Conan

The Short


Pros
-Violent, visceral combat that is very satisfying
- Three weapon styles that have their own trees to level up
- Reasonably long quest with tons of combat and a few puzzles
- Ron Perlman does the voice of Conan

Cons
- Ugly
- Gets dull and repetitive very quickly
- While voice acting is...decent, the script is so awful it doesn't matter
- Conan uses magic? Did these people even READ a Conan novel?
- Collectibles are topless women chained to poles. Pandering much?
- Rips off God of War shamelessly but doesn't come close to reaching its height
- Final boss is Viking: Battle of Asgard bad. Really, really frustrating.

That's using your head!

The Long

So...Conan. Lover of life. Lover of women. Lover of killing stuff. How is it they haven't made a billion games about this guy? Say what you want, Conan has been a relatively untapped market. Despite the recent movie starring Khal Drogo from Game of Thrones, Conan has had the short end of the stick for a while. Yeah, they made an MMO that quickly went free to play, but in terms of action games there's been a dearth. 

This is probably because this game, aptly titled just Conan, poisoned the well for most video gamers. Because, despite the fact that Conan is a character practically made for video games, Nihilistic brilliantly and totally ruined him in this mediocre, boring God of War knockoff. 

But hey, since you need me to prove my claims, here's the rest of the review!

If there's anything Conan hates, it's undead skeleton mammoths trapped in tar pits trying to kill him.

So there's a story in Conan, but it's not particularly interesting. Conan has magic armor (I thought he hated magic?) that gets stolen by some evil person and turned into demons or something, and so he has to kill guys and get laid a lot. Sounds like a Conan story. 

There isn't much here, but there is one rather big error: during the adventure Conan gets magic. Which makes sense if you are ripping off God of War, but in the Conan mythology Conan hates all magic. So there is no way he'd be seen dead with it. Did they even read the books? Why bother branding the guy if you can't even get that the one key element of his story right?

I think this is going to end badly for the one that isn't Conan. Which is how it usually goes. 

Luckily, the rest of the key elements are here, if a bit underplayed. Well, not the bloody gore of Conan; that is here and in spades. If they did anything right, it was the violence: this is a brutal game. Legs, arms, and heads must all be attached by spiderwebs and no bones because they fly off at the slightest provocation. Blood sprays all over the place like every person is a crimson fountain, and all the while Conan spouts awful one-liners like "Let Krom judge you!" or "One less dog in the streets!" Look, Ron Perlman, I think you're a good actor. Underrated, even. But you really did a crap job here. Your Conan sounds like a bored fat man, not a badass warrior who love life. You should be roaring in elation when you lop a dude's arms off and then lop both legs and his head off just to be sure (gotta double tap, you know). Instead he's just like...moping around. 

The combat is still the best part of the game, and has a few unique tricks. First thing is you have three unique fighting styles: duel wielding, sword and shield, or a double handed weapon (spears or axes). Basically the differences are speed vs power, with shield having the extra boon of more blocks (which you'll never need). Weapons are dropped all the time so you can switch styles at need, and the game forces you to for certain enemies which is both annoying and a good way to force people to variate. 

It's like they saw the hydra fight in God of War and thought, "Let's do the exact same thing. Exactly."

Another trick is the counter system. If you block at exactly the right time, an enemy will get a random button over their head and if you tap it, it's an instant kill. I actually think this is a great idea because the one thing I hate about these games is picking off the weak fodder. They are only there to die and make you feel cool, so why not make them really easy? It's too bad you don't get to pick what your counter kill will be, and they don't have nearly enough of them to remain interesting, but I like the mechanic. And lopping a guy's arms, legs, AND head off for no good reason other than to justify the M rating.

Speaking of justifying the M rating, this game has a truckload of boobs in it. Which fits, I guess, because Conan's stories were always about super-busty native chicks who don't understand the idea of a bra or public decency getting all up over Conan if he so much as looks in their direction. But here they are the "collectables" in the game, which basically means you find a topless bronze buxom babes just, you know, hanging out waiting to be set free and then disappear. So...ok. Seems a bit gratuitous, and it isn't like Conan gets any action or anything. I guess they were like "maybe the insane amounts of blood and guts won't hide the fact we are ripping off God of War enough, so if we add tons of boobs people will overlook it!"

