LOST Odyssey (Polar bears need not apply)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What ya gonna play?

GHOSTBUSTERS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do the time warp again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Killer Sequel

Sequels tend to do one of two things: one, act as a method by which a developer can lean on past works and positive critical acclaim to drive quick, easy sales for fast cash, or two, allow developers a chance to soften up the rough edges of a title and see their initial vision through to a better, more polished end the second time around.

The former, much like in Hollywood, is abused far too often and really gives sequels as a whole a bad wrap, to the point that even talking about anticipation of an upcoming sequel draws snappy comments and glaring looks from those smug, thumb-your-nose types who like to ramble on about how sequels are cop-outs that ruin creative thinking and are instead developer cash-ins on an old idea gone stale because they couldn't do something new and exciting. Yeah, we both know the types. But in a world where developers like EA can crank out an entirely "new" sports game every 9 months, or a market that will actually accept (and gladly support) eleven different Mario Party games - not even copy cats, mind you - since 1999, can you blame them?

The answer is no, especially since for every Mario Party or Madden (well, maybe every 2-3) there is instead a fresh, new, interesting concept that just needs a few adjustments to really shine or perhaps has a new tale to tell outside of its original one. Can you imagine what gaming would be like if we didn't have sequels? We'd never have Half-Life 2. You would never know of the wonders of Hyrule in 3-D (or reimagined 2-D for that matter). There would be no Final Fantasy 7 to spark the JRPG craze, no Grand Theft Auto 3 to practically define 'sandbox' gaming as we know it. And of course, more recently, we wouldn't have an Assassin's Creed 2. And that would be a real shame.

Granted, I'm not one of those people that really had that big of a problem with the first game. Yes I could see some small flaws but as a whole - and especially for a new IP trying to broaden or even change the definition of an entire genre - it was a near masterpiece of technical execution and a driving force in defining this generation of console's interactive entertainment. Sure there were some glitches, yeah not everything was totally polished and if you really forced yourself to be a completionist but didn't like it you would easily get frustrated, but as far as first passes go it was really a tour de force. But at that point I'm really reaching for reasons to fault the game aside from just admiting that even the best things aren't perfect.

That is, of course, until now. Assassin's Creed 2 is so much more vast, detailed, immersive and open-ended that it makes the first game look like a tech demo by comparison. I will not lie when I say that this was easily my most anticipated game of the year and I went in expecting great things, only to be blown away by how much more improved and built up everything was. Does it still have flaws? Definitely. Is it better in every way than the original? Absolutely. Is it "Game of the Year"? Well I don't remember exactly everything that came out this year (I should probably do a retrospective and comment on that) but it is easily up there with the rest of them, and likely leading. If you liked the first one even a little bit - if some small bit got you pulled in but you got frustrated, or maybe you liked it but thought it was a bit bland, or were aggrivated with the glitchy PS3 version, or just never really got all that into it, just close this window right now and go get a copy because I can almost guarantee this game will convince you that Ubisoft knows what it is doing, and doing it well.

Story wise the premise is the same - you go back in time (kinda) to become an Assassin and learn more about his life and the ultimate part you (the 'present day' character) play in this story. Except that the sequel picks up almost immediately where the first one left off and does not lazily walk you through the tutorial. From the first second you power on the game you are thrown into a hostile situation and you must learn (or relearn) many of the basic moves by means of actively using, not passively learning and copying. It is, in my opinion, a much more captivating way to familiarize the player to the controls that keeps them interested and doesn't make them feel like they have to have their hands held the entire time. The way they explain the concept of the control method, "puppeteering" (where the 4 buttons each represent a part of the body at all times) is especially neat and I think conveys the system's intent much better than the first game.
 
The first thing you will notice, though, as things cool down is that this time the story is not so much about the 'Assassin' of the past as it is the person. You spend a fair amount of time living out Ezio Auditore's (our new Assassin) early adult life, meeting his family and setting the stage for his eventual transition into the role of the Assassin and how he gets involved in all this. In the first game, Altair was not exactly a mute but he often was merely a tool used by Ubisoft to tell the story or give it more of a central point. You never really learn much about him, he's not even really all that likeable (he gets demoted for basically being a self centered know-it-all) and he really never is that relatable for a few breif moments near the end of the game. It is clear that Ubisoft spent more of it's time developing and crafting a world around Ezio (who you play as 95% of the time anyway) instead of throwing the part away as a gameplay device and trying to focus as much on the present time, and it shows. It helps make the game feel like it can stand on it's own more because you at least complete Ezio's part in the game (save the soon-to-be-released DLC), making the now famous cliffhanger endings that much more bearable. With more time spent on characters in that world as well, it gives many more unique and powerful supporting roles that really helps bring Italy alive as you play and explore. The world feels bigger, yet less vacant. There are more people but they aren't just more empty faces in a crowd. And there's more story of the character you actually play and get invested in, not of the one you rarely see. Overall, the presentation is improved in nearly every way and it really shows.
 
