Review: Rez (Q Entertainment/Sega/HexaDrive, 2001/2008)

Platforms: Dreamcast, PS2, XBLA

In one of my first posts I exposed my distaste for the punctuation system used in videogames. As I said, my opposition stems mainly from videogame reviewer's reluctance to give marks below 6 and the 1 through 10 standard reliance on a mythical perfect game. This perfect game is, per se, impossible, and using it as a measure, therefore, pointless.
Although I remain adamant that perfection is unattainable, I request permission to exercise my right, as human being, to contradict myself by stating that Rez is, without the slightest doubt, a perfect game. Its perfection, however, does not arise from the impossibility of improving it -I'd gladly accept one or two extra areas on par with the ones available- but from the fact that any enhancement it received would fail to add anything to the experience as a whole. Rez can only improve by becoming larger, prettier or more literate, but none of these changes would make it any better than it already is. This is clearly demonstrated by playing the HD version available for the Xbox360. It looks better, sounds great, is panoramic and has a couple extra features, and remains exactly as good as the PS2 or Dreamcast versions ever were. I still play the PS2 and HD versions from time to time, depending on which one is at reach, and can't fault any of them.

Rez, gloriously low res

In trying to explain the greatness of Mizuguchi's magnum opus, let's get started by clarifying what Rez is not: a story game. What little narrative it has is implied in the hacker lines it displays from time to time and in the astounding* final area, and no more is needed. The tutorial, which is not that good, is more relevant than all the text present in the rest of the game, excluding "analyzation", "shot down" and "support item". Because those three arbitrary groups of letters, simple as they seem, are all this game is about: analyse all areas to 100% percent to unlock the next one, shoot everything that moves and collect as many power ups as you can. Why, you ask. Because the game encourages you to interact with those simple terms.
Players first learn to shoot. And shooting feels good because it produces a nice, simple note. Shooting up to eight targets at once feels even better, as it creates a simple and beautiful tune: duru-ruprup, turaruraru. As enemies get bigger or closer together, the rhythm and tone get more frantic, luring the player into the musical frenzy.
Collecting items is revealed to be important because they are obviously different and shooting at them just sounds better. As if that wasn't enough, accruing eigth blue items (less in later phases) transforms the avatar into progressively more detailed depictions of completeness and tranquillity AND awards you extra lifes. There is no indication of how many impacts you can sustain, but it can be instinctively guessed. Collecting red orbs turns out to be useful too, as each one, up to four, becomes a short-lived, powerful auto-shoot at your request.

It's mine, my precioussss

 The other special item is identified as particularly important because, when shot, mutates from a probe into a shiny countdown box. Release a full blast on it and a rainbow congratulates you, followed by a surreal deformation of space and a new region of the level. Somewhere in the screen you read 10%, later 20%... and you just know you need 100%.

That's it. With just one verb (or one stick and two buttons), sound cues and simple graphics Rez is able to completely explain itself in the first five minutes of gameplay. As levels progress, the wording gets more frantic, but the meaning remains the same: the enemies are instruments and you have to compose art. The music and graphics, although fundamental to the game, never take the focus away from the core, and only work to enhance it.
Music is simple and integrates with the frequency and spacing between enemies. Your shots are synchronised to the music, and so is the whole of the screen.
The background and reticule are rendered in wireframe -and a subtle glow when aiming, so that enemies and other targetable objects can be easily identified. Enemies feature simple shapes, almost iconic, with the most distinctive being tentacled beings composed of hundreds of small squares. Whether this minimalistic approach was a matter of hardware limitations or a choice made long before development started I can't tell, by I can assure you that contention in the graphical area was the best thing they could have done.

Simply beautifil of beautifuly simple?

 In the end, nothing gets in the way of the experience, but everything collaborates to make it deeper. And this is exactly what defines a perfect game.

Beyond shooting, Rez offers variety in the form of mutating levels, mixing different possible configurations each time a level is played. After dozens of hours spent in its world I am still surprised by combinations I had never seen before.

The man changes its behaviour depending on your proficiency

And then there's the fifth area, with its haunting beauty, melancholy and sensitivity, letting us know that videogames can be deep without breaking the definitions we use to constrain their possibilities.

Conclusion

I can't create the chart right now, but as soon as I can, I'll upload it. Spoiler: Rez is at the top and Child of Eden is dangerously close the bottom.

