GameInformer's Top 200 Games of All Time Commentary

For its 200th issue, Game Informer's editors have created a list of the top 200 games of all time. Although you can't see the article online, there's a summary here. Just for fun, I’ve bolded the ones that I’ve played. However, in general, most of the coin-op games listed I played in best-of collections or on the NES. In either case, I did not play them when they came out and thus really could never truly appreciate the value of most of them. This means that for the most part, I didn't comment on them. I’ve also written up some of my thoughts on the rankings, presented below.

1 -- The Legend of Zelda (NES, 1987)
2 -- Super Mario Bros. (NES, 1985)
3 -- Tetris (PC, 1984)
4 -- Grand Theft Auto III (PS2, 2001)
5 -- Half-Life 2 (PC, 2004)
6 -- Doom (PC, 1993)
7 -- Metroid (NES, 1986)
8 -- Final Fantasy III (SNES, 1994)
9 -- Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES, 1990)
10 -- Ms. Pac-Man (coin-op, 1981)
11 -- World of Warcraft (PC, 2004)
12 -- The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (SNES, 1992)
13 -- Super Mario 64 (N64, 1996)
14 -- Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (PS3/360/PC, 2007)
15 -- Final Fantasy VII (PS, 1997)
16 -- Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! (NES, 1987)
17 -- Chrono Trigger (SNES, 1995)
18 -- Resident Evil 4 (GameCube, 2005)
19 -- Metal Gear Solid (PS, 1998)
20 -- The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64, 1998)
21 -- Super Metroid (SNES, 1994)
22 -- Contra (NES, 1988)
23 -- Galaga (coin-op, 1981)
24 -- Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (PS, 1997)
25 -- Street Fighter II (coin-op, 1991)
26 -- God of War (PS2, 2005)
27 -- BioShock (360/PC, 2007)
28 -- Diablo II (PC, 2000)
29 -- Half-Life (PC, 1998)
30 -- The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (360/PC, 2006)
31 -- Tecmo Super Bowl (NES, 1991)
32 -- GoldenEye 007 (N64, 1997)
33 -- Super Mario Kart (SNES, 1992)
34 -- Sonic the Hedgehog (Genesis, 1991)
35 -- StarCraft (PC, 1998)
36 -- Civilization (PC, 1991)
37 – Sim City (PC, 1989)
38 -- Mega Man 2 (NES, 1988)
39 -- Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox, 2001)
40 -- Gran Turismo (PS, 1998)
41 -- Resident Evil 2 (PS, 1998)
42 -- Pokemon Red and Blue (GB, 1996)
43 -- Final Fantasy X (PS2, 2001)
44 -- EverQuest (PC, 1999)
45 -- Final Fantasy Tactics (PS, 1998)
46 -- Grand Theft Auto IV (PS3/360, 2008)
47 -- Super Mario World (SNES, 1991)
48 -- Deus Ex (PC, 2000)
49 -- Guitar Hero (PS2, 2005)
50 -- Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (PS2, 2001)
51 -- Super Mario Galaxy (Wii, 2007)
52 -- Pac-Man (coin-op, 1980)
53 -- Battlefield 2 (PC, 2005)
54 -- Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (Xbox, 2003)
55 -- Ico (PS2, 2001)
56 -- Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (PS3, 2009)
57 -- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (PS, 2000)
58 -- Mass Effect (360, 2007)
59 -- Adventure (2600, 1980)
60 -- Arkanoid (coin-op, 1986)
61 -- The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (GB, 1993)
62 -- Star Wars: X-Wing (PC, 1993)
63 -- The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64, 2000)
64 -- Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2, 2004)
65 -- Fallout 3 (PS3/360/PC, 2008)
66 -- Zork (PC, 1980)
67 -- Soul Calibur (DC, 1999)
68 -- Double Dragon (coin-op, 1987)
69 -- Dr. Mario (NES, 1990)
70 -- The Sims (PC, 2000)
71 -- Age of Empires (PC, 1997)
72 -- Mortal Kombat II (coin-op, 1993)
73 -- Rock Band 2 (PS3/360, 2008)
74 -- Tomb Raider (PS, 1996)
75 -- Super Bomberman (SNES, 1993)
76 -- Mario's Picross (GB, 1995)
77 -- Ninja Gaiden (NES, 1989)
78 -- Command & Conquer (PC, 1995)
79 -- Kingdom Hearts (PS2, 2002)
80 -- Final Fantasy II (SNES, 1991)
81 -- Super Mario Bros. 2 (NES, 1988)
82 -- Left 4 Dead (PC, 2008)
83 -- Okami (PS2, 2006)
84 -- Shadow of the Colossus (PS2, 2005)
85 -- Metroid Prime (GameCube, 2002)
86 -- Super Smash Bros. Melee (GameCube, 2001)
87 -- Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (PC, 1995)
88 -- Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (PC, 2000)
89 -- God of War II (PS2, 2007)
90 -- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii, 2006)
91 -- Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal (PS2, 2004)
92 -- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault (PC, 2002)
93 -- Skies of Arcadia (DC, 2000)
94 -- The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (GameCube, 2003)
95 -- Silent Hill 2 (PS2, 2001)
96 -- Counter-Strike (PC, 1999)
97 -- Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Genesis, 1992)
98 -- Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS3/360, 2002)
99 -- Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (PS2/Xbox/GameCube/PC, 2003)
100 -- Portal (PC/360, 2007)
101 -- The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (PC, 2002)
102 -- Heroes of Might & Magic III (PC, 1999)
103 -- Donkey Kong (coin-op, 1981)
104 -- Batman: Arkham Asylum (PS3/360, 2009)
105 -- System Shock 2 (PC, 1999)
106 -- Resident Evil (PS, 1996)
107 -- Gears of War (360, 2006)
108 -- Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (PS3, 2008)
109 -- Crash Bandicoot: Warped (PS, 1998)
110 -- Halo 2 (Xbox, 2004)
111 -- Tetris Attack (SNES, 1996)
112 -- Final Fantasy XII (PS2, 2006)
113 -- Earthbound (SNES, 1995)
114 -- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (PC, 1998)
115 -- Command & Conquer: Red Alert (PC, 1996)
116 -- Advance Wars (GBA, 2001)
117 -- Fallout (PC, 1997)
118 -- Team Fortress 2 (PS3/360/PC, 2007)
119 -- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (Xbox, 2005)
120 -- Mega Man X (SNES, 1994)
121 -- Lemmings (PC, 1991)
122 -- Panzer Dragoon Saga (Saturn, 1998)
123 -- NHL '94 (Genesis/SNES, 1993)
124 -- Warlords (coin-op, 1980)
125 -- Shadowrun (SNES, 1993)
126 -- Twisted Metal 2 (PS, 1996)
127 -- Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee (PS, 1997)
128 -- Metroid Fusion (GBA, 2002)
129 -- Homeworld (PC, 1999)
130 -- Kingdom Hearts II (PS2, 2006)
131 -- Pilotwings (SNES, 1991)
132 -- Quake II (PC, 1997)
133 -- Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II (PC, 1997)
134 -- Borderlands (PS3/360/PC, 2009)
135 -- Final Fight (coin-op, 1989)
136 -- Star Fox (SNES, 1993)
137 -- Madden NFL '99 (PS/N64/PC, 1999)
138 -- Call of Duty 2 (360/PC, 2005)
139 -- Wolfenstein 3D (PC, 1992)
140 -- Diablo (PC, 1996)
141 -- Civilization IV (PC, 2005)
142 -- Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle (PC, 1993)
143 -- Assassin's Creed (PS3/360, 2007)
144 -- Burnout 3: Takedown (PS2/Xbox, 2004)
145 -- Unreal Tournament 2004 (PC, 2004)
146 -- Power Stone 2 (DC, 2000)
147 -- Super Castlevania IV (SNES, 1991)
148 -- Super Mario RPG (SNES, 1996)
149 -- Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (PC, 2002)
150 -- ActRaiser (SNES, 1991)
151 -- Fable (Xbox, 2004)
152 -- Xenosaga Episode I: Der Wille zur Macht (PS2, 2003)
153 -- Asteroids (coin-op, 1979)
154 -- LittleBigPlanet (PS3, 2008)
155 -- Crackdown (360, 2007)
156 -- Gauntlet (coin-op, 1985)
157 -- Devil May Cry (PS2, 2001)
158 -- Pong (coin-op, 1972)
159 -- Battlefield 1942 (PC, 2002)
160 -- Thief (PC, 1998)
161 -- Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved (360, 2005)
162 -- Far Cry (PC, 2004)
163 -- Robotron: 2084 (coin-op, 1982)
164 -- X-COM: UFO Defense (PC, 1993)
165 -- Peggle (PC, 2007)
166 -- King's Quest VI (PC, 1992)
167 -- Doom II (PC, 1994)
168 -- Tempest 2000 (Jaguar, 1994)
169 -- Braid (360, 2008)
170 -- Ridge Racer (PS, 1995)
171 -- Bully (PS2, 2006)
172 -- Ikaruga (GameCube, 2006)
173 -- Lode Runner (Apple II, 1983)
174 -- Gunstar Heroes (Genesis, 1993)
175 -- Dig Dug (coin-op, 1982)
176 -- Castlevania (NES, 1988)
177 -- Tekken 3 (coin-op, 1997)
178 -- Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (DS, 2005)
179 -- NBA Jam: Tournament Edition (coin-op, 1993)
180 -- Max Payne (PC, 2001)
181 -- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3/360/PC, 2009)
182 -- Samurai Shodown (Neo Geo, 1993)
183 -- NFL 2K5 (PS2/Xbox, 2004)
184 -- Vagrant Story (PS, 2000)
185 -- Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (SNES, 1995)
186 -- Marble Madness (coin-op, 1984)
187 -- Infamous (PS3, 2009)
188 -- Planescape: Torment (PC, 1999)
189 -- Kid Icarus (NES, 1986)
190 -- The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (Xbox, 2004)
191 -- Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PS2, 2004)
192 -- Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (GameCube, 2002)
193 -- Jak 3 (PS2, 2004)
194 -- Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (DC, 2002)
195 -- Ultima (PC, 1981)
196 -- Call of Duty (PC, 2003)
197 -- NHL 09 (PS3/360, 2008)
198 -- Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (Xbox, 2004)
199 -- Tactics Ogre (PS, 1997)
200 -- Beyond Good and Evil (PS2/Xbox/GameCube, 2003)