Gameplay wise, again, nearly the same, but with noted improvements to fix what was seen as 'bad' with the first one or just to make things a bit more intriguing or fun. Your arsenal grows substantially, and while you still have your staples in the hidden blade, short sword and sword, you can now pick custom weapons that have different strengths and weaknesses (ability to deflect, damage dealt, etc) as well as a slew of new (and wicked deadly) methods to choose from. Try the poison, which you can use on an unsuspecting guard to send them flailing around in a beserk rage at those around him before he expires. Or the smoke bombs, to quickly get out of sticky situations without having to be constantly chased down and knocked over by guards. There are many more incredibly useful new toys to play with, but I'll do my best to save you the surprises for yourself in case you ever pick up the game. Suffice it to say that if you ever found yourself thinking that the fighting in the first game was too boring and repetitive, there are so many new weapons and gadgets to choose from that you'll be hard pressed to go even 10 minutes killing every guard the same way.
 
And, ironically enough, you hardly even have to fight if you don't want to. New gameplay options like blending and hiring helpers can get you much farther much faster than just brute force slayings ever could. Need some guards distracted? Hire some courtesans to flirt with them while you sneak past. How about need some guards moved so you can go for the kill on the guy they are guarding? Call over some theives and have them steal from one of the guards and they will give chase. Maybe you just want to get through a crowded, guarded area without being seen. Blend in with crowds and even walk with them undetected (and not just select people like the first game - pretty much any group of peope). Of course, if you prefer the brute force method, round up a few mercenary friends to fight by your side as you take down a large group of enemies. There are many ways to help keep the pressure off you so you don't have to fight 40 guards between you and your next true victim.
 
Speaking of victims, the story plays out much more like a story now and much less like a list of chores you need to accomplish before you are given your allowance. No more choosing from a list of side missions that are available and being forced to complete some number of them before you are allowed to proceed. Everything you do plays its part in the story and helps to set up the next kill in a very linear, easy to follow fashion. Side missions are still there - races make a still-aggrivating comeback, as well as do small-fry assassinations and new events like "beat ups" - but they are entirely optional and usually only give money and completion. Many of the hired, non-story assassinations end up being quite challening and fun, and there are so many that if you do every side mission between 'real' ones that you could easily go 3-5 hours between story bits just exploring and completing things that have recently opened up to you. Even more OCD things - like feather collecting - make an appearance, but even they are more well organized and better executed than the first.
 
The main storyline offers enough different gameplay to really show off the new system and keep you interested while not becoming too monotonous (with one notable exception being the 'fetch' quest at the end, but even then that's probably not too bad unless you just ignored every side item available to you ever), all the while improved and expanded on with a better story and characters to really help it along. At this point if you honestly think the game is still "repetitive" you either need to be doing something different every 5 seconds, in which case you need professional help for some supercharged ADHD, or you just have a vendetta against the game and like to use popular buzzwords to slap it down. Between your new toys, the new missions and the much better story and characters, there is really no reason for you to go around doing the same thing every time except your own laziness.
 
Graphically the game is a marvel of the raw power of this generation of devices (just like the last), but is even more pleasing because instead of harsh, bland desert to see for miles around you get things like green mountainsides, vast oceans or bustling cities. Somehow the facial animations and lip-synching seem to have taken a bizzare step in the backwards direction, often being difficult or awkward to look in close ups but otherwise fine at long distance, but otherwise animation is generally smooth and impressive. The new kills and counter kills are incredibly brutal (and an absolute joy to watch) although the occasional hiccup/glitch can sometimes leave you stealing money from out of the air or breaking the 'knee' of a wall but considering all the incredible things it tries to accomplish I can almost say that I'm amazed it doesn't happen more. All together it's significantly more polished than the first ever was, but it leaves me wondering if perhaps they are capping out the raw throughput of current-gen tech and are just having to find weird or different ways to hide it in the world as it grows and evolves.
 
When all is said and done, Assassin's Creed 2 is everything done right in a sequel: Improvements across the board in almost every possible way while really expanding the scope of the game and helping cement it's style in place. It is extremely difficult to think of a reason NOT to recommend this game as I believe even people who strongly disliked the first have a good reason to give this one a try, and people who loved the first have no excuse for not already owning it. A few minor flaws aside, Assassin's Creed 2 helps Ubisoft prove it has a winner in it's newest franchise that only left me wanting more, which I will get in the form of DLC in January and Feburary. After that, well, it's probably another 2 years of wondering exactly where the next game will take place and patiently waiting for even the smallest hints of news about it. After seeing how much they improved between #1 and #2, I can't wait to see what they can do with the third iteration.

