Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor was reviewed on the PC version of the game

The Short

Pros
- Perfect medley of the Batman: Arkham games and Assassin's Creed
- Graphics are gorgeous, showcasing the potential for next gen
- Lots of stuff to do, with two different locations within Mordor to explore
- While it may blaspheme a few parts of the LOTR mythos, it is clear the writers did their research
- Story is compelling and the voice acting superb
- Nemesis system is a good start to what could be a defining system in future open world games

Cons
- Nemesis system at times feels more like an experiment than a fleshed out mode
- Also the best addition to it (branding/mind controlling Orc leaders) is locked until the last third of the game
- Also also it's completely gone from the 360/PS3 versions, which is pretty rough
- Like Assassin's Creed, quests can get a little repetitive after a while
- Ending is a bit of a letdown
- Attempts to include Gollum in the story feels misguided, especially since there are no other characters from LOTR "canon" in the story

You're here to show orcs a bad time.

The Long

It's pretty well established at this point that people (developers and gamers) love the Batman: Arkham Asylum style combat. A fluid, essentially two button system (for the most part) designed around quick flowing action, easy counters, and looking sweet while doing it, it's surprising how few games have stolen its system for their own games (a 360 Captain America game comes to mind, but it isn't of particular note). Similarly, Ubisoft's brand of open world games (Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 3/4) all seem to be basically the same formula at this point: open worlds with lots of activities to boot your stats, climbing towers to scope out new areas, and so on.

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor is pretty shameless, should you be familiar with these games. Aping both the Batman combat and "Ubisoft open world games" (we'll just say Assassin's Creed, since it started that mess) wholesale, anyone familiar with either of those game will be instantly at home with Mordor's systems. But as we've seen, a copy of a good idea can still be a good idea (there's a reason League of Legends is so popular, after all), so does Shadow of Mordor deliver on its blatantly stolen ideas?

You've got a ghost friend, which is like Bill Cosby's "Ghost Dad" only actually good. 

Shadow of Mordor apparently didn't start out as a Lord of the Rings game, and due to either licencing issues or lack of faith in the game it doesn't even bare the film/book's titles. Which is a shame, considering how much better this game is than any other Lord of the Rings game that's ever come out. Mordor's grim story feels more in line with a George R. R. Martin A Game of Thrones style story than the somewhat sterilized Lord of the Rings franchise. You play as Talion, a ranger (much like Strider/Aragorn) stationed in Mordor with his wife and kids. Why someone would take their family to Mordor is freaking beyond me, but as you can imagine it doesn't end well. They're murdered, Talion is murdered, everybody is sad.

Until a magical ghost elf wraith brings him back to life. Apparently stuck between life and death as well, Talion and his new ghost buddy journey to avenge the death of Talion's family, find out what's up with Ghost Dad, and finally be released from this limbo so Talion can be with his family in the West or wherever dead people go in Lord of the Rings.

On the way you'll meet a handful of interesting characters, human and dwarf (well, one dwarf, but he's awesome so it makes up for a lot), though you'll spend most of your time hanging around with orcs. There's also a rather in-depth backstory to your wraith buddy, one that got a lot of hardcore LOTR fans up in arms because "muh canon," but all things considered I felt his story was actually a solid connection to the overall world (the game takes place in the break between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring).

The only thing that felt really out of place was the inclusion of Gollum. Yes, his connection with the wraith ends up making a good deal of sense, but the story felt stronger as an isolated incident within the universe, and attempting to connect it to the "greater whole" felt a bit pandering. Still, the voice acting is superb (particularly from the wraith, who provides copious amounts of lore dumps everytime you do just about anything interesting, which I loved) and the story dark and interesting, and as a whole it drives the gameplay very well.

But let's not fool ourselves: this is what you are here for. 

Gameplay is split between three key parts: exploration, power manipulation, and combat. And two of these three is completely aped from other games, so we'll cover them first.

Exploration is Assassin's Creed 2. Do I need to say more? Well, probably. If you've touched a game by Ubisoft in the last half decade you've seen this system before: a wide expanse with lots of stuff to traverse and climb over, towers you have to climb to unlock fast travel and view available events in areas of the map, lots of dynamic events to participate in either to give you more experience, upgrade your weapons, or garner more skills. You can even do an Assassin's Creed style dive off the watchtowers. It's that. Which isn't a bad thing.

This is a proven system (so much that, and I'll keep hammering this in, Ubisoft uses it on every single game they make) and it works. Mordor trims the fat in a lot of areas, and ties most events well into the Nemesis system (which I'll cover momentarily). There's a good amount of combat missions, archery missions, stealth missions, and rescue mission. Then there's the "weaken the warchief" missions, which are more optional than the rest as they focus primarily on manipulating Nemesis warchiefs. They're all fun (though some stealth missions are frustrating in their rules) and I never got bored of them, and right when you're getting tired of them you finish and the game ends. So kudos on that, no "walk around following a guy" quests like in Assassin's Creed.

That's losing your head. 

Combat is Batman: Arkham City. You have a standard attack that can be timed to double combo strikes, a counter (which is easily indicated by lines over enemies heads), a "stun into flurry" move for harder enemies, and the ability to vault over enemies (which Batman stole from Prince of Persia). You also can kill enemies when they're down should you be uninterrupted for a period of time, and a high enough combo meter will allow for finishers executed by pressing two buttons at once.

Literally. The. Same.

However, Mordor does have two major improvements. Because the enemies are more plentiful (and weaker), the game has no qualms making you a super-badass very quickly. Combos are harder to break and quickly scale to giving you finishers faster. Finishers are quick and can be stacked (including a combo that will literally murder every orc in range). Orcs can be Marked so they'll fight on your side, including being marked during combat, which is kind of hilarious. On top of that, Tallion's stealth and traversal is a perfect blend of Batman and Creed, with him being both limber enough to remain hidden and stealth kill easily, as well as combat-ready well enough that failing at stealth isn't the end of the world.

Point being, I liked it better than Batman's combat, even though it was an obvious ripoff. Maybe because it was easier, maybe because it felt like it flowed better, who knows. All I know is: your move, Batman: Arkham Knight.

Then there's these jerks. 

Then you have the unique twist on the formula: the Nemesis system. Essentially, Mordor is populated by a bunch of warchiefs (like 30 or so) that are all in a hierarchy. Each warchief has certain strengths and weaknesses. For example, one might be weak to stealth finishers (the best kind of weakness!) but is always surrounded by a horde of followers and is immune to archer fire. One might have a fear of dogs (causing him to flee in terror and leave himself exposed) but his hits cause you to bleed. The worst kind are the ones that are immune to everything (yes, they exist) and you have to find their exact weakness in order to exploit them. Crazy stuff.