Total Played 138/200. Wow. That's sad. I may have even played a few of the older ones a time or two, but I wasn't sure.

It’s hard for me to say whether this is a good or bad list, but this is the kind of thing I love to think about. I’ve played the vast majority of these games, barring the ones that pre-date my first console, which was around 1990. Of course, as I mentioned before, I didn’t play some of these games in a timely fashion (when they first came out), though I’ll try to limit my bias.

On first impression, I’m inclined to think that this list is rather good. Of course, everyone will find things to nitpick, but in general I like the list. Here are a few things that I would personally change:

Notable Snubs: Several games definitely deserve inclusion into this list. Here are some games that should have been included, in my opinion.

• Secret of Mana. Since SoM was on their top 100 list in their 100^th issue (78^th place), I’m going to let their own words do the talking. Personally, this easily cracks my top 50. Seiken Densetsu 3, although it was never released in English, is also an outstanding game that should be on this list. A beautiful game in its own right, Secret of Mana is actually an important release in Square Soft’s history. Other than a few Game Boy titles, this really is the first time Square ventured outside the Final Fantasy realm and explored what else the RPG genre has to offer. Secret of Mana’s stimulating, real-time gameplay and breathtaking settings came together to create a near Zelda killer – a feat no developer has even come close to achieving.
• Master of Orion: Arguably better than Civilization, though the former was more relatable and consequently more popular.
• Thief II: Many people consider this to be the best game of all time. I disagree, but it is certainly in the top 100.
• Paper Mario
• MechWarrior 2
• Wing Commander
• Shenmue
• Suikoden II
• Xenogears

Games That Shouldn’t Have Made This List

• Sonic and/or Sonic 2: While I’m sure Game Informer would have gotten a great deal of flak for including neither Sonic game in this list, they certainly should not have included more than one of these two. I would have supported including Sonic and Knuckles or Sonic 3d in lieu of Sonic 2, but, simply put, neither Sonic or Sonic 2 were that great compared to their contemporaries on other platforms, and there were even several other Genesis platformers, such as Vectorman, that were much better than the Sonic games, albeit less widely owned.
• Call of Duty 2(not CoD:MW2): There is no reason for Call of Duty 1 and 2 to both be on there. Although both games were strong, they weren’t different enough from each other to both warrant inclusion, when other sequels like Civilization II don't make the list. Sorry.
• Dr. Mario: For a game that was outclassed 6 years prior by Tetris, Dr. Mario should not have made this list. You may be nostalgic about this game (I know I am), but Dr.Mario simply does not compare well to its contemporaries, or even games that preceded it by half a decade. Or even other Smash Brothers
  
• Crackdown: While there is certainly a case for this game, I think that there are plenty of other games that warrant the spot that this game took, and that Crackdown is a borderline inclusion at best.
• Ridge Racer: While I loved playing this game at the time, it was simply the first good 3d racing game that I can remember. Otherwise, there wasn’t much special about it, and it was quickly outclassed by higher-quality games like Gran Turismo.
• Samurai Showdown: Simply weaker than its contemporaries, Showdown is a great example of a game that should never have been considered for this list.
• Mega Man X: I loved this game, but the Mega Man franchise is simply too short and too derivative for this type of list. With that said, Mega Man X is definitely my favorite Mega Man game. I will buy that Mega Man and Mega Man 2 were more revolutionary for their respective days (never played) but Mega Man 2 should most certainly not be ranked as high as it is.

Game Series Where the Wrong Game was Chosen:

• Max Payne 2: Max Payne had a great single-player campaign and ushered in bullet-time, but Max Payne 2 was simply a much better game overall. While it could be argued that Max Payne was more the more ground-breaking of the two, the games were released only a few years apart and the second game was much, much more fun to play, in my opinion.
• Quake: Quake II was a fun game, but Quake was the first truly 3d first-person shooter, and one that really broke new ground. The music was done by Nine Inch Nails, for Pete’s sake! I can still remember playing this at my uncle’s company on a LAN for the first time. It was something special.
• Soul Calibur II: Soul Calibur was a fun game, but this pick was made on balance and variety of fighting styles, things that SCII had much more of.
• Unreal Tournament: Unreal Tournament may be the better shooter today, but Unreal Tournament was the first game of its type and broke the genre wide open. Although both are probably strong enough and different enough to warrant inclusion (Unreal 2004 is much faster and its vehicles and new modes help to differentiate it), Unreal Tournament was simply the better game when compared to its contemporaries.