It'll leave you wishing for an apocalypse...

A friend of mine recently reminded me (read: chided me) for not reviewing recently, and after looking here and realizing I haven't written anything since early September, I have to completely agree with him. I've been lazy and should really fix that. So, here we go, the completion of  something I started in September (although I don't feel bad because the game is over a year old at this point) and promise of attempting to be more diligent in the future (we're heard that one before though, right?).

I actually had someone request two reviews of me: one was for World of Goo, which I was more than happy to do, and Fallout 3. While it looks like I'm merely doing these because I was requested to (more requests are certainly appreciated, hint hint), the fact that I just very recently finished it is equally as good of an excuse to write a review for it. So, while the game is not exactly new, my experience of definitely it is.

I will honestly say that, besides being aware of the Fallout franchise, I was otherwise completely oblivious to anything about it. I haven't played the first two games, nor any of the spinoffs associated with it, so I was completely oblivious of its history and roots. The first time I actually even saw a Fallout game was at PAX08, watching the Bethesda team show off their demos on the expo floor and going to the Fallout 3 panel to watch them more fully explain/show off what the game could do. The game looked impressive visually, but I had one small problem with it that I couldn't overcome that prevented me from getting hyped about it. Ironically, that problem is freedom.

You see, I am one of those people that still has nightmares about Morrowind. I can not even begin to tell you how many times I have started Morrowind, only to get so engrossed and so involved in the game that I completely forgot where I was, what I was doing or where I was attempting to go. The freedom offered by those games actually paralyzes me to the point that I no longer find interest in the game because I cannot keep focused on anything and get overwhelmed at what I've gotten myself into. Case in point: on one play though, I was playing through Morrowind and had gotten about as far as I'd ever gotten. I'd done my best to try and stay focused on ONLY the main story and to give it my best shot at "beating" the game, if it's even possible to call it that. I played off and on for several weeks, not devoting my full attention to it but simply attempting to continue to move through the game. I got to a quest in the game that required me to retrieve a special book of some kind, I don't exactly remember what, but I had (apparently) already gone and picked up this book... and promptly lost it. I looked around the town to see if I had sold it somewhere, or perhaps placed it down in one of my impromptu "houses" but it was completely lost. My freedom to steal, sell, and place absolutely anything anywhere had found a way to block my progress yet again, and to this day I've never gotten farther than that.

So when people talked about Fallout being "like Oblivion" (which I had never picked up for much the same reasons), and it was being created by pretty much the exact same team, I was instantly turned off. Another open world game that I'm going to get completely lost in? Yeah, no thanks. So I managed to survive the hype, watching as Bethesda released the game to huge critical and commercial success, pushed out a truckload of extra DLC goodies, and maintain a constant stream of coverage in gaming news and commentary articles everywhere. But eventually, as I tend to do, I caved. Too many people just said too many good things about this game for me to ignore it anymore. I just had to play the final copy for myself to see if it was actually something I can get into.

100 hours later, I think I can safely say that was a good decision (if not a really, really long one).

The game has a very interesting way of starting you off in a sort of glorified tutorial, letting you see your own birth, determining what you would look like in the future, using your baby years to determine your stats, and your teenage years to determine your skills or style of play. It does a pretty good job of catering to both newcomers and replayers alike, allowing you to skip the test parts to determine your own stats directly without requiring you to know the specific answers you need to choose. It is always nice when a developer takes the boring (yet often necessary) tutorial and spends time working it into their world. Certainly much more friendly, intuitive and fun to do than sitting through screen after screen of character creation options like I did in Morrowind.It really helps add to that sense of being involved in the story and a part of the world.

After your story really begins, well, you step out into one of the most expansive and marvelous spans of desolation and destruction I've seen in a while. Yes, it suffers from your standard "realistic graphics" problems - lots of greys and browns with nothing really stylized or colorful to speak of - and the post apocalyptic setting does absolutely nothing to help this. Most of what you'll see in the world is little more than an eerily empty wasteland, occasionally inhabited by wild creatures or bandits. But that doesn't mean the entire world suffers for it. It may be hard to have the drab, boring landscapes take you in, but that style really does capture the state of the world quite well and help make the few inhabited areas of the world feel a little bit more lively. Despite not being much to look at aesthetically, some areas really will catch your attention. Maybe it's the skyscraper that stands tall over the otherwise ruined buildings, the luscious trees clumped together in the middle of the barren world, or just the shock of seeing the more iconic monuments of Washington D.C. partially destroyed and overrun with mutants. It may be somewhat bland and dark, but the game presents itself quite well and uses what it has to full effect.

