In one sense this is nice, because as you replay the game you can get right back in to the action and don't have to waste hours trying to force your way through a tutorial, but a baptism by fire isn't exactly the best way to try to introduce your users to the game mechanics. It took me nearly 10 hours of gameplay before I realized that my mobile APC had a cannon on it - a fact discovered by sheer accident. Of course, perhaps the reason they never explained the APC portions are because it handles so poorly and drives so slowly that maybe giving you something to try and learn on your own would mask the otherwise mediocre gaming experience. Traveling on foot had its quirks (not being able to "run" unless in combat, constant interruptions by loads and, worse, elevators) but trying to drive, let alone fight, in that giant hunk of worthless metal was torture. Add to that the fact that the giant sandworms (or whatever they were) can kill you while in your vehicle in one hit (despite taking nearly a dozen to take down) and the experience as a whole can be quite frustrating.

Aside from the amount of time you have to spend customizing your characters, the overall game system is very well done. The number of different choices available to you - from character customization to item customization to even dialouge options - keep much of the dialog feeling fresh and adds a lot more credibility to the fact that you are, indeed, role playing. In many RPG's, your characters are on a set, linear path that you hardly (if ever) deter from. In large part, the story has been decided and the means by which it occurs was chosen long before you created your character. While much of this is still true in Mass Effect (the game does seem to end the same regardless of your choices) the path that you take to get there can be wildly different depending on if you act as a paragon or a renegade. Having played the game through twice, with the exception of a few major plot points, I felt like I was playing a completely different game. My first time through I was a female soldier class and acted in a largely paragonical manner (is that even a word?), while my second time through I was a male biotic who was as much of a Renegade as I could possibly be. The dialog trees, missions, and even character reactions to me were as different as night and day. Of course, this means nothing if you do not want to replay the game in the first place, which could be feasible if you have had enough of the tired inventory management system. With the story playing out in a totally different manner, and playing as a biotic being almost polar opposite to playing as a soldier, the game was as enjoyable as it was the first time I played through it - perhaps even more so since the biotic class relies on weapons much less and so it was not as important to nit-pick with my inventory.

Of course, if you don't like story, you might as well just give up right now, because Mass Effect stuffed to the brim with story - character development (dialog), plot development ("cut scenes") and background (text) are pervasive throughout the entirety of the game, from start to finish. Every planet you visit has some unique summary written about it, from a few sentences to several paragraphs depending on it's importance, which is no mean feat considering the massive size of the Mass Effect universe. You can talk with your squad mates between missions to learn more about their past, get their thoughts on the last mission, or just chat (the "just chat" options, however, are few in number and largely repetitious). To play Mass Effect without indulging yourself in it's back story and characters would be to rob yourself of the very essence that makes Mass Effect so unique and enticing, but at the same time spending 45+ minutes after each battle to try and see if your lieutenant has heard back from her sister about how school is going on Earth can become very tiresome very fast when all you want to do is gain more levels and kill more stuff (all the worse when you also have to upgrade weapons, sell items, and move between galaxies, all of which take up even more of your time). In some ways, Mass Effect is like a roller coaster: you trudge through the slow, uphill climb for the few fleeting moments of pleasure you get from the downhill rush.

As predicted, the whole Mass Effect "sex scene" story was blown way out of proportion, almost to the point of being pathetic. Someone at Bioware needs to get an award for genius in marketing because this probably drove more publicity for the game and spurred more sales than any other campaign I've seen in recent years. The scenes - neither of which are very long or, for that matter, explicit - have less in them that one might see on prime time TV (say, in your standard episode of LOST). Disappointing to some, I'm sure, but in the end nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Mass Effect, while by no means perfect, is overall a very enjoyable game. If you can take the game at a leisurely pace and really stop and experience the world BioWare has created, you will constantly be amazed and surprised at the amount of effort that has gone into creating the game. Of course, if you are impatient, or used to the speed and action of your more standard FPS's, Mass Effect will feel more like work than it is worth. I've personally played through the game twice, and could easily see myself playing through it a third time to play as the engineer class later on, which is a testament to just how much fun I found the underlying gameplay mechanics to be, but it is perhaps one of the most frustrating "good games" I've ever played. You will often times feel that the game is dragging, or even fighting you tooth and nail (bad AI, terrible menus, etc) but if you can overlook a few flaws and stick with the game you are in for one great roller coaster ride. Perhaps, when they release the game for PC this week, they will have many of these problems fixed. If they find a way to make the 360 version better, well, that's just icing on an already delicious cake.