Then Steve the intern raised his hand and was like "But, um God of War has tons of boobs too. And a sex minigame. So in truth we are really just looking more like God of War knockoffs." 

And then Steve was swiftly fired and Conan came out. 

Poor Steve. 

Going back to the combat: it's all well and good but it gets boring. You have a tech tree to level up but the changes never feel particularly significant aside the initial ones. You can spread your points across all three trees, but then you'll be a jack of all trades but master of none, so I'd just put everything in the fast duel wielding and call it good. While countering and lopping up dudes is great for the first hour, after that it's the same boring mess over and over again. It does throw in some harder enemies that you have to like, sometimes dodge I guess, but in truth the variety is sparse and the whole gratuitous violence thing gets old. 

And then you get to the final boss, and you realize just how unplaytested this game was. 

I couldn't find a picture of the final boss, so you get this instead. 

I mentioned in my Viking: Battle of Asgard review how bad that final boss was, but thinking back I honestly believe Conan's is worse. It's a battle of attrition you are set to lose, against a boss that has multiple forms and if you fail once you go back to the beginning. I'll spare you the details, just know it takes 30 - 45 minutes to beat this guy, and yes, you can lose all that progress by one little mistake. Never mind the hit detection is cheap, you are on a platform with ledges on all sides (insta-death), and hitting him does about as much damage as flicking his ears, but man...way to ruin your game. Seriously, I don't think it's possible on Hard. 

They should decapitate whoever designed the last boss. Seriously. 

This game is also downright hideous, even for an early Xbox 360 / PS3 game. Character models are bland and look like they are made out of plastic, backdrops have the same boring textures with no real bumpmapping to speak of, shadows are weak and uninteresting, and even the blood looks really stupid. They do get points for making Conan's face look like he's constantly going "DURRR," a dorky look only equaled by the new Prince's face in Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands. Also yeah, boobs, but only if you really get off with awful looking video game boobs, which if you do you are a bad person and really need to get out more. 

Sound is also mediocre. As stated, Ron Perlman phones it in with the awful one-liners Conan spouts out, and the supporting cast is poor at best. Sound effects lack punch (though some of the hits do feel nice and heavy) and as a whole the production values are just lackluster all around. Not a great game to show off your new TV with.

Unless you want to test your full "red" spectrum. 

I am kind of ashamed to admit it, but Conan was the first game I ever beat on my Xbox 360. At the time I actually had a decent experience, because I was fresh off God of War 2 and God of War 3 was a long ways out (and not on a system I had currently owned). However, even then I recognized this game as the cheap, middling experience that it was. 

Conan isn't completely awful. The first few hours are descent and it makes for a lot of great inside jokes (a friend of mine and I love to yell "ONE LESS DOG IN THE STREETS" for no reason in the awful, underplayed Conan voice) but as it stands it's just a mediocre product. If you really need a bloody hack-n-slash and already played Viking: Battle for Asgard, I suppose you could do a lot worse. But unless you can pick it up for like $5 you are overspending. 

Two out of five stars. 

I named this image file "wowgraphics." I think we'll just leave it at that. 

The Maw

The Short


Pros
- Silly little adventure about eating stuff to get bigger and than eating more stuff
- In that way, it's kind of like Katamary Damacy, only with a giant purple blob
- Charm and humor completely sell the game, and hit all the right notes
- Has a bizarre wit about it that will appeal to both kids and adults
- KING YUM.

Cons
- Short
- Gameplay is repetitive and a bit insubstantial
- DLC feels like it was cut from the game

HELLO. 

The Long

The Maw is the first game by the most excellent Twisted Pixel, maker of such fine products as The Gunstringer and not so fine products as The Adventures of Captain Smiley. They also sent me a Christmas card a few years back, so they are a-ok in my book. And that means this review is going to be totally biased. Whatever. 

Anyway, The Maw is a simple game with a simple goal: feed the Maw. Feed him until he grows, than feed him some more. It's essentially Katamari Damacy, only with eating instead of rolling. And I'm fine with that.