Unfortunately, that means both the good with the bad. People still look and 'feel' more like robots than they do humans, shuffling stiffly from area to area and never really looking 'normal' doing so. Dialogue and facial animations are even worse, never quite selling you on what is being said and the emotion being portrayed, which is sad because the voice acting in the game is rather top-notch. The radio personality "Three Dog" (or is it "dawg"?) has a very powerful and interesting personality over the radio, made even stronger by the fact he is often your last connection to humanity as you traverse the empty wastes in your quest, but in person the mystique and personality is just ruined by clunky animations and awful facial expressions. Maybe Valve has really spoiled us with the amazing work they did on Half Life 2, but it has been very hard of late to find games that can truly overcome the stiff, robotic feel of physical movement and speech.

Fortunately for you, very little of that matters because you will be so busy lapping up the detailed world and all of the things you can do in it that you'll hardly notice (or care) all that much about those things. While Fallout 3 is probably as expansive (if not more so) than Morrowind, it solves many of the problems I had with it through better gameplay decisions and UI choices. While there are many missions you may choose to go on at any time, they are all noted, collected and organized directly with your map in a way that leaves absolutely no question as to where you need to go or what you need to do. Even notes or speech that triggered the objective are kept around in case you would like to listen again or might need a specific piece of information to guide you in the right direction. This is especially true of the main story, where it is most needed, and really helps because often times you will spend 8-10 hours doing side tasks and completely forget what you were doing and where you needed to go.

There are still some small quests that have no formal means of tracking, but these are usually side quests that have no real bearing on the story (or your character) and are more for the rewards, back story, or just to add general flavor to the world. While it is easy to get lost or forget what you were doing on those, I'm personally OK with that because it did not hinder me from 'beating' the game and allows those who are interested in doing so they chance to really explore the world on their own. Despite being so adamant about wanting to make sure I always have a firm grasp of where I'm supposed to go and what I'm supposed to do next in a game, I still believe that there should be some reward and sense of accomplishment for just exploring, as that is something that many people still like to do.

Fast travel is an amazing addition, letting you quickly travel to any place you've been to before, from anywhere in the world, so long as you aren't near enemies or in an area where you shouldn't be able to do so. Some may argue that it ruins the size of the world by being able to do that, but very rarely do I want to spend 20-30 minutes trekking back to a town just to buy or sell something. I get a good enough idea of the size and scope of the world as I am uncovering new places and going new areas. I don't want to be reminded of how big it is when the game tells me I need to go halfway across the map for my next quest, I just want to get back to the action!

Like any good Bethesda RPG, you can customize your character in any number of ways - from hair to shape to stats and abilities - and can play the game multiple different ways and still succeed. I chose to play as a sneaky, small arms type but you could just as easily be a tough, big arms type or a quick, melee weapon fighter (or even a more dialogue and bartering type, although there are parts where combat is difficult if not impossible to avoid). How you interact with the populace and complete missions can effect your karma score, making you and angel or a devil in the eyes of the world and changing how they interact and deal with you in other ways. Maybe as an evil character, good NPCs might be more wary of you or unwilling to co-operate, or as a good player you are showered with gifts and adoration from the ones that you have saved from the harsh realities of the wasteland.

There is nothing terribly fancy that occurs based on your alignment (with a few notable exceptions), and typically it is just another "stat" that you can customize that affects what your character has access to, but the system is well implemented throughout and would make a second playthrough as the opposite type feel and play very different. Unfortunately it is extremely easy to become evil and very difficult and time consuming to go back to good, and occasionally you will perform actions that have consequences you did not expect or intend, but overall it does help make you feel like you are having a real impact on the world around you and the lives you are affecting (for good or ill).

The combat is generally fun and entertaining - especially as you crit and blow off limbs or the like - and the VATS system helps break it up a little bit by letting you aim for weak spots and take down enemies faster. Of course, there is so much to do in the world and so many different places to explore that eventually it can start to feel very repetitive and boring regardless of how fun or interesting it was, especially on enemies to whom you are not well equipped (or built) to handle. For instance, my small arms character had a very difficult time with many of the robotic enemies because few (if any) of my weapons did significant damage to them and they tend to have very large health pools to go with their very high damage resistance. The combat is just no longer very interesting when you have to dump 5-6 entire clips worth of ammunition into something and continuously heal hoping that you can kill it before it kills you. I suppose that, when playing as a character that focused on bigger, more powerful weapons, those types of mobs might not be very tedious, but then you couldn't sneak past many fights like I could, so it seems like every playstyle might have a few aggravating moments to it. Not that 'a few moments' are enough to ruin a 100 hour experience, but they are still worth noting.