Games that are more than a little high or low on the rankings:

• Half-Life (29) and Half-Life 2 (5) should be switched: I think both of these games are phenomenal, however, Half-Life was clearly the more groundbreaking of the two. Half-Life was the first FPS that I can remember being exhaustively modded, and is ultimately remembered as being one of the most modded games of all time, but it was first known for its incredible single-player campaign. Half-Life featured the best plots of any FPS to that date and its AI was years ahead of its time. If my best friend were to ask me which one to play today, I would say Half-Life 2, but this list is replete with other instances of games with superior sequels, though the originals were more groundbreaking at their time and are thus included in this list.
• Fallout 3 (65): Some people may argue that this is one of the best games of all time, but I know more than a few people, myself included, that literally could not play more than a few hours of this game. While many have called it a first-person shooter, Fallout 3 is simply a VATS game with great graphics and an outstanding story. In my opinion, it is simply a first person shooter for people who hate first person shooters, again with a great story. Fallout 3 might just be one of the only games on this list that is a bad game, in my opinion. While I am willing to grant it a spot based on peer reviews, 65 is way too high.
  
• Braid (128): Although short, Braid was priced as a value game, and it more than delivered value. Braid is simply one of the best, if not the best, platformer to date. I would have placed Braid in the top 100 games.
• Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (64): This may be just my opinion, but I think this is still the most fun GTA title to date and is one of my favorite games of all time, even today. San Andreas was an outstanding combination of open-world sandbox play, an RPG-esque leveling system, a wide variety of mini-games, and shooter elements. While I will give a nod to GTAIII as a revolutionary game, GTA’s attempt at realism (particularly vehicle handling) was not terribly entertaining, nor did I enjoy the fact that the game would sometimes slow down dramatically and the controls always felt a little sluggish. I would probably swap the places of GTAIV and San Andreas, and probably drop GTA IV a little bit more.
• Burnout 3: Takedown (144): Burnout 3, in my opinion, is definitely better than #144, as it’s one of the best non-hardcore racing games this side of Mario Kart. I would have ranked it around #50.

Other comments:

It’s interesting to see how GameInformer ranked some brand-spanking new games. Uncharted 2 (56), Batman: Arkham Asylum (104), Borderlands (134), Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (181) and Infamous (187) all make the list. I haven’t played Arkham Asylum or MW2 yet, but aside from those, these ratings feel relatively acceptable to me. Borderlands might be a touch high, but it definitely deserves to make the list. Uncharted 2 also seems a bit high; I would have put it around 80 or 100. Modern Warfare 2 feels too low, based on my impressions of the game pre-launch.

My biggest complaint with this list is that some franchises seem to only receive one or two mentions for several similar games while other franchises receive many more (the Call of Duty and Zelda games are less different from each other than other franchises such as the Sims that only warranted a single mention). Ultimately, I think it would have been better to list these similar games together in a single listing and treat them as a single body of work, if they are very similar to one another, or list them separately and make the list more competitive. GameInformer tried to split the difference, and I think it doesn’t work out.

Ultimately, it should be recognized that putting together a list like this is nigh-impossible, so although it may be fun to criticize individual choices, in many cases its simply better to leave lists like this a little bit shorter.

-Jon

Borderlands Initial Impressions

Well, I was planning on doing a full-blown review of Borderlands later this week, but 15 minutes into yesterday's play session my Xbox died (E 74 error message). So, while my Xbox flies away to Texas for a new GPU, I decided to write up my thoughts on Borderlands for the time being.

Simply put, Borderlands is fantastic.

Borderlands plays very much like a first person shooter with RPG aspects, and is similar to games like Mass Effect. In its first person shooter aspect, it plays very much like original Halo. Your character can hold between two and four weapons at a time, depending on how far you've advanced in the game, has a shield which automatically recharges after a short period of not taking damage, and a health bar that does not recharge. Key differences include Borderlands' compass, which generally provides the same information as Halo's radar but in a different format. You also have a deployable special ability depending on your character, which can be a turret, a hawk, an invisibility ability, or an all-out melee-only rage. Cover is handled in much the same way as Halo, meaning that instead of "wrapping" to cover with a button press as in Uncharted 2, Mass Effect, or Gears of War, you simply duck behind cover manually, as in Call of Duty or Halo.

As an RPG, Borderlands is like many others in that it allows you to customize your character in a number of ways. Although your gender and appearance is tied precisely to your class, there are plenty of substantial customization options to choose from. Like most other RPGs, Borderlands allows you to also customize your character's specialization as you level. Each of the four character classes has a skill tree, allowing players to specialize in one or two different roles, depending on your level. In addition, each class has an assortment of class mods that give them and sometimes their teammates passive bonuses. Oftentimes, these bonuses are to a few skill levels, but other bonuses include team ammo regeneration, team health capacity and regeneration, team shield capacity and regeneration, damage increases, and even team experience bonuses.

Borderlands' item system is probably the most dramatic way of differentiating playstyle irrespective of character class. In an earlier article, I listed some of my favorite elegant game mechanics, including Diablo's item system. Borderlands uses a similar system to Diablo II's Magic and Rare items. All of the guns in the game have one or more mods (four or five at most) to basic things like clip size, fire rate, zoom, accuracy, reload speed, and raw power. There is also a coloring system to items to differentiate them in power level relative to other guns that can be equipped at the same level. Generally speaking, an item with its name in green that can be equipped at level 10 is going to be better than a white-named item that can be equipped at the same level. This increase in power level is generally a result of having more or better weapon modifications to some sort of base item. Since there are also different gun companies in the game which tend to feature different sorts of bonuses, weapon statting in this game is truly a deep subject. As you play through the game, you will probably identify a few types of modifications that you like best.

Gearbox has also found a way to make some of the weapons feel very different from one another using several particularly unique weapon mods. Some of the more unusual weapon varieties include shotguns that use shotgun shells but actually shoot rockets, weapons that have burst firing (shoot more than one bullet/rocket at a time), and three varieties of elemental procs.

The grenade mods are another highpoint, as Gearbox substantially differentiates those as well. Although I wish that there were more levels of each grenade type available, there are a number of different grenade effects, such as sticky grenades which stick to enemies (duh), longbow grenades which teleport to their target instead of flying through the air, grenades that steal life, "cluster" grenades that spawn additional explosions, and grenades that are more powerful against health, shields, or armor.

The best way to experience Borderlands is clearly co-operative play. While the singleplayer mode is entertaining, working with teammates to take down baddies is ultimately much more satisfying, and potentially much more rewarding. Since there is no loot-sharing mechanism, I recommend playing with players that you know, but I've also played a few games where guns were shared reasonably well by complete strangers. Voice chat over Xbox live is fantastic, as it makes it much easier to coordinate with your teammates, but most of the encounters in this game can be successfully attempted without much strategy. Borderlands does a good job of letting you know when your teammate is down, and where your teammates are at all times.

One of the disappointing aspects of Borderlands is its reward system. While the aforementioned badguys often drop good loot, the best way of acquiring loot in this game seems to be scouring chests. While I haven't beaten the game, the easiest way for me to get loot at various points thusfar has been to find an easily accessible chest or couple of chests, create a game, loot the chests, start a new game, and repeat as desired. Complicating matters, there is one example of a chest in the first third of the game that seems to dole out level 22-25 items although all of the surrounding enemies are only level 15. Additionally, in the second area, there are two weapon chests in town. Starting a new game, looting the chests, and selling the guns back to the vending machines is only a three or four minute process, and is basically an infinite money cheat, if you have the patience to run it over and over.

With all that said, Borderlands is still an outstanding game, and is easily recommendable to fans of first person shooters that might be looking for something a little bit new, Fallout 3 players that wish it was actually a first person shooter, or loot whores in general.

And honestly, who isn't a loot whore?