Killing these warchiefs not only grants you power (and runes to modify your weapons, another system that is interesting but borrowed from other games. There's also an xp and ability tree system too. There, I mentioned it in the review, I don't really have to elaborate a skill tree, do I?), but also shifts the power structure. Orcs that were once week, lowly Captains upgrade to Chieftans, and gain new abilities while they're at it. Killing an orc directly above another one can cause a shift in the ranks, for good or ill. Die to one of them and (in probably my favorite twist in the game) they'll not only get promoted, but remember you when you come back to fight them again. It's this manipulation of power that is essential, and is Mordor's only real thing it can call it's own.

While it's a very cool idea, two things about it irk me. The first is that branding (basically mind controlling an orc or chieftan to serve you) doesn't come in until way into the second half of the game. Manipulating the struggle to push orcs you control into leadership is the funnest part of the game, and it's hidden away on the tail end, which was a mistake. The second is the system, while clever, feels a bit bare-bones. Sure there's lots of clever gimmicks, but you can't really do a ton with it, aside from shift the power around a bit. I'd like to see the system fleshed out in future games (or a sequel, or maybe Ubisoft could steal it for their bajillion open world games...I'll stop now), as right now it feels almost like a tech demo. This isn't bad, not by a long shot, but it should be better, and really isn't as mind blowing as some other reviewers have made it out to be.

It's lonely at the top. 

Graphically, Mordor looks phenomenal. While the area of Mordor canonically doesn't offer much in terms of variety of scenery, the do well in breaking up the dirty, mine-style vistas of the first area with a greener, fleshed out version in the second zone. Orcs, particularly warchiefs, are incredibly detailed, and mixed up so that no two look exactly the same (though you'll notice similarities). Combat is visceral and fun to engage in, and there are lots of clever tricks (like having the wraith appear during certain combat combos and archery segments) that keep the entire thing visually stimulating. It's not quite "next-gen," but it's getting there. Also they put a billion orcs on the screen at once and the framerate doesn't hitch (at least not on a GTX 970 equipped PC), so there's that.

Music is also phenomenal, going above the simple "background music" and providing a sullen, yet interesting environment. In a smart move they completely avoid the Howard Shore film soundtracks and opt to make their game entirely unique, again...good idea. It does sound a bit Game of Throney from time to time, but I'm sure not complaining about that.

Gettin Game of Thrones sounding up in here. 

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor is greater than the sum of its parts. Broken down, you're looking at essentially a copycat, the first M-Rated Lord of the Rings game and Nemesis system being it's biggest draws. But it does the things it copies so damn well (and better than the games it emulate, if we're being honest) that the setting and Nemesis system is just icing on the cake. It could do better, maybe experimenting with the systems it's borrowing with a little, and the game does start to get a little tired as you near it's finale (and the ending sucks, both as a boss and as a story finisher), but for an open-world combat game with stealth elements where you manipulate orc power struggles...it sets the bar. Not that there's a whole lot of games competing for that particular space. 

It's familiar, but that's ok. Shadows of Mordor proves that copycat games can exceed their source material given enough heart and work. It's a standout title, and a must-buy for both Lord of the Rings fans and fans of any of the types of games it rips off. 

Four out of five stars. 

Final Comment on Versions: The PC version is by far the best for this game, but the next-gen versions (Xbox One and PS4) are just as good. With the PC, as long as you have a decent card (I first ran it on a GTX 570, which is about 4 years old) it'll look better than most next-gen systems, though you do have to have a hefty dedicated GPU. The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, however, have no Nemesis system at all, it's completely gone. I don't know how the game works because of that (given some plot points tie into the system directly), but honestly the game is still fun without it. If you have the choice, get the PC version, then the next-gen version. If you have no other option, the PS3/Xbox 360 version works, but you'll miss out on a lot of what makes the game unique. 
Final note: Apparently the Xbox One version runs at 720p and 30 fps, while the PS4 runs at 1080p and 60 fps. So obviously, if you have both consoles, get the PS4 version. 

Best. Tutorial. Ever. 

DJ Hero 2

The Short

Pros
- Same strong gameplay with marked improvements
- UI is dramatically improved and the new clean menus are an improvement
- Much stronger soundtrack drawing from modern bands
- Two player DJing
- Ditches the Guitar Hero brand
- All songs start unlocked
- Overall graphical improvement for characters, backgrounds,  and...just about everything

Cons
- Still insistent on "mixes" in quickplay rather than single songs
- Difficulty spike from Medium to Hard is still high
- Wish there were more songs
- Can't import songs from DJ Hero into DJ Hero 2
- You can still sing and play guitar. For some reason.

Time to get back to "da club!"

The Long

DJ Hero was an interesting experiment where I felt the developers were too tethered (probably due to pressure from daddy Activision) to the Guitar Hero brand to really branch out and do something unique. DJ Hero 2 is the game that completely fixes all the problems present in DJ Hero, giving the series it's own fresh look along with some great new gameplay tweaks. It also, unfortunately, marked the end of the DJ Hero franchise, as both the first and second games sold horribly and are considered (along with the absurd oversautration of Guitar Hero) to have brought about the death of both the music game genre and the "let's buy plastic toy versions of real things to play video games with."

The one perk from this is that I was able to get DJ Hero 2 along with the wireless turntable for a measly $10 bucks from Toys R Us a few years back when they were clearing them out, which was the only way I would ever have paid money for this game. So, in the end, I guess it ended up ok. As long as you weren't the developers. Rough gig, that.

The new menus ditch the "street cred" stupid look for a clean, modern interface. 

I already reviewed DJ Hero so if you want background on how the game works, that's probably worth glancing over. What I will say is that there are a few minor gameplay specific differences between the two (that is, differences involving the actual highway of scratches, taps, and whatever else) that should probably be mentioned, and all are for the better.

The biggest improvement in that regard is the introduction of "freestyle" segments. Basically, in the first game you had a few rare instances were you could tap the red/middle button at your own choice to make the game yell obnoxious sound bites at you ("BOOYA!" "HERE WE GO AGAIN!") in some attempt to let you "freestyle." Now, however, that has been expanded in a fairly decent way. The red freestyle segments are back but replaced with actual sounds from the track, and the game gives you bonus points with how well on beat you tap them. In addition, segments allow you to slide the slider back and forth and actually pick how much of each mix plays at one time, again judging you based how well on beat your sliding is. In terms of point generation it's kind of just there, but it really makes you feel more like you're actually in control for parts of the song, rather than it being some ham-fisted addition.

Aside from that, the gameplay is virtually identical. You have scratches, directional scratches, slides, taps, that horrible 2x knob thing, and all the other stuff in addition to the rewind, the overdrive, and so on. One thing I will point out is the graphics actually do look HD in this one (unlike the kind of "low def" look of the highway in DJ Hero), and they slightly altered the colors to give more contrast to the notes, which is appreciated. Overall, it looks better, it plays better, and the songs are constructed better since they had one game to cut their teeth with and now they actually can put notes down in ways that are more fun.