The characters are very expressive, selling the cute and silliness of this whole thing. 

The game is broke up into stages, wherein you have to feed the Maw to get him to a certain size, and when you do the exit magically unlocks. Yeah, that part is a bit...contrived, but the rest of it works quite great. The Maw takes a page from Kirby's book and can steal the powers of certain enemies he eats, turning into altered Maws with a wide range of abilities. He can float for some levels, breath fire, shoot lightning, and more. All of them incorporate into the simple puzzles and platforming the game has, and while it never gets very difficult it does tax you a little bit, so it strikes a good balance. 

You drive the Maw around with your remote (and if he gets too far you can call him to you), directing him to the food because he can't seem to manage that himself. Controls for jumping and eating are decent but not particularly refined, but they work because the game is simple. This ain't Mario or anything; it's a game about feeding a purple blob until he eats the entire world. Literally.

Flame on!

But enough boring stuff; here is why The Maw is awesome: it's hilarious. The Maw is a fat, greedy purple blob of joy, who will not hesitate in consuming even the cutest creature from the main character's mouth. He's also a massive coward, despite the fact that he could just eat anything, so he'll often run screaming from anything intimidating (in cutscenes), which is also entertaining. Even if he's bigger than them. Oh, Maw.

Both the Maw and the alien who has a name but I forgot have an excellent range of exaggerated emotions, which also goes a long way in selling the zany, silly humor. It's clearly a game aimed at kids, but plenty of the jokes also work for adults (or adults-in-progress) which makes the character endearing, entertaining, and hilarious. 

We liked him so much we got a plushie and put him on our Gingerbread house last Christmas. 

This is pretty much a perfect kid's game, with nothing offensive to be found and the humor being more silly than crude. The gameplay is simple and runs into repetition after just a few stages (though the stages with the most variety seem to be hidden behind DLC...which is a shame) but the draw of watching the Maw eat everything and get bigger and bigger to the inevitable crazy finale is worth it. It does depend a lot on your enjoyment of silliness, but if you play the demo and laugh at least once (love the Kill Bill reference in the opening, by the way) you should probably give the whole thing a spin.

Waaaaaaaaaah!

On a more self-indulgent point, that plush Maw is awesome (even if the plastic around his collar is starting to get worn). We have a truckload of video game plushies, but the Maw is still the favorite. Mostly because he eats everything (the red Angry Bird fits perfectly in his mouth) but he also has a tendency to attack my wife's face when she's sleeping. Bad Maw!

It's also worth noting that the bad puns ("You're MAW-some!") were another thing my wife latched onto, and we still make horrible Maw jokes nearly all the time. It's been like three years since we bought this game, and it's still going. I don't know if that says more to how endearing we found this game, or how pathetic we are as human beings. Um...the former. Has to be the former. 

Nothing good can come of this.

As it stands, I'll admit The Maw is not for everybody. It's very simple, repetitive, has only decent graphics (though the art is nice) and relies a lot on its charm to sell it. But for us, it really hit a chord. I still boot this game up and replay the first few (and then last few) levels and revel in the immense stupidity and insanity that is The Maw. It's an extremely charming game that should be a no-brainer to pick up if you have kids, but even us "hardcore gamers" who spend our days blasting noobs in Call of Duty might need a brief respite from that now and again. And The Maw is perfect for that.

Also, "MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW!"

Four out of five stars. 

PS: Twisted Pixel: MAKE THE MAW 2! Seriously! With Kinect support! It would be awesome!

Plus, somebody should buy me this statue. For um...science. Or something. 