Currently playing:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Crystal Chronicles:Ring of Fates (DS)
Mario Kart (Wii)
Tons of new DS games while in China.

What should be next (Still working on Mario Kart, sorry):
Penny Arcade Adventures: Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness (XBLA)
GTA IV (360)
Puzzle Quest (DS + XBLA)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Saint's Row (360)
Smash Brothers Brawl (Wii)
Undertow, (XBLA)

Bold games and completed and most likely. Saint's Row and GTAIV will probably be done together to show how they compare.

What is it good for?

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (DS)

Please forgive me if, after reading this, you believe me to be a hypocrite, but the truth must be told, if only to absolve my own guilty conscience. Despite my love for S-RPGs, I have never owned a copy of Advance Wars until Days of Ruin. In fact, I never even played one until Dual Strike, and even then, only in passing. Despite knowing about Advance Wars since it first came to America on the GBA, I've never been terribly interested in the game. Perhaps it was the fact that other games caught more of my attention and Advance Wars got lost in the noise. Whatever reasons I have for commiting this foul, evil sin are no excuse: I have forsaken the path of strategy and tactics and shall forever regret doing so.

So, when Days of Ruin came out, you can understand if I merely shrugged it off as "another" Advance Wars game. Pile on top of that how most reviews were calling it the worst of the series so far, and I now have even less reason to become interested in the franchise. I was wrong; so very, very wrong.

When my friend purchased the game, it is as though his DS became permanently attached to his hand, his stylus flying here or there in a frenzy, attempting to destroy enemies and save allies in S-rank fashion. I've never seen someone so engrossed in a game before. As he played more and more, I began to feel "the itch". I had just played Enchanted Arms, which had already gotten me thinking about grids and turns and such, and was looking for a new DS game to play after finishing Trials and Tribulations. At first, the only reason I purchased the game was to play multiplayer with him. Now, I wish I could find a way to go back in time and play all the other Advance Wars when they came out, as my ignorance has made me miss out on a great gem of a game. If you like strategy games at all, think of this as a ringing endorsement and don't even waste the time reading the rest, just go buy it and enjoy it. If you are actually interested in why I like it, then by all means continue reading.

Advanced Wars is perhaps the tactical antethesis of Fire Emblem (another game by Intelligent Systems) which allows it to create it's own niche. In Fire Emblem, you are given a certian number of units and must face innumerable foes and insurmountable obstacles without any of them dying, lest they be lost forever to their digital grave. A proper defense, slow advances and countless item choices are the path one walks to excel at the Fire Emblem series of games. Advanced Wars, on the other hand, usually allows you to collect resources and build units so losing one or two units over a battle is no big deal. This changes the tactical approach to the games to be drastically different.

Perhaps you will use an infantry to lure a strong enemy unit into the firing range of your artillary, or send a recon trudging through enemy territory on a suicide mission to determine enemy positions and unit strength. If the enemy has placed his strength in air units, you can begin to produce anti-air and easily wipe the floor with him. However, since they can build units too, their strategy can be altered at a moment's notice so you must always be on your guard. This kind of dynamic gives the game a more 'RTS' feel, without the pressure of making decisions in real time. Each move can be planned out but, like chess, you must always be thinking several moves ahead in order to anticipate possible counters that your enemy will employ. This is only somewhat true in tactical games like Fire Emblem or Shining Force, since enemy units often recieve reinforcements and you must always be prepared for a surprise, but generally those types of games involve predetermined unit deployment and unit choice so you know your strategy ahead of time. In Advanced Wars, every level is different, which greatly adds to the replay value.