EDIT:

Here's the chart.

* Marvel has sadly reduced the word "astounding" to meaninglessness.

Review: Etrian Odyssey III: The Drowned City (ATLUS, 2010)

It took long, but two days ago I finally beat The Drowned City's three endings, so at last I can say that this is, accompanied by Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia, at the top of my DS charts by a decent margin.

Etrian III is built like a good post-rock/post-metal/prog album or song, as any decent game should be. A common thematic undercurrent and instrumentation (story, mechanics, general rules) encapsulates the whole, slowly progressing so it never repeats itself, revisiting previous moments with a new twist, and always insinuating the breaking points when everything will come together gloriously. Also, there must be something unexpected inbetween, plus new things to discover when we decide to play the album again.
EO3 follows this rules almost to the letter, with its level design getting more complex as time goes by. All of the 5+1 strati our guild must conquer start conservatively, introducing minor changes to the basics and new monsters to get used to. Once the player got used to the new environment, new game elements are introduced in the following levels (new FOE patterns, currents, mission types or traps) to expand the world as we go down, one level after the other, always yearning for the next surprise.

EO3 also feels like the great comeback from that band that so deeply dissapointed you with their second album*. After identifying everything that failed in Heroes of Laggard, ATLUS removed almost everything new, refined the formula and added some amazing new tricks.
Once sea exploration, weapon forging and the new classes are introduced at the beginning, all goes back to old style Etrian, until the real additions are revealed half way through: a second city, subclassing and story branching come quickly one after another, setting EO3 as a whole sequel, instead of the expansion feeling that surrounded all of EO2. And, eventhough story branching seems irrelevant at first, it is later put to good use at the end of the 4th stratum, when the consequences of each choice are finally introduced. And with this the pieces are set for the final feature introduction: meaningful replaying in a proper New Game+ mode for the first time.
All this together manages to make this third entry in the series superior to the original, including its amazing revelation of the 5th stratum.

Princess, Ninja, Pirate. Add water. Mix.

Subclasses alone have such an impact on the way the game is played and exploited that it is the core of The Drowned City. If the series was known for the freedom it offered when creating a party, subclasses add completely new levels of customization, making it quite hard to share more than one or two combos with everyone you know who playes the game (unless, of course, you all follow the same guides and dislike independent thought). The most common combos would include a cross between Ninja or Buccaneer and a Zodiac or Arbalist, plus a Monk/Ninja or Ninja/Monk, but that's already a few possibilities. Add in the other options and you can satisfy most RPG players' dreams. And, to top it all, there are few and unlikely choices that would produce a party unfit to beat the game.

Another addition, although less notable, is the existence of invisible areas,  where auto-mapping is disabled and in which FOEs don't show in the map. It is, however, quite a minor feature, requiring just a bit more caution and attention from the adventurers.

League of Legends Dominion: impressions

For those not in the know, Riot just released a new 5v5 game mode for League of Legends. It's selling point is that it is based on control points, rather than base defense and lane control, and offers a faster paced experience.

Short introduction

In Dominion each team base starts with 500 energy points and, each second, the team controlling more towers removes as many points from the rival's energy as the difference in controlled points. In order to make things interesting faster, Heroes start at level 3 and with enough currency for a couple of items, experience and gold are much easier to obtain and almost every fight is to death, especially the first encounters. This is because the time spent dead has been drastically reduced, to ensure players are more aggresive.

Is it any good?

It is fun, that's for sure. A match consists of 20 minutes of running around, attacking, defending bases, chasing and escaping, with the tide of battle changing easily. So easily that most games are won by very close margins. I have even lost a game to a team with only 1 point remaining.
But all this tension is continuous, without a pause or moment for reflection. While dead, you barely have time to look for your next item and buy it. There's no sense of progression, narrative or strategy, because all actions are more imrpovised than thought out. In this stressful environment communication is too difficult, to the extent that almost noone speaks more than monosillables. Also, the absence of secondary objectives, like guarding Baron Nashor's lair in the classic 5v5 map, takes away from the experience.