Occasionally, combat bugs out and will shoot areas you did not intend or otherwise not perform as expected, but this is a rare (and unfortunate) occurrence that is just one part of a much larger problem the game suffers from: bugs. And I don't mean the radscorpions that hunt you down in game. I mean the "whoops my game froze and I haven't saved in a while", "I'm being attacked but can't see my enemy", " I'm looking for an NPC who hasn't spawned or is walking the wasteland for no apparent reason" kind. You would be hard pressed to play 2-3 hours of the game without running into some kind of bug, although most of them are small and not huge deal breakers. There are enough big ones to really give you a headache, and in fact I stopped playing after nearly 100 hours due to a bug that prevented me from collecting all of the bobble heads, so the game is far from perfect on that. I feel bad even mentioning it, considering what a monumental task it must be to expect someone to actually be able to test, find, and fix every single bug in a game as massive as Fallout 3, but just because I understand the amount of time it would take to find and fix it does not assuage me when I fall victim to one myself. If I had one *real* complaint about the game it would be the number of bugs that still exist, even after all of the patches.

Despite this, the game maintains a very nice level of overall polish that really helps it stand out. The individual portions of the game might not be incredible on their own - the story is good but not exceptional, the voices are well done but the characters are poorly animated, etc - but the way that Bethesda has weaved them all together and just the sheer amount of love and detail that has gone into creating this world is more than enough reason to give this game a shot. Not only does the disc itself have enough content to last you 60+ hours, but there are 5 downloadable expansions that can easily extend the game into the 100 hour range (note: I only downloaded and played Broken Steel, which I thought was very good), and if that's not enough you could always play through again as a different combat style or alignment for an almost completely new experience. If you are the kind of person that hates buying games for a 6 hour campaign only to then shelf it for life, you do not need worry here. This game will be with you a long, long time.

So what are you waiting for? Post Apocalyptic America is calling your name.

Proof that Physics is Phun!

In the past few years I have slowly come to grips with the fact that the video game industry is producing more content than I am capable of actually partaking of. Despite having interest in dozens of new games each year, the physical limitations placed upon me by the flow of time cause me to purchase and really play about 6 or so. This problem is further compounded by used and older game prices falling drastically over time, allowing me to make impulse decisions and purchase games I might not otherwise have purchased simply for the sake of experimentation (I certainly would have not purchased something like The Simpsons at full price, although it ended up being slightly better than expected). What does this mean? Well, it means I'm staring a fall release schedule square in the face, 4 months away from the yearly gift giving extravaganza, a stack of almost 8 games either unbeaten or unplayed across multiple platforms sitting next to me, and many still sitting on store shelves currently tempting me with tales of intrigue and adventure. It's just not fair, I tell you.

But in reality, the person it's not fair for is not me - it's smaller developers. How does an independent developer compete with companies like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and Blizzard - not just in quality, but in marketing, visibility and promotion? It was often very hard trying to sell niche games in profitable quantities when the only thing on a gamer's mind was a mutli-million dollar budget, super huge mega-triple-AAA first party title that was coming out soon. It wasn't exactly impossible, but you had to make deals with devils - often getting bigger companies like Activision or Ubisoft to help publish and promote you, at the obvious cost of some independence and profit. Even with a promoter and critical acclaim, many unique titles fell by the wayside due to sheer glut of the market. You always hear stories about these types of games - like Pyschonauts, Okami or Beyond Good and Evil - that get rave reviews but still bomb in the marketplace. Breaking out in the industry is not easy.

Enter: digital distribution. Things like Steam, the Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare and PSN have helped to dramatically improve and streamline distribution channels to the end consumer. The limited number of potential users (vs. Retail), restrictions on content (file size), and general scope of the game (usually smaller, cheaper titles; possibly episodic) for a time scared away big developers used to the tried and true method of "release to retail at $50/$60 and sell millions". It was a new frontier of delivery and many companies were afraid or just didn't know how to handle the changes to the norm. But it's time like these where little developers willing to take risks and innovate can really shine and become known. And, thus, World of Goo was born. Or Oozed. Or whatever.

Moving on.

It seems likely you've heard of World of Goo by now: the media was in a love affair over the game and it is often touted as the poster child for how digital distribution can be done properly. And, to be fair, rightly so. Like Braid, the story of it's development cycle seems to be something based on a work of fiction instead of real life. That 3 people could collaborate and create a game for as little as $100,000 (as a point of reference, Halo 3 is reported to have cost $30 million to develop, not including marketing/promotion) that could go on to win numerous awards and receive critical praise, wide industry awareness and strong sales is an absolutely astonishing feat. World of Goo has helped to show that Digital Distribution is the savior of unique, niche, or independent titles that otherwise could never make it in the original industry model. But you're not here for a history lesson, are you? You want to know if the game was actually worth the $15. The answer is, unequivocally, yes.