The campaign seems rather standard for the genre, with unit portraits that talk to one another to set up some scenario for the next battle. The storyline, for the most part, goes off without surprises and while it does not wow in any way, it gets the job done. Technically speaking the campaign is nothing more than a fancy wrapper palced around different scenarios, as there are also several dozen more maps that are treated as "training excercises" by the game's story but are in most ways no different from the campaign maps aside from missing some prewritten story. With the campaign levels, this totals to over 50 different maps, which means you will be playing the game for a long time to come. The last level, however, is incredibly difficult. Nothing I've ever played compares to the chaos and challenge of the final level in this game, and this is not a good thing. There are challenges which

That is, if there wasn't multiplayer. With local wifi play (to battle against friends) and even Nintendo Wifi play (to battle against random people or friends over the internet), the game's replay value soars. Don't feel like going 1 on 1 with your friends? Battle as a team agaisnt the computer, or maybe even in a Free For All to see who comes out victorious. The only disappointing part about the Nintendo Wifi is that you can only play against 1 other person (I could find no way to make a 3 or 4 player friend game). I really wanted the ability to play with 2 friends at once in a Free For All. Also, considering the length of time that a turn can take, it is not exactly the most friendly wifi game. The added voice chat with friends is a almost perfect solution to Nintendo's problem: Honestly, I don't care about voice chat with random people. But I do need voice chat when playing with friends and decided what levels to play next or what type of strategies I am working on (Brawl and Mario Kart, I am looking at you). It is ironic that the system that has amazing voice chat capabilities (the 360) hardly ever gets used for multiplayer, and the systems that have the best multiplayer games (Wii) has no voice chat ability. But that is a rant for another day.

To top it all off, there is even a map editor. That's right, not only do you have what the developers created at your disposal, you can create your own maps from just about anything you have seen in the campaign. The replay value of the game is nearly infinite. I've created a ton of my own maps, some to use in 1v1 versus friends and others to make the computers a bit stronger in our co-op 2v2 matches vs the AI, which makes the games that much more fun. You get almost as much joy from huddling around the DS trying to create a level to play on as you do then testing it out and finding new ways to tweak or improve it. It is annoying that the online map sharing has to be limited to a paltry 10x10 map is beyond me, as most of my favorite created maps are 20x20 or more. And while the ability to vote on maps that you have downloaded is great, it is somewhat annoying that you cannot "search" for maps and instead are just handed a random one to try out. Or how to get more than one the "get online, download map, wait, get kicked off" process must be repeated over and over. Why can't I browse maps, or download mutliple files at once? Again, limitations to a system that could have had so much more potential but, as it stands now, the online map sharing and ranking is least a welcome (but frustrating) addition.

Overall, Days of Ruin is a great S-RPG experience and will provide hundreds of hours of gameplay. It represents one of the best values of your dollar in terms of amounts of gameplay you can squeeze out of it and is arguably one of the best games on the DS (although most certianly not the most unique experience). All in all, the game comes highly recommended and is worth every penny to purchase - you'd hardly even begin to scratch the surface if you rented it. Do yourself and your DS a favor and pick it up, if you are even remotely interested in S-RPGs, you can't go wrong with Days of Ruin.


What should be next (Still working on GTA IV and Mario Kart, sorry)?
Puzzle Quest (DS + XBLA)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Mass Effect (360)
Saint's Row (360)
Smash Brothers Brawl (Wii)
Undertow, (XBLA)

Uno I just won't review because, let's face it, it's Uno. Although the experience playing it on 360 is poor - the online experience is terrible and it's not like you can play multi player locally. I hope you REALLY like Uno...

Halo 3, well, I don't get the hype. Same basic thing as the first two, Forge is OK but too limiting and hard to share stuff, online is outclassed by COD4 but if you liked Halo you probably already got it anyway, no need for me to talk about it, so scratch that too.