In the end, after a battle in Dominion, little more than the result is left. Each encounter in Summoner's Rift, on the other hand, feels like a story in which you evaluated your opponents and tried to counter their strengths, coordinating with your allies*. Also, since death is a lot more relevant, you learn to fear those characters which kill you in a breeze (Annie, Kata, hello!).
Like in narrative, the ideal is to introduce rest periods after moments of great tension, so the player can take a breath before going head first into the next fray. The tension must also go in crescendo, after each pause. This way, each new peak of excitement feels more pronounced**.
On the contrary, when exposed to constant action, as in Dominion, every new encounter is treated by the brain as the same thing, eventually losing part of its interest. If Dominion matches where any longer, it would soon become tiresome. Riot did well keeping things under 25 minutes, but even at that lenght I still get tired of this game mode.

Conclusion

Maybe Riot will some day manage to add extra depth to its new child, but until then it will probably remain a distraction from repetition. Its advantadge is that rival DotAs don't have a secondary game mode to break the monotony, once the competition from Valve and Blizzard arrives.
LoL's best card, its extremely wide and varied hero roster, might not be enough to fend of the attacks by itself.

However, I am not convinced that Dominion will save LoL from Valve and Blizzard's attempts at stealing its market share. The genre has a small fan base and big companies can do a lot of damage to Riot, through advertisement and simple brand awareness.


* Of course, there is always a black sheep who only complains about the noobity of the team. Welcome to the sad reality of online societies.

** Check Schell's The Art of Game Design for more about narrative in videogames. Or any good book about narrative, actually.

Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes (HD) (Capybara, 2011)

Platform: PSN, XBLA, (DS)

The high definition craze is hitting with force this year and Ubisoft is making sure it is at the front line of this new fashion. In its zeal to outnumber anyone's HD rehashes it is now releasing re-skinned versions of one year old DS games. Well, at least they've had the decency to spearhead this new idea with a decent game, which did not get the attention it deserved. Unfortunately, the port didn't get the love it deserved, either, and it is just a port, with small fixes and brand new outstanding problems.

I will not go in depth into Clash of Heroes' mechanics and merits. To cut a long story short, it is an interesting and entertaining mix of your average tactics RPG with Magical Drop and Magic: the Gathering. Or something like that. It is quite unique. For more info, internet is full of reviewes of the DS original, and the modifications made to the new version do not invalidate them.
Regarding the common ground between both versions, I'll say that my favourite part remains intact: the puzzles, in which you are given one turn to prepare a number of attacks. They serve as tutorials for advanced configurations and how to best take advantadge of the rules. The bad is mostly the same, too: the last chapter is too simple and uninspired, consisting of, basically, going forward to advance, backwards to grind, fight the two final battles and that's it. Balance could also be improved, with random battles sometimes featuring too strong enemies for the current level of the player, or the level of bounties being inconsistent. Also unfixed is the possibility of losing bounty hunts without being warned, if the player decides to try a different one.

About the HD remake, I will say that the new art is, in most cases, great and very well designed. The only problem here is that some generic portraits are direct high resolution exports of the DS's vector graphics, looking like crude drafts in comparison with the rest. Also updated were several powers, units and objects, which were greatly needed. Things seem a bit more balanced now in multiplayer, which was absolutely vital for it to have a change to succeed. Also, the story mode difficulty has been reduced, but you'll still want to throw the controller a couple of times, specially during the last chapter.

Multiplayer is almost the only ocassion when the game's heroes actually clash

Review: Mass Effect 2 (BioWare, 2010)

Platform: PC, X360, PS3

Mass Effect, the first game in BioWare's intergalactic saga, turned out to be one of the best RPG blenders of the past decade. Despite some flaws, it might even be one of the best in video game history. It is up there with System Shock and Deus Ex, becoming part of a trinity of very different games with very similar concerns, each of them a testimony of how far available technology could go to create believable environments, characters and plot, and how to take advantadge of constraints.

System Shock, Deus Ex and Mass Effect have something else in common: their sequels departed considerably from the original. In System Shock and Deus Ex it was, mostly, a matter of technology and standard shifts. System Shock was released when the FPS genre was still crystalizing and its, admittedly overcomplicated, control and inventory schemes failed to become the rule. Deus Ex 2, on the other hand, changed the reference platform from PC to the booming console market. In both cases, the result was a considerably simplified version of the first game. However, Looking Glass used the opportunity to create a completely new kind of game, while Deus Ex: Invisible War remained a dumbed down version of its predecessor.

System Shock 2 is nowadays a classic, while Invisible War is just not.

Between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 no such technology or standard shift happened. All the modifications to the formula were the result of fans feedback, internal development and, I guess, some pressure from EA. And those changes left a mark even bigger and scarier than anything done in Deus Ex: Invisible War.