Graphically, do not approach this game thinking you will be partaking in high art, seeing super-realistic-looking environments, or being blown away by special effects. The game looks like it could have been drawn by a child and, by and large, makes no attempts to stun or wow you with effects and colors. But what it lacks in "traditional" graphics, it makes up in spades with atmosphere, simplicity and innovation. The first time you look at World of Goo, it seems very rudimentary. But the game builds upon this very simple base and transports you places and shows you things that will often surprising and intrigue you. Maybe it's the subtle animations of the "characters", the goo that you interact with as you play the game bursting to life. Maybe it is the bizarre and interactive environments, like the frog creature you build a bridge out of, or the green tinted, pixelated backdrops. Whatever it is, World of Goo has ways of grabbing and maintaining your attention in ways that are not standard in the industry, and that makes the final product that much more appealing. It is no where close to the best looking game I've ever played, but that hardly keeps it from being enjoyable to look at.

Where the game truly begins to shine is in it's deceivingly simple but additively challenging gameplay. At it's core, World of Goo is nothing more than your basic, run of the mill physics puzzle: build a structure spanning point A to point B and win. The first few levels hardly deviate from this base, but as you progress with the game new options and new challenges await. New goo balls are added as you progress that drastically alter what you can do in the world and how you go about achieving your goals. Balloon type goo balls help to hold your colossal structures aloft, but perhaps there are now hazards on the ground which must be avoided. Red goo balls are highly flamable, so you have to make sure that you don't get them near any sort of flame or your whole tower will come crumbling down in a ball of fire. There is also goo that detaches and can be reattached to make progressive, "moving" structures, slimey goo that merely hangs off wherever it is attached, goo balls that may be flung as projectiles to new locations... the list goes on and on. Just when you think you've mastered the current set of tools given to you, a new goo type is introduced and you are required to rethink all of your strategies to adapt to this new addition. It really helps to keep the game fresh and new over the course of the five chapters.

That fact alone is probably what sold me on World of Goo being so good. The amount of content available, the variety, and the way it is presented is done very well and keeps you engaged throughout the entire game. It doesn't throw it at you too fast, nor does it hold your hand the entire way (although it does give you hints and tips as you first meet different goo types). Nothing feels forced or awkward; each type is well fleshed out to provide unique challenges that keep gameplay fun. You hardly, if ever, play the same level twice, although it will sometimes ask you to peform similar tasks with new twists. Despite being essentially the same thing over and over again (build tower or bridge, get to pipe, win level), there is so much that changes and alters the world that it always feels different. In a sense, it is like Portal: a simple, unique gameplay element that is aways modified slightly to constantly evolve into newer and better things without feeling stale. But don't worry, World of Goo will give you more play time than Portal.

That's because, not only are there dozens of levels and tons of different goo types, but each level has a specific challenge (called OCD) that is specific to that level. Sometimes it is finishing the level with a large number of extra goo balls. Other times, it's completing the level in a specific amount of time. (Personally, those are the most annoying, because being both quick and accurate on the PC/Wiiware is more aggrivating than it is worth.) And these aren't throw away challenges, either. These are genuinely hard. Heck, many of the levels themselves are exceptionally difficult without going for challenges. OCD is a perfectly appropriate term for people who are dedicated and willing enough to try and earn all the flags. This is not, by any means, an easy task.

To top it off, the game also includes a completely optional sort of "sand box" mode, where you are tasked with taking all of the goo balls you save on each level and build it into as tall of a tower as you possibly can. This is then constantly updated into their online data base, which you can compare against your friends and against other people in the game. It will show you (in the background) people whose towers are just a little bit higher than yours, always taunting you to continue the climb and try to reach that next level of edificial fame. I'm pretty sure that's not a real word, but I like the sound of it so I'm going with it.

Perhaps it's just the engineer in me talking, but all of this together made for a very fun, extremely addictive game that I was able to complete over a span of a few weeks. It is nice to have games like World of Goo, that are very easy to pick up and put down for any length of time while still feeling like you are accomplishing something (that is, if you can drag yourself away from it long enough to put it down). While it does have it's share of frustrations, especially as you build a large tower only to have it topple 5 yards from the goal, there is a way to "go back" a few moves on most levels to prevent yourself from having to start all over. Don't waste them, though, because you eventually run out and do have to start from scratch.

All in all, World of Goo represents the coming of the digital, independent age. It is living proof that a good idea does not need thousands of developers and millions of dollars to be a critical and commercial success. Sure, it didn't make as much as Halo does and it may not sell as many copies as a Mario game, but proves that all it takes is a great idea and a few good people and you can make your way in the industry. The future of digital distriution has never looked so bright.... or gooey. If you have even the slightest interest in this genre, it comes highly recommended.