The new UI is considerably better. 

In addition to that, the UI for how stars are displayed, overdrive is displayed, multipliers, etc. is all redone and done much better. Rather than the weird "light bulbs" for stars, now it's a filling vertical meter on the left which is very easy to read and the combo is much easier to just glance at. As a bonus (not in the screenshot), if you are online it'll show a leaderboard on the star ranking so you can aim to beat your friends or your past score, which is a cool touch (and something Harmonix borrowed for Rock Band Blitz's star interface). 

in addition, the menus are so incredibly improved it's like night and day. Gone is the awful "cover flow" view with bad art, replaced with an extremely clean white/black style interface that's super easy to read, navigate, and play through. Sorting options for songs are also improved, and songs better display what makes them difficult (number of slides, taps, etc.) before you play. 

The only downside is that it still doesn't have a "difficulty ranking" that is easy to read, like what Rock Band 2 nailed early on. As such, it's hard to know how hard a song is contrasted to another, even sorted by difficulty. Also, that jump from medium to hard is still astronomical, so be warned. 

It's about time we got some Deadmau5 in here

Speaking of songs, that is also a marked improvement. Rather than focus on weird mixes of classic rock with modern hip-hop, DJ Hero 2 goes all out with the majority of songs being mixes of modern bands (Daft Punk, Lady Gaga, and the aforementioned Deadmau5, who are my personal favorite out of that group) and even a few original works. The mix of Riding Dirty with Superman (Soulja Boy) is particularly fun, but lots of other great mixes and even straight up unmixed songs are there for you to play. 

To be fair, some of the appeal of DJ Hero's set is you usually knew at least one half of the mix (be it the classic side or the modern side), and with DJ Hero 2 if you aren't into club music the setlist is actually worse. However, these songs were made to be used with DJs (unlike whatever nonsense was used in DJ Hero), and even if you aren't familiar with the songs they translate much better to the gameplay overall.

The VS mode is actually kind of fun

The single player has a few marked improvements, including "battles" with popular DJs which basically are just playing segments better as you "mix off." This also translates into either a competitive (as in you play to do better in segments) or just basic vs mode (where you just play to get more stars), both of which are well done and added additions. The segment competitive mode is particularly good, where you switch off parts and whomever gets a better percentage gets a bar. First one to the top before the song ends (or who has the most when it does) wins. It's basic, but good.

I unfortunately don't have a second turntable so I can't say either way if playing against actual humans is fun (does anyone in the world in this day and age own two DJ Hero controllers still?), but based on the mechanics presented I'm going to say it would probably be enjoyable if you both already have fun with the game.

Nice glasses, NERD. 

As a final thing that should be mentioned on the graphical front: the DJs look phenomenally better. Again, pulling away from that "plastic nightmare toy" look that Guitar Hero loved for some reason, now DJs still look cartoony but not scary. As a bonus, on the Xbox version you can use your Avatar to spin some discs, leading to a hilariously dis-proportioned monster with a massive head and hands leading a club of somewhat normal looking people. I highly suggest doing this. It's pure stupidity.

DJ Hero 2 keeps the solid, dexterous, challenging gameplay from DJ Hero and cleans up the interface by with you interact with it, all while tossing in a handful of much better songs. It's a downright shame you can't import DJ Hero's tracklist into DJ Hero 2's interface like you can with the later Guitar Hero games (and all the Rock Band games), but considering how badly both games sold it's not a huge surprise that it wasn't offered. DJ Hero 2's greatness was, unfortunatly, completely overlooked as most people had decided the games were garbage after not buying any copies of DJ Hero, making this sequel seem like one of those games that was already developed before sales figures for #1 actually showed nobody cared.

Regardless, I'm glad it exists, if only because 1. Now I can use this stupid turntable for two games and 2. DJ Hero 2 is actually a lot of fun. If you have a thing for hard music games that require complex, quick responses (such as Rock Band Blitz) and can pick it and a turntable up for a low price (say...under $20), I'd say it's absolutely worth checking out. It's a damn shame Guitar Hero kept going long after it's prime (and after Rock Band thoroughly destroyed it with Rock Band 2 and 3) while DJ Hero got thrown to the dogs, as I'm convinced that DJ Hero was the superior music series from Activision. Oh well. 

Four out of five stars. 

DJ Hero 2. For all your thug life cat's needs. 

DJ Hero

The Short

Pros
- Unique music game experience (mostly)
- DJ Turntable is actually quite fun to use and fairly intuitive
- Difficulty range means anyone from noobs to pros can have a challenge
- Lots of songs of...interesting mixs
- Considering what they were working with, they pulled of something surprisingly good
- Can play with both a guitar and a mic
- Music actually alters based on how you are playing the mix

Cons
- Mixes are really weird, mostly older songs (Jackson5) mixed with modern stuff (50 Cent?)
- UI is taken straight from Guitar Hero World Tour. This is not a pro.
- Feels a little too stapled to the Guitar Hero name to really be it's own thing
- Menu UI/mix selection is atrocious
- Have to unlock songs. Like...no.
- Can't have two DJs spinning at once
- No Deadmau5? All the Daft Punk are remixes? No dubstep remixes? What?
- Difficulty jump from Medium to Hard is much too large
- Thing cost like $150 when it came out for the game and controller (which was corded).
- Character designs for the DJS are downright horrific, because they look like Guitar Hero

I ain't DAFT, this game's got PUNK. ...no, I don't know what that means either. 

The Long

Yeah, so I'm reviewing DJ Hero in 2014. Sue me.

For a bit of history for those of you oblivious to the big music game explosion of last gen, basically Guitar Hero(made by Harmonix) showed up on the PS2 and made a bit of a scene. People were buying giant plastic Fisher Price guitars and pretending to be rock stars in their living room (myself included), and everybody was having a great time. Activision (also known as "Anti-fun") quickly snatched up Guitar Hero without Harmonix, making Guitar Hero III and focusing heavily on using the name of the franchise to push sales (much like what they do with Call of Duty even to this day). Harmonix, on the other hand, went off to make Rock Band, making more toys including drums, mics, and...well, just those. Activision, who didn't have a creative brain cell in its bureaucratic body, copied the idea wholesale with Guitar Hero: World Tour and, in an attempt to outdo Harmonix, pumped out a hot new music game, that used it's own plastic thingy and was totally unique.

This was DJ Hero. And despite all signs pointing against it, this game doesn't suck.

Hello ladies, let's get mixin. 

DJ Hero borrows a lot from Guitar Hero. In so much that they put "GUITAR HERO" on the box, in the opening credits, and wholesale lifted the UI for the star ranking, points, and star power from it. I'm only going to mention this once because I don't want to go back to it: the fact that it's weirdly tethered to Guitar Hero during the point in time when Guitar Hero was easily at it's worst is one of the biggest things bringing this game down. The UI from World Tour is pretty atrocious (they fixed it in Guitar Hero 5), and it doesn't even fit all that well with DJ Hero. Star power is hard to see when filled, the points are in a bad position (upper left would work better), the indicator for how far you are to the next star is some weirdly glowing light bulbs for some reason (also, bad), and just overall fairly weak.