Of court cases and magical appendages

To those interested, I'm done with my first Conan episode and now I'm waiting for someone to complete the ending song and then re-encode the subtitles. I'll let you know whenever it is available, should you be interested in seeing the final results (I'll try and post the original subtitles as well for comparison, although you could just as easily find them on most torrent sites). Now, to the heart of the matter:

Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations (Nintendo DS)

I love the Phoenix Wright series. There's no denying that. To me, it's like I'm getting to experience that "Detective Conan" feeling of investigation, confrontation and resolution at my own pace. So, it may be somewhat unfair for me to be telling you how I feel about the game, because I have a love affair with the genre. That said, if you're interested in such things, the game is very good. It's not as "fresh" or unique as it was when the original came out on the DS (or GBA in Japan), and while many of the jokes are carry over jokes from the previous two games (or "inside jokes" from those two games), as a whole the game still flows very well. Just because it does not match up to the same feelings I had when I played the first one - eyes glazing over after several hours of play, trying to fight sleep as I wanted to hear just one more "OBJECTION!" - does not mean that it is a bad game. To their credit, Trials and Tribulations is a faithful extension of proven gameplay... for better (almost always) or worse (sometimes).

The game does a good job of handling the possibility that this is the first Phoenix Wright game you pick up: The first case is largely a tutorial, a simple, short case designed mostly to explain how the game works. This is great, but I would NOT suggest playing this game first. Without giving away too much, the stories of Trials and Tribulations are very tightly wound to the plot of the first two games. You'll be spoiled left and right to all kinds of plot points and most of the character interactions will seem very bizzare without explanation (a large number of "inside jokes" revolves around the characters involved). While you will still enjoy Trials and Tribulations if it's the first one you've played, you should certainly do yourself a favor and play the first two games (again, preferably in order) to get the most out of the game.

In terms of gameplay, there is hardly much difference between the three, so veterans should notice nothing new here. I will say that, in Trials and Tribulations, I found myself stuck less often, mostly due to better "puzzle" design. What I mean by this is that the actions you need to take are more obvious, but they will usually still be challenging or require at least some thought before you are able to solve them. The game is not easier, per se, it just seems like the cases follow a much more logical progression than some of the other games did. Trials and Tribulations seems to involve some of the largest cases yet, despite the fact that I recall none of the cases reaching the third day (In the original game, it was noted that all cases MUST have reached a verdict by the third day, I presume to help add a sense of urgency or pressure to the plot device. Even so, most of the cases in Trials and Tribulations are over by day 2... they are just 2 very long days!) These cases are accompanied by more investigations and more character interactions during the pre-trial phase of the game... and the only gripe I have with this is that the way you are required to move around starts to become tiresome, especially as you are backtracking to try and find that piece of evidence you've missed or to talk to a character again to move the plot forward. It's not something that destroys the gameplay or the immersion, but it does become frustrating towards the end when you have unlocked several new places to investigate. Usually this method of travel is a necessity, as you can place important, scripted plot elements to begin because you know the player will be forced to backtrack to a certain location, but the pre-trial areas could've used a bit more organization to help with this (small) complaint. The only other complaint is that this is still a port of the GBA games, and is not specifically designed for the DS (like the last case of the first game, or of the new game "Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney"

However, this is nothing more than mere quibbling. The story is top notch, the humor is spot on and the third game really helps to flesh out the relationships between all of the characters. This game is a great way to wrap up the Phoenix Wright trio of games and helped to ease the pain of waiting for the truly DS-inspired version, Apollo Justice (speaking of which, I hope to be starting this soon, too). Not to mention there is also talk of a Prosecutor-inspired "spin off" involving everyone's favorite prosecuting prodigy, Miles Edgeworth, and Phoenix Wright fans really have something to celebrate.

Overall, I have no "OBJECTION!" to this game and, in fact, highly recommend it if you have played the first two. If you haven't, then just "HOLD IT!" while you play the first two games and catch up to the Wright phenomenon. As long as you are willing to "TAKE THAT!" game lightly and allow yourself to get into the humor and characters, you will find yourself enjoying yet another amazing game on your Nintendo DS. (I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself...)