What happened?

Sequels of the world be aware of the tale of Mass Effect. Quite a start for a saga, raised from illusion, care and depth, by many loved, despite its flaws, into change it was compelled by EA's suits and internet boards.
Not too good a shooter nor much of an RPG, that was its cross, but the way of the bender was never meant to be easyly walked. Still it sold in the millions and, once DRM was gone, I bought it and rejoiced.

Things looked bright for BioWare and its new step-father, dollars in the pocket and still two sequels short, there was much to win, while little could be lost. Yet, greed took its toll, Mass Effect 2 was rushed to market, changed for the sake of change, dumbed down to please the masses of FPS, TPS players who about Mass Effect complained.

"The Mako is plainly a bore, with little to do in outer worlds, the arsenal too ample, the stats a ton, too much to watch and learn, overheating weapons are plain odd, and why is not Tali in my bed?"
"Just let us run and gun, the next gun better than the rest, picking weapons' not that great. I play to have some fun. Oh, and could you add some mini-games?"

Someone compiled all these requests, wrote them in a chart and forced them into the game. They might not fit well, or needed more thought to blend, but the release date must be met. "Just work less on the PC port. Like anyone will care."

And Mass Effect 2, my friends, is what we have left. By the way, this is the farthest I could take all this prosaic verse.

Review: Shadow Complex (Chair Entertainmente w/ Epic Games, 2009)

 
Platform: XBLA

Shadow Complex is the first serious and successful attempt at recreating the feeling of oldschool 2D exploration shooters inside a 3D canvas. It's plain to see they focused on recovering everything good from Metroidvanias, while removing the design flaws and problems arisen by hardware limitations. A new aiming system, leveling bonuses or an attempt at story-telling are some of the additions they made to the Metroid formula.

A bit of history

Since the introduction of the third dimension in videogames many attempts have been made to recreate the classics in the new environments. Most of the time, however, the results have been underwhelming. The fast action available in simple 2D worlds proved constantly too much for the more complex settings required for believable 3D scenarios, unless action was limited to only two axes (Robotron X, Einhander).
Until Zelda 64's lock on was introduced, few had managed to get things slightly right. And even after that, failure has been pretty common. Proof of this is the respected Castlevania series, which, after four 3D iterations, found commercial success only when Mercury Steam decided to break with the old game style completely.
The Metroid series did better, with the Prime saga achieving almost unanimous praise, thanks to its merge of FPS mechanics with a lock on system, plus subtle story-telling. It did, however, rely on completely different gameplay and narrative styles than its precursors.

There is, as can be seen, a common thread going on, which is not even considering a return to the 2D. That approach has been left for handheld consoles, with the Metroid and Castlevania series for Nintendo systems, or remakes of old classics and shoot'm ups, like Ghosts'n Goblins for the PSP.
Of course, there have been constant homages, with 3D games re-creating 2D gameplay in small sections. The one I remember most vividly is Nier, which achieved levels of meta-gaming off the charts. Castlevania: Lament of Innocence and Metroid: Other M also played with pseudo 2D, although not too succesfully.

Chair Entertainment played it safe, making Shadow Complex a 2D game inside a 3D world. Movement is limited to the x/y plane, while enemies are free to move all around. As a result, Jason, the main character, is allowed to shoot in any direction too. The game automatically chooses how deep you are aiming, and it seldom does wrong.

Metroidvania at heart

Shadow Complex is probably the highest profile metroidvania ever done: edge technology, a big studio devoted completely to it, an expensive marketing campaign and the push from Microsoft. The studio dedicated apparently several months redrawing levels in paper form, calculating possible advance routes, secrets placement and planning all kinds of distractions to get the player off the track.
Also, the Metroid games were studied to he deepest detail, until their inner workings were grokked by the team at large.

Review: Mass Effect (BioWare, 2007), Part 2

In my previous post I got into the shooter genes in Mass Effect, explaining what it did well, what did not and what compromises were made to please a bigger market. This time, I'll review the RPG in it, plus the setting and story.

Looking through the RPG lenses

Role-playing games are built on three main aspects: story, character stats and world interaction. The tighter they all feel, the better the final experience should be. Or, in other words, no matter how good your game is implemented and thought out, if those three pillars do not support steadily the game as a whole, the RPG player will notice.