While I'm on gripes, the menu UI is also really, really bad. So bad nobody bothered to put any screenshots up on google, so you don't get to see it. But the point is thus: the game is broken up into various "mixes," meaning 3-10 songs that you play in a row on location. But rather than sub-menu this, it's right there in the main menu. All 15 odd mixes. Hidden amongst all that are things like settings, co-op, quick play, etc. (though there isn't a quick play, just "make a mix," where you can add one song to quickplay it), but the menu is oriented in Cover Flow style (large graphics that scroll left to right), making it hard to find anything. And when you're trying to drive an UI on a freaking turntable controller, it's...kind of a massive pain.

Look mama, I'm a real DJ!

But enough about that, what about the game? How does it work? Well, it's actually very well designed. Similar to Guitar Hero or Rock Band, DJ Hero employs the "freeway" idea of notes coming at you in three dimensional space. However, DJ Hero is much more than just tapping buttons (though you do that). A big portion is aligning the highway to the right mix. As you can see in the screenshot above, the blue line is moving to the right (and then has a tap button). For those instances, you slide the little slider tab (you can scroll up to the controller for reference) to the right, then slide it back to the middle to put all the lines at "default" after tapping the note. You can do the same with the green to the left. It's a simple mechanic, but tricky when you add all the other crap you have to do.

Pictured: all the other crap you have to do

Key portions of the game are "scratches." Basically, you hold down a button on the turntable and then "scratch" back and forth for the duration of the scratch. It's simple, but surprisingly satisfying to scratch this fake turntable. These get more and more complicated with scratches that have to be scratched in a particular direction (either all up or all down), and sliders that you have to slide over just for a split second in the middle. Add on top of that having to tap buttons, and (the bane of my life) twist a knob over particular segments to earn double points, and you have yourself a complex game. The usual nonsense of blue notes giving star power (or "overdrive" in Rock Band) is there, activated by pressing a large button next to the twist knob. Lastly, the big change is "rewind," which lets you spin the DJ wheel back every few whiles and "rewind" a previous area, either in an attempt to do it right (if you screwed up), or get more points by replaying it. A cool idea, but unnecessary. 

The props I must give this game is how easy it is to pick up and have a great time. Unlike Guitar Hero or Rock Band where I felt the game meant to emulate something in real life, DJ Hero's biggest strengths is that it's a fun music game. I never felt like a DJ doing this because...let's face it, I never wanted to be a DJ. But as someone who loves music games (especially dexterous ones that get nice and difficult the more you play), DJ Hero knocks it out of the park. The controller is extremely solid (granted, I have a DJ Hero 2 wireless one) and scratching and managing all those buttons is...fun. You feel like you're launching a nuclear missile or something when you pull of a crazy mix, and it's exhilarating and satisfying. It doesn't press the same buttons (hur hur) as Rock Band does with it's group rocking concept, but as a single-player game about dexterous reaction times, it's incredibly solid.

Oh look, it's a "party game" now 

What isn't solid is all the ham-fisted features added at the last minute to merit that stupid Guitar Hero logo in the opening. Yes, you can play with one turntable and a guitar, or even a singer (though why you'd want to attempt to belt out crazy remixes is beyond me), but not with two turntables at once. Playing with a guitar is also fairly painful, as the mixes keep switching up and there's really no rhyme or reason to it all. It's obvious they added this to make it seem like DJ Hero wasn't just a game where you spent a bunch of money on a single player plastic DJ experience, but...DJ Hero is best as a single player plastic DJ experience, so the extra crap is not really welcome. 

Another oddity is the setlist, which is all over the place. Basically, you can make any song in DJ Hero by doing this: take one popular club artist (50 Cent, Daft Punk, Eminem) and smash them into somebody in classic rock (David Bowie, Jackson 5, Queen) for some weird reason. There's 90% of your setlist, with the other 10% being even stranger matchups (Jackson 5 and Third Eye Blind? What?). I feel they were trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, so they just took a bunch of classic rock and a bunch of modern artists and smashed them together, but the end result is something relatively unsatisfying for everybody. Where's Deadmau5? Skrillex? Lady Gaga? Actual legit Daft Punk? Well, they're in DJ Hero 2, but that's a review for a later time.

The fun of the gameplay itself makes up for the totally out there playlist, but just barely. A playlist makes or breaks a music game, and DJ Hero's very nearly breaks it.

He's gonna scratch his way into your heart

Graphically the game looks like Guitar Hero World Tour, and that's not a good thing. I've mentioned the menus, but the art they plaster over the bad UI is like bad graffiti art mixed with some quasi-modern pop club album art nonsense that just looks cluttered and atrocious. Character models (aside from Daft Punk, probably because their faces are covered) look absolutely horrible, drawing from the Guitar Hero 3 and World Tour idea of "let's make the most nightmare plastic abominations the world has ever seen and have people play as them" line of thinking. The clubs themselves look ok, and the general graphics of the highway are good but somewhat uninspired. Again, World Tour's UI bits looked really low-def to me, and because of this DJ Hero's do too. The only thing that may really matter is that highway and it's notes (which is fine and easy to read), but everything around it looks like trash.

Yeah this is weird. 

As it stands, DJ Hero was an interesting experiment that I thought was going to be a trashy awful spinoff (like Band Hero). Instead, the game pleasantly surprised me in that it was, if not a good DJ simulator, a fun and challenging dexterity game. Managing all the things going on screen on their weird turntable was genuinely interesting and fun, even if the jump from Medium to Hard is a bit too far. I spent a good portion of time in DJ Hero (enough to get pretty good at it) and enjoyed my time with it. However, it's worth pointing out (at the risk of spoiling a later review) that DJ Hero 2 does everything this game does and does it a billion times better. Just saying.

It's also worth pointing out that I'd bet this game is super hard to find now, as you have to dig up a turntable (I'd suggest the wireless ones from DJ Hero 2; why they even sold wired ones this gen is beyond me) as well as the game itself, both of which are becoming scarce. If you do manage to find it on Craigslist or something, and you enjoy music games that are challenging and don't care too much about a setlist, DJ Hero is a pretty good time.

Just don't go taking your newfound "mad skillz" to the club. Just...trust me on this one. And don't ask how I know.

Three out of five stars. 

Sweet bling totally included. 