Enchanted Arms (Xbox 360... apparently PS3 as well, but I played on the 360)

I've said this before, and suppose I should say again, that I'm a large fan of RPG-style games. MMO-, S-, J-, and even Action-RPG's are all genre's that I will generally favor over others when deciding what to play. There's just something intoxicating about leveling up and being a part of a well crafted narrative that really seems to pull me in. Of the above, J-RPGs are usually my RPG of choice, followed closely by S-RPG's (that's "Strategy RPG" to those who don't know, such as Final Fantasy Tactics and the like). Of course, anyone who looks at what I've been playing recently can tell this (Fire Emblem, Advanced Wars, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Enchanted Arms, FFXII, etc), so let's not beat a dead horse here. When I first heard about Enchanted Arms, it was mainly negative news: "linear gameplay", "random battles", "lots of story"... until, of course, you realize that these people were not disappointed with Enchanted Arms as much as they were disappointed with an entire genre of games. After reading that it combines my two favorite RPG's - the story, leveling and progresion of a JRPG with an S-RPG like "battle grid" battle system, well, I knew I just had to see this for myself.

First, the game has faults. LOTS of them. Most of them DO NOT stem from the fact that it is an RPG, so much as one that is not handled well. The game does involve random battles, something Blue Dragon had done away with and has since spoiled me upon, so initially random battles seem barbaric or, at the very least, archaic. I understand the downsides of having a random battle system and even agree on several grounds. If you want to just progress through the story - or a certian area - I feel you should be allowed without being brutally and mercilessly punished for wanting to do so. Random battle systems usually tend to stifle - not encourage - exploration, mostly because you don't want to have to sit through YET ANOTHER battle when you've been through so many already just to see what is inside yonder chest, or (even more so) to read about some of the game's backstory or other non-trivial event. I don't understand how this makes sense to designers who have spent countless hours meticulously crafting and creating a completely new world for you to explore, considering they must realize that you won't go and search every nook and cranny if you're going to have to fight that giant sewer rat for the 20th time. Aside from these glaringly obvious problems, in order to even accept the fate of random battles, you need to really like the battle system; then, battles become more of a rare treat than they do a constant interruption. Fortunately for Enchanted Arms, that is it's one saving grace, but I will save that for whenever we get around to the games successes... if we even can, the list of faults is not exactly small.

The story - usually considered to be one of the 3 pillars required to even attempt to build a good RPG - is at worst laughably cliche and, at best, hopelessly uninspired. Young, cocky boy has mystical powers and comes to find the truth about himself and his powers through a relentless assult of increasingly difficult fights, only to end up saving the world as the now un-flawed hero. Add onto this fact that the story is told by way of two characters being shown side by side on screen at the same time (similar to, say, Fire Emblem... but using their actual 3d character models and not 2d art) and some incredibly annoying voice acting (who on earth thought that including a "metro" character, complete with annoying, high pitched, whiny voice, would be a smart move?) and you're on your way to simply mashing the 'a' button and trying to make it through the story as fast as possible. In an RPG, desperately trying to skip through the story is the gaming equivalent of the "kiss of death". This ain't no FPS. You aren't here to blow things up or get back to killing guys. You're here for a compelling narrative. Without that, what are you here for? The two remaining pillars, generally, are the leveling mechanisms (equipment, stats, materia, etc) and the battle system. Could two pillars be enough to hold up an RPG? We'll see.

The leveling mechanism in Enchanted Arms is relatively straightforward (kill guys --> gain exp --> become stronger) but with an interesting twist. Your character levels on it's own by means of EXP, but you also have 'SP' which you gain from battles to increase your stats even more or to learn new skills. The twist with SP is that you gain more the more strategically you play. You gain more SP when you do damage over the enemies maximum health, or even more SP when you do damage over 2x the enemies maximum health. Obviously, this could be brute-forced simply by over leveling your characters to the point of one-hit-killing everything... but what's the point, when this only helps you gain in power (which you had to do to brute-force it anyway)? Instead, it is one of the few RPG systems I've used that actually REWARDS you for thinking out how you battle and not just randomly hitting "attack" until the enemy dies so you can move on to the next one. The easiest way to get double SP is to get your characters to "combo" onto an enemy, which means you must first attack together to increase their combo gauge and then release attacks on the same enemy at the same time. The whole process is simple in theory but becomes somewhat more challenging in practice, where unit placement, EP limitations, current combo gauge status and current character status can all come into play. Is one character low on health and might die if you do the combo? These are decisions that must be made. It turns RPG's battling system on it's head: suddenly, you need to be actively involved in every battle in order to get the most out of the system. For those purely in it for the story (I'm SO sorry...) you can tell the game to just automate the battle for you and away you go. Granted, you're missing out on the only thing that makes Enchanted Arms worth playing, so why do that to yourself?