BioWare were greatly experienced in managing all three elements, and it really shows in Mass Effect. The story starts well and ends better, with enough stops along the way; the world is complex and astonishingly detailed; the main character can be differentiated beyond genre, clothing and faces; and there are plenty of NPCs, secrets and things to pick up.
Let's talk about each of them with a little more detail.

Universe and story in Mass Effect

There are a lot of things to learn in this new Universe humanity has recently (35 years ago) discovered. Lots of worlds, life forms, political bodies, rebels... Almost anything. Many of them are presented as the plot or secondary quests advance and other times it is just in the form of codex entries. It is true that, pretty often, Shepard's ignorance of the most basic information of important issues is startling, making the exposition a little too evident.
But, most of the time, the player is simply provided some new info, readable on the menu, which add a lot of flesh to the limited bits of info the story forces on you. And, believe me, there is a lot of info in those codex. Every extraterrestrial race, coalition, political group or history event is explained in there. Quite a lot of the many hours I spent on my first play-through were spent reading every little bit.
And if that is detailed, wait for the moment you reach another planets. Each planet, no matter how irrelevant or small, has a description of formation, nature or civilization. And, what's even better, many of them are homages to sci-fi classics. Trantor and Dune are among the most recognizable, but there is space for many other plays on the genre. Quite a delightful time waster.

And the story does not lag around. I'll avoid the details, but the events progress smoothly, even when the player is allowed to play the middle section in whichever order she decides. There is a lot of conversation involved, but most are so well integrated with the events at hand that they come naturally.
The beginning is epic, and leaves many doubts about what is really happening, and as it all plays out, you start filling holes, discovering new, bigger ones and spending all the time intrigued about the possibilities. And when the final revelations come, they do with a vengeance. Lots of loose threads are tied, and even stuff you thought was only there for the looks is revealed to play major roles.
The last great conversation, right before the final assault, is delivered in such a high note that I was simply unable to pay attention to all the action coming after it for a while. It is one of the best moments I've experienced in a sci-fi work.

Review: Mass Effect (Bioware, 2007), Part 1

Platform: PC, Xbox 360

It's hard to talk about Mass Effect without getting myself into a full-blown article on BioWare. A long loved company focused in a long lived genre, maintaining it while it slowly loses ground to the new guys in the party. In my mind I used to paint them as fairy tales knights, with shiny armour, declaring eternal love and care for the target of their affections.
And still, I cannot be considered a great fan on this company. Simply put, I haven't played that many of their games. I loved Baldur's Gate, but never played its expansion nor its sequel. Years later I tried Neverwinter Nights but found it too dissapointing, so I left it after 2 hours or so. Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire went by and I haven't played them yet, although I really want to.
And then, Mass Effect and Dragon Age came, which would be the last independently developed games before EA acquired the studio.
Yet, until very recently, I still respected the BioWare logo. It is possible that the cause was mainly my associating them with Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios), plus many friends of mine love their games and are constantly relating how they abused Baldur's Gate 2's magic and critical systems to destroy dragons in less than a D&D combat turn.
It's funny: most good memories I have of BioWare are actually not mine.

Mass Effect is, in few words, the evolution of BioWare from the complexities of its original Baldur's Gate and the D&D ruleset into a simpler experience, intertwined with shooter elements. It is, as well, a branching point in character complexity and plot scripting, providing a lot more depth, at the cost of some diversity.

There is so much I want to say of Mass Effect, and so little time to put it into words, that I'll post two separate articles. The first one, this, will focus on the shooter aspects, while the second one will look into the RPG segments and story.

Mass Effect

So, Mass Effect. A shooter developed by a renouned RPG developer constantly trying to make its games more immediate and accessible. Neverwinter Nights felt like a complex Diablo, while Jade Empire was a beat'm up with lots of abilities, few stats and no classes, but still many points to assign. Knights of the Old Republic, however, remained more faithful to their origins, for what I know, in spite of being an action game.
Mass Effect plays a similar trick, becoming a shooter while keeping a lot of its RPG origins: multiple missions, lots of dialog and weapons and a big stats/abilities system. It even goes further than BioWare's previous efforts in world and character design, producing a unique, rich universe with personality. It also gives the player more options than usual in how to play the main story or interact with partners.