Medal of Honor

The Short


Pros
- Fast paced, gritty single player set in modern day Iraq and Afghanistan
- Solid shooting as would be expected from Dice
- Game looks really quite good at times
- Voice acting is solid throughout
- Has a pretty great soundtrack as well
- Multiplayer's "Points" system to earn perks and upgrades is a neat change from Call of Duty's formula

Cons
- Multiplayer attempts to merge Call of Duty and Battlefield and fails on both sides
- Seriously, the multiplayer is really broken
- Speaking of which, Online Passes are stupid when your leading competitor doesn't have them
- Single player is extremely short and has a completely unbelievable ending
- Runs at a solid 30 FPS, but compared to Call of Duty's 60 FPS it seems...insubstantial
- Aren't we getting tired of these "USA #1!!" games where we go to other countries and shoot up native residents?
- Does nothing to differentiate itself from all the other gray modern military shooters

That beard has heard the call of duty

The Long

It's no secret that Call of Duty is pretty freaking huge. Something about it's constantly rewarding, fast-paced arcade shooter action really clicks for a whole lot of people (mostly 12-year-olds who got their parents to buy the game for them) and it escalated into the juggernaut franchise it currently is. 

EA, publisher of Battlefield which could be considered Call of Duty's direct competitor, saw the bucketloads of cash Activision was swimming in and decided that they too needed a modern military action shooter, neglecting the fact they already had one. It was called Battlefield. So they went back to their PC roots and resurrected an old World War II shooter IP: Medal of Honor. 

The persistent pitch for this game was that it was "Call of Duty made by the Battlefield guys (aka Dice)." They also went above and beyond saying they interviewed Tier Two operatives who were currently on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming they'd make this game as "authentic" as possible.

So...did they pull it off?

Yeah, cause running around killing hundreds of dudes out of cover is an "Authentic military simulation."

The single player is actually the best part of Call of Duty...er, sorry, Medal of Honor. Set in the modern day middle east, you play as a rookie (don't you always) to the Tier Two operatives, basically the badasses of the army. There's some plot involving a terrorist...something and...uh...actually I don't remember the story. While Call of Duty has gone completely off the rails recently in its stupidity, Medal of Honor tends to focus more on more "down to earth" problems and smaller missions, which I'm fine with.

I said I liked the single player, but for the life of me I can't remember why. I have fond memories, but looking back on the important details that make a story good I'm drawing a blank. I don't remember any characters (except awesome beard man, seen two pictures above). I remember doing lots of shooting down the sights, a mission where I was a sniper, a mission where I manned a turret, a mission at night, and a few vehicle sections. And I remember a final mission with an absurd level of guys I had to kill, like in the hundreds just in that mission. Realism my ass. As much as I respect Tier Two Operatives for having the balls to do their jobs every day (and I really do, honest; I couldn't do it) I doubt five of them could gun down thousands of terrorists in broad daylight without cover and emerge without a scratch. This isn't realism; it's Call of Duty.

Oh yeah, and a stealth mission. They really covered all their bases. 

Like Call of Duty's single player, it also got predicable. As mentioned above, it covers all the "necessities" of a single-player modern military shooter, and...not much else. This game really feels like EA came to Dice and said "Make a Call of Duty game, down to every detail"... and they did. Which is fine, I suppose, because the game is well paced and has a good blend of fast-paced shootouts with slower moments, but as  a whole it does nothing unique whatsoever.

Oh yeah, there was some politician who kept making stupid orders. I remember that, now.  Cliche!

But hey, you aren't buying this game for the single player (in theory, anyway), you are buying it for the multiplayer! Dice, legendary Battlefield creators, making an arcade shooter? It's like the best of both worlds! How could they go wrong?

Well, the first thing that they do wrong you see right when you open the box (or don't see, if you buy used): an online pass. Seriously, these things straight up piss me off. You market this game as the online "Call of Duty killer" and then make it so anybody buying used is locked out of online unless they pay an additional $15? Really? This is in addition to me paying for Xbox Live Gold (which I'm seriously wondering why I buy it at this point) and is you locking me out of a key feature of the game because I wanted to save a few bucks. Oh hey, what's that? Call of Duty doesn't have these stupid things, because Activision isn't as stupid as EA? What's that, EA puts these in single player games now, too? Wow, how totally insane! Well, I guess I know which multiplayer shooter I'll be picking up: THE ONE THAT LETS ME PLAY MULTIPLAYER.

Luckily I managed to "find" a code at my local Gamestop, so I was able to play the multiplayer while still having bought the game used. Guess what? It still sucks.