The Battle System itself is not without it's flaws, but it is an impressive blending of RPG and tactical, grid-based battles. Placement matters. Areas of affect matter. You can't just cure everyone unless you are properly placed for it. You can select "Blizzaga --> all" and attack all enemies all the time. Different attacks have different strengths and weaknesses. Your most powerful attacks cost the most amount of EP (think of it as "Energy Points", although I'm not sure if that is the official name or not) so you can't just continuously spam them throughout the battle. Using smaller, lighter attacks to build up combos and then finishing enemies off with your bigger attacks help to maximize SP gains and therefore minimize the amount of "grinding" you'll need to do (more on that later). Overall, the battle system is both impressive and engrossing, as it is perhaps one of the only times in an RPG where you will actually need to apply a strategy to battles other than boss fights. The only questionable addition is the "golems" which you can use in lieu of your actual human party members. Why you would want to use these (except in times where you don't have all 4 members) is beyond me, as they are generally less flexible than any of the human characters. They cannot learn new skills and will almost always require some amount of leveling up after you have received them to get them on-par with their human counterparts. While it would have been cool to have the golems act as an in-battle "swappable" 5th character that allows you to customize your team depending upon your current situation, since the golems do not gain SP unless they are being used the farther you get the less likely you are to use them. The idea really shows some promise - especially considering how many different golems there are in the game already - but, overall, was not really helpful or useful in any real way. Think of it as the "status effect" magic of Enchanted Arms; it's there, but nobody bothers to use it.

By halfway in, I wasn't playing for the story so much as I was playing for the challenge of facing the next enemy or the next boss. Here, perhaps, is the last great gripe about Enchanted Arms: the difficulty is very stupidly paced. There are several "choke" points in the game (for me, anyway) that seem to be designed specifically to make you grind more. I haven't felt like I had to grind levels this bad since I tried to play Final Fantasy III and IV. Granted, there is a difference between a natural level progression - like in World of Warcraft, where you feel you are advancing in some way and constantly moving forward - and pointless level progression, or "grinding", where you are merely being punished by the game for not being powerful enough to face a boss and must run around in some nearby forest to try and kill 100 of the same set of enemies and try again. I understand that these kinds of things can happen in games that don't invoke random battling, since you can chose to skip everything and eventually have to pay for not leveling your characters, but in a game where you are being constantly (and rudely) interrupted in your drive to play the game in order to partake in a battle? The ONE saving grace should be that you don't have to go back and do it again... and again... and again. Perhaps I didn't do enough side quests (except for the last "choke" boss, I doubt it). Perhaps I wasn't approaching the strategy of the battle the right way (unlikely). Whatever the case, the bosses should NOT have been that hard. Even though I did like the battle system, I almost gave up on completing the game because of the time I thought would be required to grind out levels to finish those bosses (in the end, I relied on some skill and a lot of luck to get through the "choke" points).

Somehow, despite all of it's flaws, Enchanted Arms became a game that I just could not put down. If any normal RPG that has no real story, it becomes pointless to play: you are just mashing "a" to get past story and mashing "a" to get past fights, so where's the fun? Enchanted Arms goes from "Hopeless" to "Entertaining, yet flawed" simply by including a fresh, tactically driven battle and leveling system that can really drag you in and keep you playing. It's not enough to make it "incredible", but I do hope that they can make a sequel or reuse this battle system in a new IP that includes better characters and a REAL story. Then, they could actually start contending with the "big guns" like Final Fantasy and Lost Odyssey and help to propel JRPG's to newer and better things. Until then, well... I can recommend Enchanted Arms if you, like me, love Japanese Strategy Role Play Games... just don't expect iconic characters or an interesting narrative. I wouldn't exactly chalk it up there as a "must play" but for a low priced used game you'll get a surprising amount of entertainment from it in between all the big AAA title releases we'll be seeing this year.