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

The Short

Pros
- Beautiful world feels straight out of a fairytale
- Unique controls that require no tutorials; you learn as you play
- Achievements are clever and encourage exploration on an otherwise linear game
- Music is phenomenal
- The "burned house" scene
- Ending segment's fusion of learned controls with story elements is quite powerful
- Four words: Valley of the Giants

Cons
- The bigger emotional moments lack punch or proper buildup (the ending being the exception)
- Game's ending may frustrate some
- Stick controls can be clunky to figure out for basic movement (works well for climbing)
- Little to no actual gameplay here; sort of a "co-op Uncharted lite"
- 90% of the game's impact is on the initial discovery; replays seem pointless
- Will only run you, at most, three hours to beat it from start to finish

Brothers will take you some incredible places. 

The Long

Something that I feel is often forgotten in the gaming medium is it's ability to transplant you in the middle of something of great beauty. Movies can often do this with special effects or good art direction, but you're tied to the characters and your time is limited. Books can also do this to great effect, though there is no visual representation for one to admire; it's all in your head. Games have a unique position, as they can create incredible, beautiful worlds, and allow someone to traverse it at their own pace. It's something that, I feel, is frequently forgotten as we push for "better gameplay" or "more enemies on screen at once."

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is a downloadable game that tries to bring that sense of magical wonder to you, the player. Controlling two brothers you traverse a world that seems straight out of fairy tales. You'll see some downright crazy stuff, from the rustic, warm village you start in to freezing ice caps. You'll soar over mountains and climb massive structures. You'll dive deep into caves and find unspeakable horrors there. In a sense, it's like the first time you read The Hobbit: you never know what crazy thing is going to show up next, and how it will bewitch you. But the question is, is that enough to justify it's $15 price tag? Well...maybe. 

If you're looking for a visual feast, Brothers has got your number. 

The story is one of tragedy. It opens with the younger of the two brothers (neither of which are named) watching his mother drown in an unfortunate boating accident. Cut ahead a few years and (unrelated to said drowning), now their father is dying of a really bad cough (the known Movie Killer of Important Mentor Characters). The doctor in the village gives them a scroll with what looks like the Yggdrasil tree, but I might be mistaken, basically saying they need whatever is in that tree to save the father. So the two brothers go off together, trying to save their father before it's too late.

The characters don't speak an actual language (it's been compared to "Simlish," but it's much less obnoxious), but they don't need to; most emotional moments are done via physical reactions and character expressions. In this manner, the game does that very well, but particularly at merging these emotions with the actual gameplay. While the story itself is a bit light (and the final two "big twists" are poorly foreshadowed and lack an emotional punch), it's still a whimsical fairytale and feels just like it, so you're mostly there for the ride.

That being said, there are two rather emotional story segments that got to me: the burned house (which is a "side mission") and the final gameplay scenes of the game. While I don't plan on spoiling it, let me just say that the game does an exceptional job of fusing learned gameplay elements with story to really pack an emotional final punch. It's unfortunate that the actual final scene is somewhat...lame, and the game doesn't really build up enough to justify the twists it presents, but no biggie. It's not going to set the world on fire, but the story is ok. But just ok. 

"You kids wanna go on a super-dangerous quest halfway across the world to a tree that  might not exist? It'll...uh...totally save your dad!"

The gameplay in Brothers is fairly simple. Each brother is controlled with a different analogue stick (meaning a controller is a must for the PC version), and the triggers perform actions with their respective brothers. That's it. Since 90% of the time you'll be climbing up stuff, triggers have to be held and released to jump (the pressed again to catch ledges) for each respective brother. The game mixes it up a bit during a rather fun segment where the brothers are tied together, requiring some dexterous controller pressing, but ultimately the control scheme feels...cumbersome. Even after beating the game I never got used to moving the two of them at once, still forgetting which brother was which stick more often than not. I ended up positioning them on screen so they'd match (older brother on left, younger on right) in an attempt to actually be able to walk, but since you have no camera control that didn't really work. For an inexplicable reason the game doesn't have multiplayer co-op (though, to be fair, it would diminish the ending scene a little if it did), so it feels like a co-op game that you're trying to force your way through single player. Regardless, nothing is too dexterous that you'll die more than a few times, but you might have problems walking them down narrow paths together.

As for the actual gameplay...that's pretty much it. Since you have just sticks and triggers, your actions are limited. Granted, you can interact with a ton of stuff (chickens, benches, doors, wells, etc.) and each brother will react to the same thing differently (nice touch), but 90% of this game is climbing up stuff. Climbing up obvious pathways ala Uncharted but somehow even more simplified. Point being: you aren't playing Brothers because of the gameplay. Just...know that going in.

This is what you are playing the game for. 

Where it lacks in gameplay and storytelling it makes up in the journey itself. Brothers may not be a technical powerhouse (though the draw distance they got on the Unreal Engine is impressive), it's warm and soft aesthetic and incredibly detailed vistas steal the show. The developers knew this, too, and put random benches just around scenic spots where you can sit and stare in awe at their pretty scenes. In any other game I'd consider that a bit pretentious, but in Brothers it works. It knows why you are here, and gives you the means to best engage in that.

Perhaps the best bit about the visuals is the parts that are understated. While you're crawling through the mines (arguably the weakest aesthetics in the game), far below you can see a glimpse of silhouettes of giants mining next to large forges, miles beneath. As you carefully slide through an icy shelf, frozen shapes of figures in a battle field, flash-frozen and snowed over, are alongside you as you pass. And the Valley of Giants...well...let's just say it's one of the most shocking yet still incredible scenes in a game I've seen (and the buildup/hints towards it are also clever). Brothers is a game all about the journey, and it doesn't fail to deliver on the visuals aspect.

Sound is also phenomenal, with the soundtrack being one of the best I've heard in years. Soft, with slight celtic undertones, it kicks in  at exactly the right moments, being both somber and (in some rare moments) jovial as necessary. The "voice acting" is just nonsense, but you'll know the word for "brother" by the end.

Don't go to the Youtube video and read the comments (spoilers)

So...in the end, is Brothers really that amazing? Does it really pack that emotional punch that several reviewers are raving over? Is it a journey worth taking?

Well...it depends, mostly on the person. For me, the final moments were very emotional, but mostly because of the brilliant way it fused the learned gameplay with a reoccurring story element (as well as the underlying meaning of said element as it applies to the real world). That being said, the emotional punches the stories tries to pull are frequently not well deserved, and while you will get an emotional bond with these two simply by playing (I would often have the older brother go first, then wait for the younger one to "keep up" in dangerous areas), the story doesn't foreshadow the biggest twists well enough for it to work.

That being said...

Brothers is still absolutely worth playing if you value games doing something different. I, for one, loved just exploring the world. I'd often take things slowly, staring in awe and shock at the things I was discovering, and cowering in fear at the genuinely creepy bits that popped up now and again. I wish I could have spent more time in it, fleshing out the story and seeing more amazing places, people, and creatures. But, with a running time of just under three hours (and the game's impact being on a first viewing, meaning replaying it is pointless), it's a very hard sell. In addition to having the clunky controls, the game is certainly not for everybody.