Judge not, lest ye be judged

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance had its flaws, but the game was enjoyable and gave Square Enix a great start to something that could turn into a viable series on portable systems. Since I do not own PSP, and as such have not played Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions, I had been relegated to patiently waiting for Square-Enix to develop a sequel to FFTA. It took them almost 5 years and a completely different portable system to make one, but the real question is: had they used that time wisely to improve on the faults of the original? It's difficult to answer straight yes or no (but you've come to expect this from me).

Enter Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Grimore of the Rift. The game is almost identical in looks to the first title, which is more good than bad considering some of the great art and technical marvel Square-Enix puts into its games. Immediately appealing to those new to the game and pleasantly inviting to fans of the original, the environments, characters and monsters are beautifully stylized and really help show how the Nintendo DS can excel when given proper artistic direction. But by now we've all learned that looks aren't everything, right?

Storywise, FFTA2 is very similar to FFTA, which is definitely not a compliment. Not only is it extremely shallow and completely lacking in immersion, but for those returning from the original it is nothing more than a plot rehash with a slightly different "flavor". There is a certain level of fan service vis a vis some character cameos and the like, as well as a more fleshed out tie in to other "Ivalice Alliance" games (FFTA, FFXII, etc), but it feels very uninspired and is not even close to being original and unique. It doesn't turn me off from the game completely, since I'm mostly there to play the game like an excel spreadsheet on steroids, but when I'm not even the least bit bothered that the new 20 missions available to me are going to cause me to not see the story play out for at least another 2 weeks I begin to grow concerned, or at the very least disappointed. Perhaps I am just too spoiled by the huge, epic flair of normal Final Fantasy games, but even the original FFT (for all it's confusion) was bizarre, twisted and interesting. I don't think I should be at fault for hoping that a game's story will at least pique my interest, if not hold it.

It certainly doesn't help that most of the characters are equally as shallow and uninviting. The main character is an almost exact copy from FFTA: lost, helpless and attempting to find his way home. The "love interest" starts out actually being a very curious character, but is later dragged along in normal cliche fashion, presumably for ease of plot integration. The cameos are awkwardly forced and especially bland (although perhaps this is because I've yet to give FFXII it's due diligence) and most of your squad mates are just randomly named, mindless drones that you have no real connection with. This is where Fire Emblem greatly outshines the FFT series - all characters you control are given a story, a life and a purpose and it really helps add in that extra layer of immersion and interest. When your characters are nameless zombies that just happen to be along for the ride, well, they are more like tools than people, and the onus is left on what few story "characters" there are to carry a load they are just simply unable to bear successfully. It is just really hard to build anything of meaning or substance around an entire world of battle fodder.

Design wise, the game comes with just as many improvements on the original as it does new problems. There are still many of the things here that made FFTA so good: an astonishing number of missions, a diversity of mission goals, a large number of available jobs and races, mastering abilities through equipped items, etc. All the basics necessary for a truly extraordinary strategy experience are here, but once again it gets dragged down by absurd design decisions.

First off you have laws. Yes, laws are back, but they have been changed so surely they fixed them, right? Perhaps in word, but not in fact. Maybe Square-Enix only heard people complain about how laws punish you, so instead they flipped the idea on its head and had laws only reward you. "Neat", you might think, "they solved the biggest problem with laws". And at first, I completely agreed. No more jails! No more cards! No more ridiculous fines! And, like before, the first few missions go OK; a few utterly worthless rewards (mostly items you have dozens of already) and a small damage bonus or the like. Nothing to really make you hesitate to break laws, but a huge boon from the "punishable by severe hindrance" that was FFTA.

But where FFTA swings the pendulum too far into punishment, FFTA2 swings too far toward reward. At first it seems like a very contradictory statement - that offering too much reward is somehow 'bad' - but at some point not obtaining the reward becomes the new "severe punishment". You can at one point early in the game earn the ability to increase the AP you earn after a battle substantially. Since AP is used to learn new skills through items, it can generally be considered as a (usually very powerful) form of character progression, like leveling. Unfortunately, the bonus gets so huge that you feel almost hindered by the 'usual' method of leveling, and since breaking a law will lose you this reward it is often times still "better" (from a time spent perspective) to restart a mission and try again than it would be to suffer the consequences.