For the curious, here's what I'm currently hacking away at in my spare time:

Puzzle Quest (DS + XBLA)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Mass Effect (360)

Here there be Azure Dragons

With my first re-subbing of Conan finished (I'll let you know where to get it, if you're interested in seeing it), it is now time to finish my promised blog post: namely, my impressions of Blue Dragon.

Firstly - and most importantly, perhaps - I finished Blue Dragon a long time ago. Probably been over a month since I played it. I can still say, without a doubt, it is one of the better RPGs that I have played in my lifetime.

To compare it to Chrono Trigger would be a great disservice to ChronoTrigger, as that game is one that will stand the test of time as one of the great RPG classics. However, to completely ignore their similarities would be unfair to Blue Dragon. Of course, one would expect Blue Dragon to be similar to Chrono Trigger since it is essentially the same creative minds working on those two games (composer, character designer and game designer were all the same... and all very famous in the RPG genre, although I suppose I can spare you the details if you didn't already know that). So, if you think of Blue Dragon as an 'HD' version of Chrono Trigger... well, you wouldn't be far off. Just do not mistake yourself into thinking it will be a timeless classic. I loved it, and will certainly play it again in my lifetime, but it still won't compare to the likes of FFVII or Chrono Trigger. However, there is nothing wrong with be a "really good RPG", now is there?

Perhaps the two most important elements to an RPG are it's story and characters. With a few exceptions, Blue Dragon excels at neither (I do like the enemies and a few of the major plot twists) but that does not mean that it fails at them, either. The characters fit the style; that is to say, they are your basic anime characters transposed into a video game. They are young (at first glance, exceptionally so, although you come to learn they are much older than they look... somehow), stubborn, and very expressive. What is unique, I feel, from many RPGs of late is that the main character is not "emo". He isn't pouting or complaining or thinking the world is unfair or out to get him. In fact, Shu (the main character) is unervingly upbeat. When he's down he doesn't sulk or cower, he just yells "I won't give up", gets up, and tries again. Compare this to, say, Squall or Tidus, who were more prone to whining and sulking, and it makes for a much cheerier mood. Of course, given the light, cartoony look everything has to it, it is rather difficult to see something as sad or depressing. Expressions and Voice Acting help to overcome this, adding to the depth of emotion available, but compared to a more "realistic" and bland style, Blue Dragon is a much more light hearted experience.

The characters themselves are not as iconic or loveable (no Robo, no Frog, etc) as ChronoTrigger, but the vivid expressions and acceptable voice acting (save marumaro, who sounds more like someone dragging their nails across a chalkboard than anything else) help to give the otherwise bland characters a bit more life. The use of the "Dragons", which more or less act as your actual fighting force (your characters themselves do not attack save for a few special instances, and instead the dragons to everything you command) helps to set the characters apart even more. I wish they had made the 'minotaur' dragon look less emaciated and more powerful, but that doesn't fit Jiro's character. By the end, when you obtain the characters "limit-break" like power, and the dragons go from being ethereal shadows to actual mortal beings, the graphical detail and the power of HD really shine through to give you one of those "wow" type moments that I haven't really felt since first watching a summon in FFVII. I have no idea why you cannot access this power until very, VERY late in the game... but, hey, that's how it is.

Perhaps the worst part about Blue Dragon is that the story starts out very, VERY slow. Between the bland characters, the constant loading and the erratic pace, it is really hard to get into it. The game tries to be epic from the start - you begin the game sitting under a windmill with a calm sky and lullabye-like music, and then 15 seconds later (almost all of which is loading) you are being attacked by a land shark (very FFX "Sin"-esque). By the time you've met all the characters, gotten dragged away from your home and tried to go through all the tutorial type stuff... you start to wonder where this is going or why you care. Nothing seems to really click in the beginning. Even I, as desperate as I was to play a JRPG, was wondering why I had thought I wanted to play one of these kind of games again. Give it a few hours, though, and the game finally starts to take on a life of it's own. I can't tell you where, as it will more than likely differ on when you are finally piqued by the characters or the story, but once you are hooked the mix of character interaction, plot and just standard RPG-faire "level up" gameplay will keep you wanting to come back for more. I can't claim that the story is very original (although, to it's credit, a good bit of it is) and it is by no means complex or thought provoking, but as a mechanism for driving you to want to get farther and see more of it... well, once it gets going, it takes off and keeps going even until the very end.