-Jon

Halo 3 ODST Review

Halo 3 ODST - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 7/10
Mastery: 8.5/10
Overall: 7.5/10

Before I begin this review, I should state unequivocally that I am a huge Halo fanboy. Although I try to play every well-reviewed game on the systems I own, the genre that I cover best is the First Person Shooter. The genre has come a long way since Wolfenstein, the first game of its type that I played. We've come from having a wide variety of strictly-better-than guns at hand to limiting ourselves to a handful; we've added vehicles and stationary guns; moved from a static health health system to health which returns over time; greatly improved artificial intelligence; progressed from not reloading to reloading mini-games. Not all of these changes work for every game, and in my opinion, Bungie's Halo franchise has just about perfected the genre.

Halo 3: ODST's campaign is a hastily-put-together, rough-around-the-edges experience that just so happens to contain a few of the most fun moments I've ever had within the genre. While the campaign is short and the out-of-mission point A to point B sections of the game are awful, the in-mission segments of the game are absolutely brilliant. There are two very well put-together vehicle missions, a great stand on the top of a tower in the center of the city, and several other highly-controlled and well-scripted missions that Bungie excels at. Of course, if you are a fan of open-world, sandbox gameplay experiences, you might resent how linear these missions are. But linear missions also allow the developer to create a more cohesive, tightly-knit narrative or experience, and on this occasion, there is definitely a great payoff. They also compare favorable to the more open-world experiences, which I found to be tense but ultimately unfulfilling.

I'll be the first to admit that Halo 3: ODST isn't exactly a value-packed purchase. Even at $50 (which is what most places are charging for it now), there is not all that much content to go around. I spent around 8 hours playing the game on my first play-through, and while I didn't look behind every corner, I wasn't going for a speed run either. The side story doesn't add much at all to the value either; it's basically a series of sound bites that you listen to while you're traveling from point A to point B.

Still, there are some other bright spots to the game. As the owner of a 360 with a paltry 20GB HD, I actually thought that the disc with all of the campaign maps wasn't a terrible inclusion; I was able to clear up a lot of space that had been used for DLC. And for all of you new Xbox 360 owners, ODST is actually a better value in my opinion than Halo 3, since it comes with everything you need to play 100% of Halo 3's multiplayer with no additional fee. Just keep in mind that your health is going to be working differently in multiplayer than it did in the campaign.

Firefight is the last thing I should talk about. For those of you not in the know, Firefight is Halo's take on Horde mode from Gears of War 2. And, like Horde mode before it, it is a ton of fun when you are playing with your friends. However, for some reason Bungie decided that it would be a bad idea to include matchmaking for Firefight. Let me say that again. Firefight has no matchmaking support whatsoever. This means that you will need a few friends if you want to play Firefight, which can be tough to get together, especially if your schedule is not incredibly open (read: not in high school or college). To me, this is a huge deal-breaker, as matchmaking support for Firefight would have added immensely to its value, and is a no-brainer. Oh well.

Overall, Halo 3 ODST is a middling game with some outstanding single-mission experiences and Firefight sans-matchmaking in store for the Xbox 360 and Halo faithful. For players who don't own a copy of Halo 3, ODST is a must-buy, since it includes everything that you'll need to enjoy Halo 3's multiplayer, Firefight, and, in my opinion, a campaign that is superior to Halo 3's.

Shadow Complex Review

Shadow Complex - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 8/10
Mastery: 9.5/10
Overall: 9/10

Once in awhile, a game comes along that redefines and reinvigorates a genre. While not always perfect, these games remind players of previous experiences, and ideally import novel ideas and modern dynamics into the gameplay of yesterday.

Chair Entertainment's Shadow Complex is just such a game. Based on Orson Scott Card's "Empire" universe, Shadow Complex is set in a near-future scenario built around a new American civil war. While the story-telling leaves a little to be desired, the gameplay in Shadow Complex is phenomenal, making Shadow Complex the best side-scrolling adventure of its type that I've played since Super Metroid (and possibly ever).

In Shadow Complex, you control a character named Jason Fleming, a nice enough guy who happens to be in the wrong part of the woods with his girlfriend at the wrong time. After stumbling on a secret complex, Jason eventually unearths and terminates a radical group bent on taking control of America.

Players begin the game armed only with a flashlight, but over time acquire many weapons and items which allow Jason to double-jump, run at blinding speeds, swim great distances underwater, and generally wreak havoc. Many of these items are left to be discovered in secret rooms and chambers, and generally involve the employ of the various items Jason stumbles upon in his adventures. Players also face down a legion of soldiers and several monstrous battle mechs, all of which move fluidly and are properly imposing.

The graphics are great for a downloadable title, and certainly do wonders in drawing players into the universe. While the game will occasionally hiccup after a large amount of speed-running (the ability), the frame rate generally holds up when it counts.

What makes Shadow Complex particularly impressive, in my opinion, is its speed running (the practice) potential. While I've never been one for it myself, I have from time to time had to pick my jaw up off the floor after watching some Braid, Mario, and of course, Metroid, speed runs. While it is theoretically possible to "sequence break" according to Chair, Shadow Complex has some very interesting abilities which enable the player to progress through the game's many puzzles in odd or unusual ways.

For my part, there were only a few things that I wish had been improved in-game. Shooting enemies who are not directly in front of you or behind you can be a frustrating experience, particularly early in the game with the pistol (later in the game, your guns are powerful enough that you won't mind). There are also a few items which are hidden in specific areas that don't show up on the game's map, like others do. Finally, a few bosses seem a little too simple (the axle one in particular), while another is actually frequently accidentally skipped over by players.

However, most of what Shadow Complex does, it does very well. The enemies are cool and fun to beat down on, the weapon upgrades are always rewarding, and item acquisition in general suitably makes the player feel more and more powerful. The music and graphics also reflect the game's atmosphere, and draw the player into the action.

While not perfect, Shadow Complex is and outstanding game that every self-respecting Xbox 360 owner should enjoy.

-Jon

Madden 2010 First Impressions

I played through the Madden 2010 demo tonight.

Wow.

There is a LOT to comment on.

Not all of it is good or bad, but overall I was pretty disappointed by the demo. I think of myself as the kind of person that tries to see the good side of movies I watch and games I play, so I don't make that comment absentmindedly.

I'll start with the good. One of the things that I always wished the series did a little bit better was tackling animations. If I've got a running back almost to the 1st down marker and its third down. I expect the running back to get his head down and fight for that yard. While you could always hit the button to dive, truck stick, or do some other trick, more often than not these animations would misbehave when a defender was present. When you didn't use the buttons, oftentimes you would get grabbed in a way that no player with his head in the game would allow himself to be tackled. The animations in this game are much more realistic, although I think the ball carrier does tend to roll a bit much.

The pacing of the game is also dramatically improved. I thought that Madden '09 was a little bit fast and loose, but this game feels much more under control and paced.

Another well-done aspect of the demo is that for the first half of the demo, notes roll up the bottom of the screen informing you about all the new features in the game.

But for all the good, I found a lot more not to like about the demo. For one, the game is littered with ads. I guarantee that you will see about 4 or 5 Snickers ads before the end of the first half. You'll also see Sprint, which I actually didn't mind as much because their ads are all over regular NFL broadcasts. Finally, there's in-game weather sponsored by the Weather Channel, which was really just unnecessary.

Then you have the length of the demo, which clocks in at 4 minutes for the whole game (there's only one mode, which is fine). While I don't see anything wrong with limiting the amount of time players spend playing the game, and thus encouraging them to buy the full version, the pacing of the game was so out of whack for me that it ruined my play experience. There were only three drives in the whole game; and my game went to overtime.

How is that possible, you ask? Well, on the opening kickoff I picked kickoff middle and proceeded to kick it to the end of the field. After kicking off, I let the game go on autopilot like I usually do, only stepping in to make a tackle. The problem: no tackle. The AI goes up 7-0. The remainder of the first half takes 2 minutes, entirely consumed by a six play drive that ends up out of field goal range because I didn't realize the quarters were so short.