But for me, I still heartily recommend it (especially since you can grab it on PC for under $7 if you're deal-savvy). It won't blow your mind with crazy gameplay or a jaw-dropping story, but it will entertain, enchant, and entrance you for it's whole duration. Please, game developers, make more games like this.

It's worth it for the Valley of the Giants. That's...just all I'm saying.

Three out of five stars. 

Just have a seat, chew on the scenery, and play some Brothers.

Bioshock

The Short

Pros
- Dark, atmospheric shooter
- World and setting are phenomenal and very interesting
- Shooting that hybridizes guns and magic keeps things fiesty
- Side activities like vending machines, hacking, and other methods can mix up
- Graphics and sound design are phenomenal throughout
- Story's twist is interesting

Cons
- Last third of the game feels like a rehash, in both story and gameplay
- Switching between guns and plasmids is cumbersome, as is taking pictures for experience
- The number of weapons and ammo types seems a bit overwhelming and unnecessary (Shock Shells are all you need)
- Ham-fisted "morality" decisions lead to an equally lame ending either path you choose
- Final boss is a massive letdown
- Game ditches it's survival horror roots early on once you get better equipped
- Still feels a bit bare-bones when compared to it's predecessor, System Shock 2

Sander Cohen's moments are standout.

The Long

How does one review Bioshock on the eve of 2014? Released nearly six and a half years ago (yes, that long), and followed up by two successful sequels (one more successful than the other), it's hard to approach Bioshock now and offer up an opinion. Where do you even start? There's just so many options.

You could compare it to System Shock 2, which was a common approach shortly after the game's release, when all the hype and praise had died down and people actually offered critique. It's a simpler game, with points and levels and what-not stripped away and streamlined, focusing more on the world and the shooter than the number crunch.

You could compare it to Bioshock Infinite or even Bioshock 2, it's successors, which grew off the game's original systems in an attempt to streamline it further, evolving the series beyond simply Rapture and it's underwater paradise-gone-wrong and turning it into one massive, semi-coherent franchise. But, perhaps, making the first game look a little clunky in the process.

You could speak of it's industry influences, how it was perhaps (along with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare) an integral factor in moving the shooter industry towards more showy, showcased adventures rather than simply basic shooters. One might even argue that it is a true spiritual successor to Half-Life, by creating a game that was both linear yet gave the illusion of openness, focusing more on the scenarios and experiences and flashy pomp rather than just running and gunning. A weird hybrid of what was popular in shooters at the time (Halo was very much in its prime) and the old, creating something wholly unique and never properly replicated.

Or maybe I'll just talk about what I think about it, replaying it six and a half years after I first bought the PC version. Bioshock was the third game I played after my two year gaming hiatus (after F.E.A.R. and the Dawn of War franchise), and it was certainly impactful. But what about now? As the generation moves and its first real flagship ages, is Bioshock really that phenomenal, world-shattering experience we all made it (and it's spiritual sequel, Bioshock Infinitie) out to be?

Well, I'll tell ya. 

Should've signed up for the Vita Chambers, dude.

Bioshock has what I consider the best opening of maybe any game, at least the best "on rails" opening (Half Life 2's opening comes to mind as a more "open" introduction). After a plane crash in the Pacific ocean, you seek refuge at a nearby lighthouse and dive down into the ocean below. There you meet Andrew Ryan (who coincidentally his sounds like Ayn Rand. "Coincidentally."), a man who believes a society can be built where one earns their own living and isn't required to give it up to others. Objectivist's, eat your heart out. Until everything all went to hell when they started bio-engineering themselves, leading to people losing their minds and murdering each other all over the place. Because, come on! Who would have thought that letting people toss fireballs and SPAWN HORDES OF ANGRY BEES could have possibly lead to abuse of power?

Anyway, the story's real strength lies in it's setting, which is phenomenal for the first two acts. Andrew Ryan's constant taunts over his dead city (not unlike SHODAN from System Shock 2) are haunting yet never dull, with plenty of weirdly scattered audio logs everywhere (I don't even v-blog; why did everybody in this old city?). For the first portions of the game there's plenty of drama, horror, and startling twists to keep it interesting, with plot bits paced nearly perfectly and the aforementioned audio logs filling up any dead air. The game really wants to be System Shock 2, and it might even outdo it in terms of giving you an overview of the world, even if it does it with considerably less subtlety. 

Exploring the creepy parts of Rapture are some of the best parts of the game.

It's a pity the last third of the game is utter hogwash. While the "big twist" is clever (and might make gamers question the whole "meta" of who is really playing who), they present it too soon and with nothing to follow it up with. The final act is a slog through waves and waves of enemies as you just sort of mow everybody down, fight a lame final boss (who has his own lame twist) and watch either the "You are Jesus" ending or the "You are Hitler Reborn" ending, depending on if you chose to kill none or any of the creepy demon girls you can harvest for more xp to do more lightning damage. Yeah, there's a "morality" system here, though it's so archaic it makes Fable look like Apocalypse Now. The choice whether to "Harvest" or "Save" the creepy little sisters is interesting, but considering if you harvest just a single one you get the bad ending (never mind if you saved all the others; you are SATAN) you'd better commit to your decisions. The argument is that harvesting them gives you more Adam (basically money for powers) and thus makes the game easier, but the game is 1. Super easy already and 2. Ends up giving you more Adam if you stick to your guns and just save the little brats, that the whole thing seems like a wash. Point being: third act spoils the goodwill in the first two acts (though not all of it) and both endings are so over-the-top they can't be taken seriously. 

But while you're in the world, it's certainly one crazy trip, and one absolutely worth taking. But what about the gameplay?

Mario, eat your heart out. 

Bioshock got mad rave reviews when it came out for it's setting and story, and people just sort of lumped the gameplay into that when giving their analysis's. There's  so much crap you can do in Bioshock I can't really spend much time on it, but let me just give you a rundown of how you could approach nearly any engagement:

- Look for stuff on the floor to burn to roast people

- Lure them to water to zippy-zap them

- Hack some turrets/sentry bots/ etc. to turn their own weapons against them

- Plant some mines and bait them.

OR:

- Shoot them.

- Shoot them some more.

- If that doesn't work, electricity plus the wrench will take out 90% of guys

Bioshock does well in presenting lots of options. Almost too well, in fact. One of it's biggest problems (and the one that resurfaces with a vengeance in Bioshock Infinite) is that you don't really need to use all the resources available. With the exception if the hardest difficulty and if you turn of the Vita-chambers (read: infinite free respawns at full  health, while your enemies stay at whatever damage you dealt them), 90% of the game can be beaten with the starting plasmid and the starting wrench. With a few minor augments and a dash of skill, you'll easily zap-whack your way through most Splicers you encounter, leaving the rest of your insane arsenal to burn in one fell swoop against the Big Daddy fights. It's that theory people talk about: if you give a player one really good combo at the start of the game, it doesn't matter how many other combos you give them later, people will just use that one combo over and over. Bioshock teaches you the one-two punch at the very start (shock+wrench), and it never becomes ineffective.