If it has so many stats, it has to be an RPG

Review: Beyond Good & Evil (Ubisoft, 2003)

Platform: PC, GameCube, PS2, Xbox, X360 (XBLA), PS3 (PSN, pending release)
Website: Wikipedia

With the re-release of Beyond Good & Evil on current gen consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3), reviewes of this modern classic have appeared everywhere. Apparently the new version features increased resolution (1080p), improved textures, the dreaded achievements/trophies and, most notably, a revamped soundtrack with some new tracks and better audio quality. The original music was great, but word is the updated version kicks even more ass.
Otherwise, the game remains the same. Same mechanics, art direction, level design and sense of humour. And that's good, because I don't care much about graphics and can review the original while saving the money.

There is no point in repeating what every other site out there has already posted, so I'll focus on what sites have not mentioned so much and, in a form of meta-review, about the reviewes themselves.

About reviewes

Before jumping into the game, I'll make a reference to the reviewes I've read lately about this game. All praise Beyond Good & Evil, of course, being one of the points usually featured its originality: in an industry dominated by copy-cats and sequels, it was an inspiring change, innovating old formulas and exploring new areas, unconstrained by the weight of an intellectual property (partly).
Everyone agrees that re-releasing this game was a no brainier. A great experience, beloved by all the critic, which sold poorly, but can easily pay for itself now. Also, any chance it gets to gather attention is welcome.

However, the very same people that admire its uniqueness always end asking everyone to buy the remake, so a sequel is finally released. What? What about that anti-sequels, pro-originality speech? Forgotten in two paragraphs?
Well, I don't want a sequel to Jade's adventures and I didn't like the cliffhanger ending. I'd love to see Ancel direct new games, not rehashes of old ones, because he's shown he can do great things. Rayman was really good, but by the second installment I was already sick of it. I don't want Jade to suffer at the hands of her very own Raving Rabbids.

Review: Samorost 2 (Amanita Design, 2005)

Platform: Linux, Windows, Mac (digital distribution), Flash (web browser) 

Website: http://amanita-design.net/samorost-2/

Not long ago, and guided by general consensus among friends and critics, I decided to acquire Machinarium, the then recent work by Amanita Design. To my surprise, when buying the game I was given their previous one, Samorost 2 (its first part is free), and both game's soundtracks. Shortly after I refused to keep playing Machinarium (another story) and mostly forgot about Amanita.

Fast forward to a boring evening, when I discovered Samorost 2's installer in my PC. "Let's try this," I told myself (metaphorically; I don't usually talk to myself), "a free game can't be worst than most you pay for."

Amanita Design is a studio specialized, judging by their main games, in Flash development and extremely detailed graphics. Gray, complex landscapes play an important part in their games, as do their beautiful musical scores. These two elements have earned the studio repetead and completely deserved awards.
Amanita's designs are, in essence, point and click graphic adventures with a very simple inventory system, if any, minimal stories, pretty backgrounds and limited interaction.

In Samorost 2, the main character -let's call him/her Pyjama- wakes up to find a couple of space thieves stealing fruits from the garden's tree, and taking the guardian dog as a bonus. As a result, Pyjama embarks on an mission to rescue Dog and return to the home asteroid safe. And the player, not to be confused with the star, goes along for the ride.
Pyjama's adventure is a nice one, full of funny moments, detailed drawings, charming characters and some curious puzzles. So there are good things regarding this game. From time to time my efforts were rewarded with something more than "you managed to cross the door", which felt good, but not good enough. I always had this sour taste of frustration reminding me that I wasn't that much enjoyed.
But critics and players loved this game, so I am outnumbered. Am I wrong or do I have the right to call my Graphic Adventure Demise Culprit #3 to scene?

Review: The Legend of Zelda series

Link: one of the longest lasting and most beloved icons in the interactive media world. An almost eternal boy, constantly saving the world at the last moment from Ganondorf's evil schemes, in which Princess Zelda is always involved, to a varying extent. Most often, she is the recipient of some form of legendary power and the key to controlling the TriState Area Triforce.

We've heard this story six times already (counting only Nintendo home console versions), with different variations. However, in terms of gameplay, evolution was limited to the first four games. Zelda II was a significant departure from the original, Super Zelda improved Zelda's top-down exploration almost to perfection, and Zelda 64 changed the way 3D adventure games were built. However, from Zelda 64 on, little has changed. Each game in the series would get its defining characteristic/mechanic, but general story, controls, menus or items remained pretty much the same.