In the second half, I returned the kick 20 yards and proceeded to grind out an 8 play drive that put me into the end zone with :00 remaining. I even had to take two timeouts. Since the score was 7-7, the game went to overtime. I received the kickoff, and couldn't get into the end zone with the ~55 seconds left in overtime.

Now, any criticism levied against me for not being able to get points out of two of my three drives is fair game, but I still thought that the whole situation could have been improved.

The most peculiar thing about the demo, however, is that neither team in the demo made it to the Superbowl last year. While the Cowboys and Giants (your only two options) are two really popular teams, I think Tiburon could have, you know, let demoers experience the Polamalu/Fitzgerald rivalry from the game's cover. I think it would have made sense. Maybe.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with the demo, and maybe I'm just a disgruntled Chargers fan who wishes his GM/coach had taken Polamalu when they had the chance. Idiots.

-Jon

Battlefield 1943 Impressions

I must confess that I have been waiting some time to comment on Battlefield 1943 because I was thinking about doing a full-fledged review for it. However, I've decided that this game, although it has and will change gaming, does not do so from a traditional gaming perspective.

Before you think that I'm down on this game, though, I would like to say that I think Battlefield 1943 is an outstanding game. Most of the time that I have spent playing games over the last few weeks (that I can talk about) has been playing this game with a few friends over Xbox Live.

Simply put, Battlefield 1943 is a well-done download-only first person shooter that brings me back to the glory days of Battlefield 1942. Available on both Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, Battlefield 1943 is a great-looking and relatively simple first-person shooter that is tons of fun to play, especially with friends. The weapons are simple and relatively well-balanced in my opinion, though many people are quick to criticize the infantry-stopping capabilities of the semi-automatic rifle. In addition, the ability to squad spawn makes it easy for players to get back into the action quickly and team up with friends. Vehicles are fun to ride in and drive, and although the mechanics can be a little wonky (collisions seem to have pretty weird physics), this may be because the engine is borrowed/simulating the BF1942 physics engine.

The game shipped with three different maps, though a fourth map has since been unlocked on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 which features a dogfighting game mode. The original three maps are outstanding in general, and will immediately validate your $15 layout. The fourth map seems to be hit or miss with people (I wasn't a huge fan, to be honest). There is a lot of value here, and although there is certainly less content than say Castle Crashers, the replayability factor is very high. Therefore, as a game, Battlefield 1943 is a fun but not wholly revolutionary adventure that is well worth the cost of admission.

What is more interesting to me, as a game designer, about Battlefield 1943 is its download-only format. One of the best aspects of the download-only system is that it is never a pain to switch between games when a friend of mine signs on to begin playing. Several times I have been watching a Netflix movie while doing a little work on my laptop, when a friend signs online, sends me a party invite, and whisks me away to the Southeast Pacific. As a fan of the Halo series, I remember often finding myself in the middle of a Mass Effect marathon when I was interrupted by the same friends, but didn't feel like breaking out the new CD, loading it into the drive, waiting for the new game to load, etc. In Battlefield 1943, no matter what I'm doing, I'm only a party and game invite away from the action. Ultimately, this makes it much easier for me to consider dropping my campaign progress for a little down and dirty Wake Island action.

Ultimately, its clearly the distribution format that is truly revolutionary here. While I don't know what kind of cuts are taken from sales of the game, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that EA and DICE make about as much money off each sale of this $15 game as they do from a $50 game purchased at retail (okay, maybe a little surprised).

Regardless, the proof is in the pudding and Battlefield 1943 has proven to me that a company can release an outstanding AAA title as a download-only purchase on consoles. While I would hope that everyone and their grandmothers don't immediately abandon traditional distribution methods for their games (my 360's hard drive only has 20 GB of space, dagnabbit!), I am keen to see what other offerings lie on this road in the future, and if these offerings can be supplemented by additional downloadable content packs.

Hopefully.

-Jon

Kodu Game Lab Impressions

So, word on the street is that Best Buy is going to be selling PS3s with Metal Gear Solid 4 and Killzone 2 for $400 tomorrow, and I'm thinking mightily about buying them. But in the mean time I have been playing a little more of the 1vs100 beta, Europa Universalis II (one of my favorite games of all time) and an XBLA Community Game called Kodu Game Lab which is the topic of today's post.

Kodu Game Lab is basically a simplified gaming editor for the Xbox 360. It is available in the community games section of Xbox Live for $5, and to keep my thesis succinct, it generally kicks ass and is absolutely worth your $5.

I've fooled around with other game creators from time to time, authored a Warcraft III map and Starcraft map (and I once joined someone else's game who was hosting a game of my map, spike!), and of course do game design for a living, so I was pretty excited to try the game out.

The game creator is a little tough to work with, but it does a good job of easing you into all of the options by having you program AI, place objects and more in a few sample missions which resemble a bit of a campaign of sorts. After that, there are a few simple finished and unfinished games for players to play around with and mod, but the meat of this whole proposition is the ability to make your own game from scratch. The assets in the game are a bit limited (and by that I mean that there are only a few different objects that you can use for the main character or enemies) but that doesn't detract from the game too much.

So far, I've spent a bit of time modding one of the included Galaga-esque games to make it a little more exciting and challenging, but haven't come up with anything really interesting or creative. I should have more time to mess around with the game in the coming weeks though, so hopefully I will think of something exciting.

I really recommend that you give the game a try. There are very few games on the market which offer so much value for such little money. The included games are nothing really special, but they're probably worth the $5 if you don't have anything better to do. Still, if you would like to play around with a pretty simple level and game creator, Kodu Game Lab might just be an Xbox Live offering that fits the bill.

-Jon

Magic: the Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers Review

Let me preface this review by saying that since it is a timely review, I'm not going to bother to evaluate this game in a long term sense. This review focuses mainly on whether or not you should buy this game. If you want to save yourself some time, I've copied and pasted the final three sentences of the review here for your convenience:

Although in several areas it can disappoint, overall it is impossible to argue with the value proposition of Duels of the Planeswalkers. Whether you are new to the game, playing for the first time in five years, or already play in local FNMs or PTQs, if you own an Xbox 360 there is no reason you shouldn't also own this game.

This week, I was sick as a dog, which gave me a good opportunity to play Stainless Games' new Xbox Live Arcade game Magic: the Gathering Duels of the Planeswalkers. Right now, the game costs 800 MS Points, which is the equivalent of $10. At that price point, this is a fantastic game that should be in every gamer's collection. This is especially true if you also play Magic: the Gathering in paper, since you get a free $15 card (my friend's estimation of the value, not mine) with purchase.

Singleplayer Campaign

The singleplayer campaign for this game is pretty straightforward: challenge each of the decks to two duels and beat them over the course of the campaign. You will be playing against the AI, which is reasonable but nowhere near perfect. After each win, you will get a card to add to your deck. The confusing decision that the designers made here is that they allow you to grind victories against the same AI-controlled opponent over and over again. While you have to beat all of the opponents in the ladder in order to unlock all the decks, once you have unlocked all of the decks you can just play the same easy-as-pie opponent over and over again, depending on which opponent your deck is strongest against. Although I did not beat the entire campaign with all of the decks, I did beat all of the opponents with the Elf, Jund, and mono-green decks, which were the only three I attempted it with.

AI

The AI is probably one of the poorer parts of the game, overall. It is difficult for me to criticize it entirely, since I'm sure it is very substantial. It does make good decisions most of the time. However, there are many areas it could definitely improve:

1. Mulligans: I'm not sure that it actually takes mulligans. I've seen it missing its second turn land drop before. It may take mulligans, but I've never seen it go to 6.
   