Gameplay is rather standard by RPG means - nothing fancy like the gambit system or strange like the junction system - but the way you can customize your dragon's class and the fact that you can "power up" your moves so they take longer but pack a bigger punch means that there is a large amount of strategy involved in how you plan your attacks. In most turn based RPGs, battling is rather one sided. You either attack almost all the time, because magic is too costly to use on anything but a boss, or you use magic and summons constantly because it is in great abundance and just attacking would take forever (less damage, single target). Very few RPGs can mix these two perfectly to create a true "strategy" to battling - that is to say, not just repeatedly choosing the same option - but the jobs and skills available to you in Blue Dragon combined with the "power up" make it to where you won't often find yourself "just pressing a" over and over.

Speaking of battling, the level pacing is actually rather lenient, given the genre. I never ran into a boss that was so difficult that I just had to 'grind' and level my characters for hours, which is pretty impressive given that - like Chrono Trigger - you can choose to evade enemies if you so choose. Usually, that means that you end up being under leveled since you skip as many enemies as possible because battling becomes repetitive. The fact that battling involves actual strategy and is more involved - makes it to where I didn't find myself skipping battles too often, so I was always prepared. The only time I had to "grind" was for those extra hard bosses that you can beat after the last boss, and since those are really side quests meant for those who an infatuated with the game and want to do everything and overcome every challenge (read: me) I don't find it very fair to fault the game for that. You'll find that you spend more time enjoying the game than you do mindlessly leveling... always a plus in a game this long. You will get your money's worth out of this game. It was a good 40 hours for the whole game, not including a few miscellaneous side quests and except for those first few slow hours, it is very enjoyable.

Music for the game is, in my opinion, some of Nobuo Uematsu's best work to date. While it may not become as nostalgic as Final Fantasy VII's soundtrack, and nothing can even begin to touch the majesty and power of "One Winged Angel", especially orchestrated or in it's Advent Children form, but the Blue Dragon soundtrack still gets quite alot of playtime on my ipod. From the gentle piano of "Waterside" to the all-out rockin' boss battle music "Eternity", Uematsu really goes all out in his compositions and each song finds it's own way to move you. The music goes very well with each character (the Devee dance music is both catchy and hilarious) and really helps to set the mood throughout the game. Audibly, you couldn't ask for better.

Really, what else is there to say? Gameplay is "old school" but involved, music is superb, the graphics are crisp and refreshingly not brown, the story (eventually) grips you and there is alot of replay potential (did I mention a New Game + option?). Sure, it's nothing new or innovative. Yes, there's some graphical slowdown and tearing. Yes, there's tons of loading. Yes, the game is story is slow. Like any game (even the coveted FFVII), there are faults. But the overall experience far outweighs any of the negatives.

In case you are wondering, no, this game is not quite good enough to be tossed around with games like FFVI, FFVII, or Chrono Trigger. Someone who does not play JRPGs will find almost nothing of interest here, and it's not something they will have heard or perhaps even be interested in playing (as opposed to something like FFVII or Mass Effect, which are either "Timeless classics" or "Action Games with RPG elements"), but for anyone who enjoys a good JRPG I can not stress enough how much you should play this game. You will not regret it, and if you do, I can't imagine how you enjoy other JRPGs... unless you just really, really hate an anime style. So do yourself a favor - go play it. Buy it, even. You won't regret it.

-- Edit --

I forgot to add... what would you like me to review next? Take just about any game I've mentioned in previous posts (Enchanted Arms, Phoenix Wright, etc), or you may also choose Saint's Row (just finished yesterday), Smash Brothers Brawl, my early impressions of Fire Emblem Wii, or my final impressions of Advanced Wars. I haven't decided if I'll start Lost Odyssey or Mass Effect next, but those are possible candidates, too).