Well, it doesn't work against THESE guys.

That isn't to say you aren't rewarded in other ways for screwing around. Setting off an alarm only to hack five or six bots and have your own squadron of death is pretty funny, but unnecessary. Placing mines and then baiting people into them is a laugh, though shooting them with the mines directly (or just...with bullets) also gets the job done. Since the "dual-wield guns and plasmids" hasn't been invented yet, swapping between the two is a bit of a chore, meaning when I got tired of the one-two punch I just upgraded my shotgun and machine gun until everything got mowed down. Since you are a jack-of-all-trades (unlike System Shock 2, which forces you to specialize), you don't feel like you're building your own unique character. Instead you have a guy who is good at just about everything, so why hack something when you can just shoot it?

Point being: Bioshock has lots of options, but replaying it I found I hardly ever used any of them. I'd ignore tar pits to burn people with fire, usually only zap in water if it happened to be convenient, and just min-maxed my shotgun to Shock Ammo (the best weapon against Big Daddies) and crushed everything else with the one-two punch. Unfortunate? Perhaps. But certainly a flaw of the gameplay. At least the shooting feels solid. 

They really love Ryan here.

When you aren't zap-punching dudes in the face, you're usually rummaging through old trash cans to eat month old chips and pep bars. Yep, the scavenging mechanic from System Shock 2 is back, though it's a bit less useful this time around. Most stuff doesn't go to your inventory (except money, which is sort of important if you like just buying ammo to victory) and is consumed on use, and most gives you minor boots to health and Eve (aka MP), so you'll spend most time mashing X next to any consumables without even reading it and hope you get some health or magic or money. Multiply the dozens of things in any given room with the extra dozen enemies, and your X button will get quite a workout. It was novel at the time I suppose (though, again, System Shock 2's system had more of a point, if it was a bit more cumbersome about it), and the idea of my guy digging through trash cans to eat peanuts is kind of funny in and of itself, but considering the availability of health packs and Eve syringes, you could probably cut all the random garbage to collect and just give people money upon killing enemies and everybody would be fine. One might argue it's immersive, but honestly it's just another chore.

This game still looks great, especially the PC version.

If there's one thing Bioshock does perfectly well (aside from it's incredible setting) it's the detail and work done in the graphics and sound. The world itself is, as mentioned before, absurdly fleshed out, and this is only heightened by the phenomenal graphics and art design. Splicers, while their design does get old, are delightfully creepy, saying some disturbing things as they try to rip your lungs out. The juxtaposition of this dystopian insanity verses the paradise that Ryan keeps spouting at you (and the remnants of which are visible as you dig deeper through Rapture) makes for a disturbing dissonance that really shines. Something beautiful was here, and the art shows it, but now it's covered in blood and body parts.

The sound is also great, evoking the era through rustic background music that haunts the empty (or not-so-empty) halls of rapture. Big Daddies sound especially horrifying, their booming bass tones sending chills down my spine even when I can't spot them yet. The voice actors are great all around, with Ryan absolutely stealing the show every time you turn around, but the supporting cast (through audiologs) also excels. There is no doubting the insane production values in this game, and it makes for a memorable experience.

Atlas is a good counterpoint to Ryan throughout, though in the last third he becomes...boring.

With all my critiquing you might think I hate Bioshock. On the contrary: revisiting Rapture was, for me, a magical experience back into a world I'd forgotten I'd loved. The game is still genuinely creepy, with the first few hours of limited ammo and Eve making it survival horror-esque, and I still can't help but admire the insane attention to detail present in this dying world.

That being said, it is still unfortunate the actual gameplay can be boiled down fairly easily for those simply wanting to win. It is worth noting that the game does scale somewhat in terms of difficulty, though again...that last third you are basically just mowing down people. It's sort of the Resident Evil 4 problem where you have to get better equips or you won't feel like you are progressing, but then the game stops being scary and instead is just sort of busywork as you mow down people (to it's credit, I think Resident Evil 4 did it right all the way up to the helicopter fight). 

Is it the perfect game? No. It's aged and clunky and sort of loses sight of it's goals at the end. Is it still a fantastic experience and one of the best worlds to visit in gaming? Absolutely. In fact, it should be "required viewing" for anybody who takes games seriously, if only for it's unique setting and stunning production values. While it might not be the "Genetically Altered Shooter" it said it was on the box, Bioshock is still worth it for the ride, and what a ride it is. 

Four out of five stars. 

Moral of the story: If you're a cat, don't splice up. 

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

The Short

Pros
- Reinvented Castlevania by taking the aesthetic and mixing it with Metroid-style exploration
- Single-handedly invented the "Metroidvania" (or "Castletroid" if you're a tool) genre
- RPG elements including leveling, gear, and currency all play a role in this new style
- Fantastic 2D art mixed with some 2D and 3D backdrops make the game look good
- Music is absolutely some of the best in the series with almost all new tracks
- Long adventure, with the "inverse castle" twist still crazy
- First game to introduce Ayami Kojima's fantastic gothic artwork for the series
- Buttload of secrets, including fighting game-style magic combos
- Can be a genuine challenge if you play with the "max luck, low everything else" code, which makes the game as hard as the old-school Castlevanias (aka the best way to play SOTN)
- "WHAT IS A MAN?!"

Cons
- Game balance in terms of difficulty is all over the place.
- That being said, 99% of the game is pretty easy, the exception being a few bosses
- These said bosses you pretty much have to cheese using the broken and op items (the sword dropped in the inverse library or the Shield Rod + Alucard Shield combo)
- Recycles a lot of assets from Rondo of Blood from the CD Engine.
- Marked the official end of linear style Castlevania games, which is too bad
- Spawned roughly eight trillion modern day indie (and commercial) games that knocked off the game's formula
- Inverse castle is basically just a hard-mode straight shot, without any story and just one song for the whole area (what is up with that?)
- PSP re-release re-dubbed and retranslated all the lines. They aren't much better, but the corniness is gone, so that's a con.

Dracula: Expert on men and what they are.

The Long

Symphony of the Night was NOT the first Metroidvania game I ever played. That reward goes to Circle of the Moon, though I beat Aria of Sorrow first. I just figured I'd toss that out there just so you know I play games in totally the wrong order, and that's ok.

Anyway, everybody's heard the story, whether or not it's true. Koji Igarashi went to Sony to say that they wanted to make not a 3D, but a 2D Castlevania game on their new Playstation system. Sony told him to suck it up and make it 3D, because 3D was the future. Then Koji went to Konami, and Konami said "No 2D Castlevania, no Metal Gear Solid," so Sony relented. Then the game actually sold pretty badly on release and only really picked up after gaining a cult following a few years down the road (enough to get it "Greatest Hits" status, at least).