2. Attacking, causing it to be dead on board: I can't tell you how many times I have three guys in play, and the AI has three guys in play with a few meager points of life left, but one of them is phantom warrior. In this case, regardless of my life total, or his, he will swing with it. In many of these circumstances, the AI literally causes him to be dead on the board, regardless of any tricks I may be holding. It seems like there should have been a line or two of code telling it not to attack if the extra creature that gets through deals lethal damage.
3. While getting in for an extra 3 with giant growth is nice, its much better to 2 for 1 with it by making your attacking or defending creature 2/2 a 5/5, which is bigger than the other guy's 4/4, thus making him down a card while you are up the creature (which you would have normally lost) or the damage (4 points of life ~1 card) and down the card in hand. 2 for 1.

Magic: the Puzzling

Another play mode of the game is Magic: the Puzzling. This gameplay variant is interesting and definitely showcases some of Magic's potential. Unfortunately, certain considerations (like card drawing) convinced Wizards and/or Stainless games that all of these puzzles should be a "can you find a way to win this turn, after drawing your card" question, which to me reduced their complexity. A few of them took me a couple tries, but most were fairly easy. I beat them all in a single sitting. I wish that I had earned a deck unlock or something more substantial than simple achievement points doing this, though. Overall, this was a quick addition to the game that didn't add any long-term value to me.

Multiplayer

The multiplayer modes are, in my opinion, the highlight of the experience. As of the second night after release, there were already a fair number of people playing the game online, although actually joining a game is a bit finicky (this may change as more people begin to play online). There are several multiplayer modes available:

• Coop campaign (not online)
• 1v1
  
• 3 player FFA
• 4 player FFA
• 2v2 2 Headed Giant

One of the reasons that the multiplayer stands out as the game's best mode is simply because it feels like the Magic I know. I'm the kind of guy that would rather win big occasionally than win consistently and multiplayer is, as a result, one of the formats that my playstyle is particularly suited for. The use of headsets also makes multiplayer stand out, because it gives you that sitting around a table feeling that not prior Magic virtual game has done before. It also fits better with the cards, which tend to be on the not constructed playable side of things (i.e. you would never see most of these cards at a PTQ in paper Magic). My favorite mode, specifically is probably the 2v2 2 headed giant mode, which is a nice combination of teamwork and slow paced play (yes you get to see both player's hands, so you can help your partner play).

Coop Campaign

The Coop campaign is also awesome, because it's a great way to get your friend to play with you without having to worry about them being intimidated by your prior experience with Magic. While you can't play it online (to my knowledge), a friend and I played through most of it and it is quite a bit of fun. The elf deck is absurd in this mode, btw. One interesting thing to note is that you can unlock cards for decks in the Coop campaign, so you can use this to approximately double your unlock rate vs. single player play.

Deck Construction/Balance Issues

Deck construction in this game is not what you would expect given that you are playing Magic: the Gathering. While in the paper game, you have almost complete control over everything you play, in this game each deck has a core deck which you can unlock additional cards for, and then you may choose which of those unlocked cards you wish to play. Since most of the decks' unlocked cards are of the bomb variety, you end up playing almost all of them. The notable exceptions, however, are the "tooth" cards which basically all give you an additional point of life whenever someone plays a spell of a specified color. While these cards are alright in multiplayer (particularly 4 player FFA), in singleplayer or 2v2 they're atrocious and should almost never be played.

My theory for these deck restrictions is this: Stainless wanted to delicately control the balance of the metagame, and the best way to do that is to have all of the decks' potential under control. Because there are a couple of bad/undesirable cards in most of the decks, it is basically impossible to modify the decks into unstoppable, efficient killing machines. If everyone could take the elvish warriors from the elf deck and put them into the green deck in the grizzly bears slot, or move the grizzly bears into the dragon fodder slot in the Jund deck, you could risk improving one deck too much and throw off the balance of the metagame.

However, if this was the reason, or even if it wasn't, Stainless should have done a better job of balancing the metagame. Some decks simply seem to be much better than others, particularly the elf deck, with which a decent draw can destroy almost any deck in the metagame. The blue, black, and red decks barely seem to be in the game at all, and the white deck is basically a FFA only affair, since its bombs are basically Serra Angel, Wrath of God (I'm told, haven't seen it yet), and Mass Calcify. The Naya deck seems to be completely trumped by the green deck, which simply trades some creature efficiency (no 3 mana 5/4) and removal for no mana issues and Overrun.

Expansion Opportunities

The most promising aspect of the game are the expansion opportunities it seems to present down the road. Adding onto this game should be fairly simple: just release a new deck for another 100-200 MS Points. Assuming that enough people download the base game, I'm sure future expansions are in the works. Heck, there's already a deck in the campaign that player's can't unlock yet. (Maybe I need to beat the double Tezzeret decks at the end of the Coop campaign, haven't done that yet).

Overall Impressions

Duels of the Planeswalkers is simply an outstanding value for 800 MS Points. While it's not perfect, it is certainly the most attractive Magic: the Gathering client ever, and gets most of the important aspects of Magic right. It is also easy to learn, beginner friendly and generally a rewarding first Magic experience. While it has its faults, these are more than made up for by the innovative, streamlined experience it provides and the enormous amount of content that you are purchasing for ~$10, even before you include the promo card which is worth the cost of admission alone. If you've always wanted to learn Magic, or even if you simply want to see how much better Magic Online's interface could be, I highly recommend that you take a look at this game. Although in several areas it can disappoint, overall it is impossible to argue with the value proposition of Duels of the Planeswalkers. Whether you are new to the game, playing for the first time in five years, or already play in local FNMs or PTQs, if you own an Xbox 360 there is no reason you shouldn't also own this game.

-Jon

1 vs 100 Beta

So, my roommate and I just started playing the 1vs100 beta tonight. It is darned impressive. I grouped up with my cousin, his sister and a few of his friends and had a blast. The game is completely free to play (I haven't looked into the post-beta but I remember thinking that it was free to play then as well).

Anyways its a great, social game that really pulls players together, even if they aren't in the same room (and they most likely aren't). My roommate got in on the action this evening and we are penciled in to playing it every night for the rest of the week.

I have the history and geography pretty covered, but am atrocious at the pop culture stuff (my roommate helps cover this deficiency somewhat). Regardless, I am still looking for more help. If you are smart and own an Xbox 360 with a gold XBL subscription, definitely hit me up. I might be a little late tomorrow (I work until 7PM, starts at 7:30, boo). Hit me up if you fit the above qualifications. My username is JohnnyJohstneft.

-Jon

Coop, Continued

I have spent a little time recently talking about the resurgence of cooperative play as seen in Left 4 Dead. This weekend, my cousin and I have been playing Gears of War 2 in coop, which I have never done before, and have been having a really fun time. In some sense, Gears of War 2 is a much better coop game than most other FPSs in my opinion, with L4D being the notable exception.

As a single player game, I have never been terribly impressed with either of the Gears games. This is not an insult to Epic, but for some reason the series has never really been exciting for me. Personally, I think the guns lack personality (which is saying something when the assault rifle has a freakin' chainsaw on it, see above for a double chainsaw assisted kill). Basically, all of them feel more or less the same. There is the single-shot rifle which I usually use mid/long range, the aforementioned fully-automatic AR/chainsaw creation, a handful of pistols, and some awkward weapons which are always interesting but a little awkward to use effectively (mortar, et al.).