That is, of course, if you actually CHOSE to break that law. Often times, you do not. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I either accidentally broke a law. For instance, sometimes the law is vague and I'm not quite sure what would qualify. Sometimes I would just completely forget what the law was. Sometimes even randomness or computer controlled characters break laws for me. Crit a mob when you weren't supposed to? Have a character do more than X amount of damage? Sorry, start over. The worst yet is laws that were literally impossible to follow - like preventing higher level characters from attacking lower level ones... in zones where I have completely outleveled the mobs. How is that fun when you don't even have an OPTION to follow the laws? This puts us right back in the same spot we were in FFTA: laws becoming more of an inconvenience than a gameplay enhancing device.

Again, I'd love to have something that causes me to change my strategies that are not "choices" to be determined in a risk vs. reward scenario, because tuning the rewards with the risks is almost impossible to do in a game of this scope. Either the risk is too great and not worth taking or the reward is too little and not worth bothering with. And some of the laws - like "don't use daggers" or other super specific nonsense - require painstaking upkeep of character inventory, which is not really something I like doing outside of the already crazy amount I actually like doing to maximize character stats and abilities. If a min-maxer like myself doesn't like the absurd tediousness of the system, how can your average player have any hope of not becoming absolutely frustrated?

A passive, slight tilt of power in a specific direction that changes from mission to mission would be a significantly better implementation then a "risk/reward" system because it removes the choice aspect (which is near impossible to balance) and instead requires you to rethink your strategy and plan around it. Maybe melee damage is reduced by 25% so you focus a bit more on magic damage, or healing is reduced by 50% so you are required to play more defensively. Don't remove options completely, but shift balances of power just enough that it helps to promote a more adaptive tactical strategy for each fight. Something like this would help remove the monotony of using the same characters with the same moves in the same manners every fight and could really challenge the player to learn and master aspects of the game they previously did not focus on. It could just as easily go to far (i.e. all characters have magic immunity) and become insanely restrictive, but the idea is to not take it that far and still leave some options available to those with strange or unbalanced team builds.

Of course, to achieve this, you would also need to make the game actually difficult. Even playing on "hard" difficulty, the only time I was even remotely challenged by missions were the ones where I was grossly outleveled, i.e. my characters are level 30 and my enemies are level 90+. Strategy games are supposed to be about being mentally challenged, planning new strategies to overcome difficult obstacles and facing new challenges. Instead, FFTA2 is almost entirely devoid of even a modicum of difficulty and proceeding through missions feels tedious because you could win even without really paying attention to what was going on around you. I understand it is possible that my completionist nature and frequent use of Bonus AP 3 caused me to quickly out pace the challenges presented to me in the area of the game I was in, but even if that is the case I would hope they could find some way to scale in difficulty as you progressed. A strategy/tactics game that requires neither to play loses your interest very quickly; it would be like playing an FPS with nothing to shoot or an adventure game with nowhere to go. It just doesn't work.

Some of the new side items and tidbits are interesting, but by and large they do not stand up well over the course of the game. The "Auction" system is a unique minigame that you can play over time to gain control over territories and even win some items, and the 'achievement' style progression is really fun to work towards completing. Eventually, though, you gain the ability to simply buy so many coins that other clans cannot hope to ever win and the winnings no longer hold any real value to you for various reasons, so it falls by the wayside. The restrictions on times available and travel limitations compound frustrations with the system, especially when trying to build up clan power, and likely only act as a way to prevent you from winning everything on your first go.

The bazaar is one of my favorite new inclusions to the game, actually, and helps to add variety and challenges to obtaining new weapons beside amassing large amounts of gold. It also helps to give you small, incremental goals to work on while churning through the hundreds of missions in the game and gives your characters a much smoother progression curve than normal, as you can exert some choice behind how and when you collect the items necessary to create specific items. That being said, an actual guide and/or list of items and where to find them would be nice to have in the game itself. Frustrations with finding specific ones simply lead players to look them up online, which could be solved by at least providing some general direction or guidance for finding items.

My tone thus far might come off as strongly negative, but this is not because the game is completely terrible. Instead, it is because this is twice that I've seen what could otherwise be an extremely fun and interesting concept being mutilated by improper direction. This is clearly the case of Square-Enix trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it is not doing their otherwise stellar game justice. I have easily put 90+ hours into FFTA2 over the course of several months and completed over 200 missions, but at one point my interest in the game began to wane. It simply offered no real challenge, provided nothing of intrigue (story, characters or otherwise) and was beginning to feel almost more like a chore than a game. Was it still worth playing? I'd say so. May I go back and finish it one day? Possibly, if I run out of other portable games. Could it have been much better? Yes. Definitely yes.

If you've purchased neither, I would definitely recommend Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon (I guess that means I have to review that at some point) over FFTA2, but for anyone who enjoyed the first looking for a game that contains a lifetime and a half of solid (but not stellar) gameplay, FFTA2 would definitely be worth looking into.