I think this story is totally fake, but it does prove a point: game developers know what is good for their series. Most of the time. If you look at Symphony of the Night and compare it to the "modern" 3D Castlevania 64, it's pretty clear that Sony got the way better deal out of this.

Nintendo really should have looked into that "Blast Processing" tech when it had the chance. 

Anyway, the game is pretty much a legend at this point, because it spawned the genre that Castlevania stuck pretty rigidly too in regards to it's handheld iterations for over a decade. It wasn't until Lords of Shadow had to show up and ruin everything that our 2D Castlevanias were squarely in the "Metroidvania" category of game design.

But let's say you know nothing about this nonsense I'm spouting, and need a full rundown. Is this game good? Has it aged well? Is it worth playing on it's re-release on every gaming system ever? Well...probably. I guess. Here's a review anyway.

That's using your head. 

Story-wise, it's the same old nonsense, though it does present it in an interesting way. The game actually starts on the last level of Rondo of Blood (complete with it's level intro graphic, though it calls the stage "Bloodlines," which is in fact the first stage in Rondo of Blood. Come on, Konami, I'm just a huge nerd, I didn't even design the game and I noticed this!), where you as Rictor Belmont bust into Dracula's joint and whip him good. Following which you get a massive text crawl explaining Rictor is missing, and Dracula's son Alucard (last seen in Castlevania III: True Blood) is off to punch him in the face and blow up his castle.

So you play as Alucard instead of a whipping Belmont. This isn't the first time we've mixed it up (Bloodlines didn't have a Belmont, and it had a dude with a whip and a dude with a spear), but the fact there are no whips at all until after you beat the game and enter an unlock to play as Rictor is pretty unique.

Anyway, the story's simple. Rictor's lost his marbles and thinks he's the king of Castlevania, and his sister Maria (who has gone from being a tiny girl to an actual woman) wants Alucard to beat some sense into him. The game does have different endings (based on if you kill Rictor or bring him to his senses, which unlocks a buttload more game to play) which is neat, but the story is hardly worth mentioning.

Minus the atrocious script and god-awful voice acting. It's so bad it's downright lovely. Seriously, I really, really dig this game's atrocious voice actors. They weren't even trying.

You tell 'em, Rictor. 

No, the biggest change is this is not a linear, straight shot Castlevania game. Instead, you as Alucard are tasked to explore the entirety of the castle, gaining power-ups and items that allow you to access further and deeper portions in your quest to find the princess. Wait, that's Mario. Whatever. 

If that sounds like Metroid, then you're both right and have reading comprehension, because I only mentioned that like fifteen times already. The map screen? Ripped from Metroid. Power ups like double jump to get to new areas? Metroid. It does have a few super cool changes, like Alucard can change into a sprinting dog, form of mist to pass through grates and other small areas, and a bat that can fly, all of which unlock new areas to further your exploration. It's cool, and you can see how they took the Metroid formula, flavored it up with some Castlevania style, and it ended up alright. 

The main difference is this isn't a game that you can speed run, nor one that is based on skill like Metroid or the earlier Castlevanias. While, yes, some skill is required for the bosses, the game actually has a level-up system, similar to Simon's Quest. Sort of. Only not at all. I just thought I'd drop that comparison for some reason.

You get XP and level, learn spells by inputting fighting game-style combo moves, find new weapons and armor and equip them, all in a 2D platforming sense. This isn't the first time this has been done (one could argue Zelda 2 did it a billion years before), but it actually feels...well, good. While skill can technically be replaced with level grinding and number crunching, it's still very satisfying to get that 3D "Level Up!" text and have Alucard glow all crazy. Mixing RPG elements with Metroid exploration was, frankly, brilliant, and it shows because they kept using it for future games.

The combination of 2D and 3D in the backgrounds makes this game gorgeous. 

All is not perfect in Symphony of the Night, however. While the equips and level up system are nice, they're also a bit simple. In fact, the whole game feels a bit dumbed down. Focus isn't really on the enemies or the challenge, the meticulous platforming and merciless bosses. Instead it's about exploration and the adventure of finding every secret and rotting in every nook and cranny the castle has to offer. Is this bad? No, not really. But it is quite different from other Castlevania games in nearly every regard. As well as much, much easier. 

While one can argue the second or inverse castle offers the real challenge (and it does), the whole first half of the game is an absolute cakewalk. This is mostly because Alucard, unlike his Belmont buddies in earlier games, controls like a dream. He slides gracefully with way too many frames of animation across the screen, can change his direction mid-air, can easily morph into any animal or form he wants, and has a quick-dash to get him out of sticky situations (or just slide across the floor for fun in reverse). Much like Super Castlevania IV, the game didn't really scale it's difficulty for all these new abilities, meaning if you even have a basic grasp of how to play a 2D platformer you'll stomp your way through this game in no time. Minus the few secret bosses that you have to cheese to beat with the absolutely broken "ultra" weapons. Balance is thrown out the window pretty quickly in, and it just keeps blasting out of control from there. You could be murdering things without even trying, take a wrong turn, and die in two hits. It's a bit like a massive mixed bag of imbalance. 

That looks like a good place to go. 

What isn't a giant mixed bag of imbalance is the graphics and music. I'll say I think this is one of the best looking and sounding PS1 games out there, and certainly the best 2D one. The pixel art is phenomenal and gothic, with the backgrounds often hybridizing 2D and 3D elements to make it feel both modern and retro. As mentioned, Alucard has way too many frames of pixelated animation to be legal, and the enemies all look phenomenal, from the huge bosses to the tiny skeletons.

The music is also absolutely rocking, so much so I actually imported the soundtrack. The opening song (which I will embed below) is probably one of my favorite intro songs in a game to date, with all the rest being just as fantastic. I really only have two gripes: the absence of any "classic" Castlevania tunes (Bloody Tears, Vampire Hunter, etc.) and the fact that the inverted castle uses the same song for 90% of it. Seriously? And it isn't even that great of a song compared to the rest. Come on, guys.

Now that's rockin.'

Symphony of the Night is difficult to review, mostly because of my immense love for the linear Castlevania games. That being said, I absolutely fell in love with SOTN after I first played it, and even to this day I often revisit the game and rebeat it, both with Alucard and the unlocked Rictor. While it does have some serious balance problems, and most skill is easily replaced by grinding or just knowing where the broken items are, Symphony of the Night remains a complete and wholly decent adventure into Dracula's lair. While I honestly wouldn't rank it up as high on my favorites as the best 2D linear Castlevania games, I can say it is still one of my favorites in the series, and highly recommend you get the re-release on PSN or Xbox 360 if you haven't already. 

A new direction, a new style for Castlevania, and a hundred indie game creators rejoice. Finally, something they can overuse now that they've ground duel-stick shooters into the ground.

Four out of five stars. 

What is going on here I don't even know.