You also have the Gears themselves, who are big, hulking nasty brutes with hearts of gold. Unfortunately, their body armor slows them to the point that controlling them can sometimes be a pain. While the controls are a far, far cry away from the "please kill me now" control experiences of games like Stormrise, some aspect of the movement system has always put me off. It lacks the clean, smooth, responsive movement of Halo 1-3.

But Gears of War 2 is an absolute blast to play coop. It's still no Left 4 Dead, but it's a great experience working with the teammates, reviving them when they fall, and flanking enemies or racing to get a chainsaw kill/bash the head in of the last baddie who is barely clinging to life. The all-too-common forks in the road also work masterfully in the game, allowing you to cover and set up on your best buddy's flank. This is a much more fun coop experience than Halo 3, which for some reason always felt a little watered down and not very tactical, probably as a result of the level design and the respawn system.

The Xbox Live system, of course, really makes the magic happen, as you get about two-thirds the benefit of having your ally right there with you, but don't have to split off any precious screen real estate.

I haven't really gotten into horde mode much yet, but our experience with it has been very positive thusfar, and I'm looking forward to trying it some more in the next few weeks.

-Jon

Schizoid Impressions

Well the weekend is here, and seeing as I am finally getting a chance to stay in the city this weekend, I can try out some new games. However, my cousin, who doesn't play games not named Magic: the Gathering, is also in town, which may dampen my efforts somewhat. Not that that's all a bad thing.

I did talk him into playing the Schizoid XBLA demo with me though. Schizoid is billed as a simple coop game in which a team of two ships, orange and blue, team together to fight hordes of alien monsters. The twist is that unlike other monster slaughtering games, there are no weapons. Ships can merely ram into one another. The orange ship pwns all the orange monsters, but gets pwned by the blue monsters, while the blue ship pwns the blue monsters, but rolls to the orange monsters. Pretty simple stuff.

Anyways, the game has something like 136 levels. We had a pretty good time playing the XBLA demo, but not good enough to make me want to slap down the money for the full game. Schizoid is overall a pretty intense experience, if the last few levels of the demo were any indication. There are tons of mobs all over the place, and it will take some pretty coordinated teamwork, but the game feels a little simpler than it could have been. The power-ups that I played around with were definitely fun, and I wish I could have seen some more. However, I wanted Schizoid to prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it a great, arcadey, coop experience, and it didn't quite get there.

If I had another dedicated player who wanted to really give this game their all with me, I would probably get it, but given that I don't have anyone living with me that would be willing to make the sacrifice, I suppose Left 4 Dead will have to do for now.

-Jon

Braid Review

Braid - Player of Game Review
Innovation: 9.5/10
Mastery: 10/10
Greatness: 9.5/10

So, it has been awhile since I've posted a formal review. My roommate and I have spent a good deal of time playing this game which you have probably heard of called Braid. While Braid appears at first to be a run of the mill side-scroller, don't let first impressions fool you. Braid may just be one of the most fulfilling gaming experiences that I've had the pleasure of playing. From beginning to end, Braid is one of the most finely crafted, innovative, and polished games on the market today, if not the most, ever.

Simply put, Braid is a side-scrolling puzzle game that plays with the concept of time in fascinating, dynamic and non-intuitive ways. Braid presents a relatively simple story--that of a boy/man/prince trying to find his princess, who is always, as a friendly walrus will frequently remind you, in another castle. To find his love, the protagonist plays his way through a series of worlds, each of which forces you to play with the flow of time in a unique way. There is the introductory world, a shadow world, a world in which movement affects time, a world with an object that slows time, and more. Each world is made up of several stages, in which there are several puzzle pieces to find. By obtaining all of the puzzle pieces from each world, players finish a picture of that world, and by finishing pictures in all of the worlds, proceeds to the final world in which the plot is resolved(?).

Braid is so unique from a game design perspective that it is easy to stop there and forget some of the other things that its creator, Jonathan Blow, has done.

First, Braid has an elegantly crafted and ultimately mind-blowing story. While it might not be that gripping at first--trust me--just keep reading the books as you go along. At some point in your experience, there will be a complete 180 degree shift in your understanding of the story. When that moment occurs, it's hard not to sit back and gaze in awe at how well you are led through the game, then violently shaken and forced to accept a second reality. In addition, there is at least one entirely different and revolutionary interpretation to the story which was brought to my attention by my roomate. It is crazy, and the more that I hear about this "alternate" understanding, the more I believe that it may be intentional. The plot, while not initially promising, should not be dismissed as one of Braid's strongest aspects.

Visually, the game is artistically profound and, again, well designed. Kudos to David Hellman, the lead (only?) artist, for creating such an impressive work. While technically, the graphics will not astound you, the visuals are fantastically crafted, and fit in with the game's storybook setting perfectly.

The sounds and music in Braid are outstanding as well. The music in particular, really brings out the somber, lost, and confused element of the game, and draws you in to Braid's fantastical world and sets the tone for the game. The sound design is strong as well, though there are few sound effects that really stand out (the ones that will always do it for me are the bunny/cat sound effects).

Puzzles are mind-bending and complex, but rarely too difficult to figure out after a long period of time. Many of them have multiple solutions. Most importantly, however, none of them are rehashes of other puzzles. Though some of them put you in similar situations (the boss battles come to mind), each of them has a different execution strategy. Moreover, the solution that you find first to a puzzle is rarely the best, as my roommate proved to me during his speed run (although I'm sure some of you have done better, I was more than impressed with his 39 minute completion time). All of them are elegantly designed, and force you to really tinker with your understanding of the flow of time in relation to the game world you are currently progressing through.

All of this would make for an outstanding recommendation, but the final piece of the puzzle to me lies in the fact that Braid's designers and developers seem to be truly wonderful people. Jonathan has given several speeches at gaming conventions, David has released the game assets for public consumption, and the music is available online. Braid has now been ported to the PC and Mac, where players can even create their own masterpieces using Braid's new level editor.

While Braid isn't exactly the only game you'll find yourself playing this year, I highly encourage you to go download a copy yourself. Regarding the statement that video games can indeed be art, I would submit Braid as exhibit number one in its defense. Braid is so phenomenally designed and executed on so many levels that it is hard to label it anything but a masterpiece.

The Last Remnant

I'm not going to do a full-on review, because I haven't finished the game yet, but I've been playing quite a bit of the Square Enix game The Last Remnant, which was recently released on the PC. I've been on an anti-complexity kick lately, and this game gave me a bit of an opportunity to talk about when complexity reduction can go too far.

Now I'm sure noone would actually accuse Square Enix of crafting a game that is altogether too simple. The game's steep learning curve is noted in almost every review I've read of it. But I think they made some decisions with specific mechanics that aren't quite right in terms of rewarding players for understanding the implications of some of their game systems.

The Last Remnant is a somewhat traditional JRPG which eschews a traditional combat system for a system like the one in ogre battle, with a significantly less complicated tactical map. Players control several groups of units, each of which can be assigned general commands, rather than specific commands. Which specific moves each group uses is determined by the game's AI, though with many commands players will see what actions the units will take when they assign the command.

Personally, I think the combat system works very well overall. For the most part, the game's AI makes good decisions, although sometimes I find myself wishing that my healer took the heal action instead of the high damage character which acted right before the healer. I feel like this specific instance happens alot, but other than that, the AI is pretty good about taking actions for units.

Outside of combat, however, I feel that the game is unnecessarily complex, given that players have so little control of their units' progression. Throughout the game, the only unit that you get to really have full control of is the main character. Your other units' skills and equipment selection are fully automated, though you can prevent your units from using certain skills in combat.