Late Beginnings

I love A Link to the Past as much as anyone, even though I never finished it. It had good puzzles, tricky dungeons and awesome dungeon bosses. What made boss fights so good was the fact that they were difficult, until you learnt the method. After attacking the enemy three or four times, each with a little higher difficulty, the game acknowledged you as the winner. No five minutes battles, no constant die and retry, no rinse and repeat. This, for me, is the defining mark in the Zelda genre, and its greatest gift to computer game design. It is recognizable in every Zelda game afterwards, but also in the Metroid saga, Soul Reaver or Beyond Good & Evil.

The Light World

In other aspects, the game always felt quick, even when you were stuck. The moment you entered a room you easily identified every relevant item in seconds. Killed some minions, activated a switch and moved to the next area. Opened a chest, saw a 2 seconds description and moved on. Killed a boss, collected a heart and an object, got out of the dungeon in seconds and moved on. Every action was snappy and the game was constantly pushing you forward, with short conversations and a very streamlined interface.

Basically, Super Zelda kept the obstacles between the player and the actual Hyrulean struggle to a minimum.

Review: The Path (Tale of Tales, 2009)

Platform: PC (digital distribution)
Website: http://tale-of-tales.com/ThePath

I have a problem with this game, being that I don't know if it is one at all. Much like with Noby Noby Boy, most times I start talking or writing about it, I end questioning the nature of games, their purpose and means. Where does the game end and the art begin? Is it even a game? It is only fitting that The Path is the first review I upload, as the questions it raises regarding the whole industry are the reason why this blog is called GameNotGame.

What is The Path?

The Path is not funny, but intriguing, not pretty, while attractive, nor familiar, yet easy to relate to. It has a message, but not a speech, a challenge, but no difficulty.
The Path, as a product, is defined by how few of the definitions of videogame it matches, yet it could still be one. It is labelled an "art game", and done with, or a non game, by its very creators, and thrown in a completely different basket. In my opinion, it is simply the wording that is wrong. Twilight and A Widow for one Year are both novels, but their artistic merits are separated by eons.
Sincerely, I don't care that much if it is a game or not. I loved the time I spent with the girls and their lifes, trying to figure out what the designers were telling me through them, reflecting on what I could learn from their fragmented tales.

The Path, as a game, is defined by its shortcomings. The controls are not the best possible, the mechanics fuzzy at times, the objective misguiding. However, Tale of Tales has built the game on these issues, making them a part of the experience, part of the metaphore. Life as a teenager is not clear, the faster you run through it, the less you know where you'll end, the slower, the less you'll achieve.

Meet our red riding hoods: Ginger, Rose, Scarlet, Ruby, Robin and Carmen.

The Path is to games what growing up is to becoming 18. Reflection is so integral to the process that there is not a stop once you beat it, but keeps going on until you stop learning from it. And what you learn is not that you may now drink alcohol, or drive, but that those activities require a level of responsibility and many possible consequences, even some of the less desirable being worth the risk.

On Game reviews, part 1 - To Score or not to Score

Note: For an interestingly concise, yet deep analysis of the scoring system and its issues, as it is currently implemented in the video-game industry, you'd do yourself a favour checking this post entry I found by sheer chance.

Now you're done with that, I will add my two cents to this too-long-going clusterfuck. And, please, let me disregard the whole public relationships point of view and focus on the players. They are the target, the interested party, the beginning and end of games review. The review's sole purpose is to indicate whether a game is worth being played or not. Even the quality/price threshold must be left out of the review, as it changes from one person to another.

What are game reviews for?

In the previous draft of this post I went into a rant about how much I loved the old Insert Credit reviews and how no site comes close to them. But, in the end, I can answer the question without getting into that sad story: a review is only a way to tell a gamer if a game rocks or not.
And how do we know if we are going to like something? As with everything else, by comparing it to what we know already. This is the role the final score in a review plays. It charts a game against an perfect ideal, which would achieve succesfully everything it tried, while trying to do something interesting in similar terms than the reviewed game. The problem is that, really, nobody knows what this perfect game looks like, as it changes depending on the reviewer, the reader and the game. The decission of whether a game is actually any good or not is based on, first of all, trying to guess what the ideal it is being compared to is. Second, if the reviewer would like that ideal, or has even thought of the same image of perfection. And, then, determining what the score means in all that mess.