All of this would seem okay to me, if it wasn't for the fact that the item system in the game is so unnecessarily complex. You can create and modify your own items using items that enemies drop in battle. However, it is almost never worth doing this, because I always find myself looking for at least 1 necessary component to improve my weapons, and whenever I find a new weapon that I can finally craft, a better one has become available in one of the game's many shops. On top of that, since these items still cost some gold to create, I generally find that trying to collect and build items isn't really worth my time and effort. While this may change as I progress further in the game, the item system, because of its complexity, really isn't worth bothering with. In other words, there is no tangible benefit to trying to understand the system.

On top of that, since you only control the equipment of your one character, and that character only has five item slots, all of this crafting information is largely useless. The only character that you can improve through active item crafting is the main character, and by the end of the game, he is only one of thirty active units in your army at any one time. Your other units will take items from you to improve their equipment from time to time, and will sometimes ask you to take them to acquire an item, but this requires no actual understanding of the item system to do, and only requires you to look around for mobs that drop the particular item they are looking for.

All of this is frustrating to someone who enjoys complexity as I do. But still, if Square was looking to create a beginner friendly game, they should have just made all of the equipment purchasable in the store without forcing players to acquire specific components for all of it. If they were looking to create an exciting, highly complex system for players like me, they should have allowed me to customize the equipment of all of my units, and perhaps given me the option of auto-managing the equipment of other units. The system that is in place in the Last Remnant has the downsides of both, and the upside of neither.

In short, if game companies are worried about a game's item management system being too complex, just add in an auto-manage feature, or leave it out of the game entirely. It is such a shame that such an interesting item system isn't worth experimenting with.

-Jon

Review: Castle Crashers

Castle Crashers

First, a foreword: I spent quite some time thinking about the first game I would review on this website. Obviously, I decided on a game that I am fairly passionate about. However, as my first review, I also picked something that I could handle without biting off more than I can chew. I also picked a game that will highlight the difference between Player of Game and traditional gaming websites. Although I will give you a feeling of how much I enjoyed the game with every review, as a game designer I am also interested in the unique or particularly well-done aspects of a game. This manifests itself in each game having a dual score: the first serves as a traditional score, while the second is a reflection of a game's Greatness, a measure of the lasting impact this game should have, will have, or has had on gaming.

I look for two key things in every game I play: Innovation, and Mastery. A game without either is simply not a good game, but mastery traditionally accounts for a larger percentage of typical game reviews, while innovation is typically relegated to a bonus point category. First, let me loosely define these terms: Innovation represents the new things that a game does, while mastery applies to the refinement of gaming activity and the perfection of game design. Traditional gaming websites, I feel, are weighted more towards the Mastery aspect of this equation than Player of Game will be. While not every game will execute perfectly on innovative design (see Europa Universalis), I try to give credit where credit is due.

Games that might score lower on Mastery, but higher on Innovation include Spore, Europa Universalis, and Elder Scrolls III. Games that might score low on Innovation, but high on mastery include games like Halo 3, Warcraft II, or the Soul Calibur series of fighting games. Games which would score high on both scales include Grand Theft Auto 3, Half-Life, and World of Warcraft. Due to this rather unusual system of grading, you should not be surprised when I bestow a higher measure of Greatness on a game like Spore than I would on Warcraft II. In addition, you will find that my reviews almost always heap more praise on a game than is reflected in the Greatness score. This is because I find it hard to look for faults in excellent games.

With all of that said, nearly every game that I review here will be a good game, will be worth your time and effort (some highly innovative, but not terribly fun games will make appearances here), but some games simply have more potential than others to change the face of gaming. It is this measure of Greatness (capital G) that I will try to distill from each game that I review.

With that, on to the review!

Castle Crashers

Traditional Review
Gameplay: 9.5/10
Graphics: 9/10
Audio: 9/10
Overall: 9.2/10

Player of Game Review
Innovation: 5.5/10
Mastery: 9.5/10
Greatness: 7.5/10

Synopsis: Castle Crashers is a masterful side scrolling beat-'em-up that fuses strong base mechanics with top notch artistic design and solid multiplayer capability to create an arcade experience that we all can enjoy. While Castle Crashers does not extensively toy with side-scrolling convention, it executes so well that I find it difficult to resist employing the label "genre-defining".

Innovative Features: Dynamic and unique boss battles that are somewhat unusual for traditional side scrolling beat-'em ups, leveling system and melee combo attacks.

Masterful Features: Well adjusted difficulty setting, outstanding multiplayer experience, highly approachable, strong sense of humor, graphics (artistic).

Castle Crashers is an addictive and humorous sidescrolling beat-'em-up brought to us by the lovely folks at The Behemoth. As an Xbox Live Arcade download, it can be downloaded by anyone with an Xbox 360 and a high speed internet connection. One of the most popular XBLA (that's Xbox Live Arcade) downloads, Castle Crashers is at the forefront of a resurgence in old school gaming that has occurred in the past few years.

In Castle Crashers, you play as a cartoon knight who is tasked with saving a group of princesses, bringing an evil wizard to justice, and restoring order to the world. By completing a series of levels (you can revisit old ones you have already played), you will level up your hero and ultimately defeat various forces of evil, and shenaniganry, that have beset the land.

When you begin the game, you start with a basic melee weapon capable of performing two different attacks, and a single spell power. As you defeat enemies, acquire items, and learn new skills, you will gain an assortment of new melee attacks, a ranged attack, and even some nifty spells in your particular school of expertise. You will also gain access to upgraded weapons and a variety of pets, whose abilities range from allowing you to walk faster in water to periodically knocking down enemy combatants.

The environments in Castle Crashers go a long way towards making this game the sublime experience that it is. Environments are varied, and often bizarre, but always attractive and pleasing to the eye. What the game lacks in technical graphic prowess it makes up for in masterful artistic design, with a bold and pleasing color palette that never disappoints. Moreover, it reinforces the sort of action that is playing out on screen; it is hard to take the game too seriously, which significantly adds to its multiplayer appeal. The musical score in Castle Crashers is dynamic and well-chosen; it adds to the atmosphere and is definitely catchy, while the sound effects are meaty and draw the player into the action.

Yet what the game does best is create an experience that you feel comfortable sharing with your friends; its relatively low learning curve (as compared to most modern games) allows even non-gamers to get in on the action, which is great because its multiplayer is a blast.

Up to four players can get in on the action; these can be players on four different systems across the globe, using Xbox Live, or four players sitting across the couch from one another pounding soda and potato chips. Either way, the game is a hoot, and the multiplayer experience is at the heart of what makes this game so special. Players will fight over power ups and kissing the princess, work together to defeat impressive (and well-balanced) bosses, and laugh together at the particularly odd experiences they are bound to encounter during adventures.

While the multiplayer is one source of lasting appeal; the other comes from mastery of game elements and the lesson that Pokemon taught us: Players freakin' love catching 'em all. During your many adventures, you will slowly accummulate a mass of weapons with which to dispatch baddies, but the aforementioned coterie of lovable and adorable pets, each featuring a unique ability is particularly gripping.

Special mention should also go to the game's unique, well-inspired, and often hysterical bosses which you must dispatch from time to time. Each of them has different mechanics (it's not just the tank and spank from beat-'em-ups of yore), and nearly all are hilarious and fun to fight. While each of them is challenging, most everyone should be able to figure out how to beat them eventually (playing Castle Crashers will help with this quite a bit).

Overall, Castle Crashers is the type of experience that everyone can enjoy. While I would be hard-pressed to call it a particularly innovative game, its mastery of common beat-'em-up mechanics is without parallel, and this mastery is ultimately what makes the Castle Crashers gaming experience so rewarding.