It isn't for lack of trying; more because of pigeonholing

At it's core, this is Call of Duty (or any shooter like it). You get modern guns with iron sights or red dot sites, aim down these sights for increased accuracy, and try to shot the guy before he shoots you. Pretty basic. It also has a killstreak system similar to Call of Duty, but with a twist: each level requires "points" rather than kills. Points can be earned with kills, assists, or capturing objectives. It rewards you for actually doing mission objectives (something Call of Duty just now figured out is a good thing to do) which means people in Domination might actually capture a point sometime rather than camp and play it like Team Deathmatch for some inexplicable reason.

Another cool thing (which Modern Warfare 3 stole) is when you get to a reward unlock, you pick either an offensive or defensive one. Offensive can be airstrikes or whatever, while defensive can increase your team's armor or provide healing or stuff like that. It's a neat idea, one that Modern Warfare 3 did a bit better, but mixed with the points system it actually shines.

Too bad the actual shooting in this game is totally broken.

Gee, this looks awful familiar.

Let me get the biggest issue out of the way first: spawning in this game is totally busted, as is sniper rifles. When, put together, you can probably guess the issue: spawn camping. Because of the way the maps are designed, often times you can spawn and immediately be killed by a camping sniper. Many sniper rifles are one-shot kills (or two, but are still semi-auto) meaning they can destroy you just a few seconds after returning to battle. Added bonus that the spawn points don't variate enough to provide you with any sort of surprise; you'll spawn in one of three very similar spots, and odds are somebody is camping it.

Nearly every match quickly turns into a snipe-fest. And unlike Call of Duty, there's a respawn timer in this game, which only exacerbates things when you wait 15-20 seconds, show back up, die instantly, and go back to waiting. It's completely awful. 

It ignores the customization and perks from Call of Duty in favor of a Battlefield-esque class system

On the very rare occasion that you get to a match that isn't a snipefest, the game still isn't that great. Unlike Call of Duty, which runs at a constant 60 FPS clip (making the action smooth and fast), Medal of Honor is locked in at 30, and you can tell the difference. The Frostbite engine, which allows destruction of building, is pretty neat but very underutilized; there's way more stuff in this game that can't be blown up than can. Actual shooting with regular person guns is also not particularly fantastic. Since you are limited to three classes you don't really get the freedom of choosing guns and attachments the competition (both Call of Duty and Battlefield) provides, so shooting never feels very personal. The actual aiming is decent but not great, and often I felt guys took way too many bullets to go down. It's like a weird bastard child of Call of Duty and Battlefield, while only keeping the worst aspects of both parents. It's like a slower, gimped version of Call of Duty that lacks the arcade feel; or a faster, less tactical version of Battlefield which loses the squad mechanics and cooperation. It's the worst of both worlds. 

Enough about the multiplayer. It sucks. Done. 

Graphically the game actually looks pretty fantastic. They do an excellent work with lighting especially to make things look both vibrant and realistic. Natural rocks in this game (especially ones with snow on them) look really really good for some reason, and the vistas you gaze over before going around to shoot a hundred more dudes are actually very majestic and pretty. This is a good looking game, minus a rare flat texture or weird graphical silliness caused by the allowed destruction in the Frostbite engine.

Sound is also very good, with voice work being top-notch (if very f-word heavy) but the real star is the sound effects. Every boom, bullet fired, or reload sounds great (if exactly like the Battlefield games) and packs a serious punch. It's Dice, they know how to make their war games look and sound great.

The game looks good. Too bad it doesn't play as such. 

As it stands, Medal of Honor seems like an experiment that failed. Nobody really picked it up, and the second Call of Duty: Black Ops showed up everybody abandoned it. When I played (which was a little while after Black Ops' release), there were only 1,500 people playing, only a few months after Medal of Honor's release. I'm sure the online pass thing didn't help, but compared to the hundreds of thousands on Call of Duty every single day, it's clear that this experiment didn't really work.

Then again, it sold enough that it's getting a sequel, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. In either case, if you are thinking about picking it up: don't. This is a second-rate military shooter in a world cram packed with games like these. If you really want another single player that involves murdering a bunch of foreigners while screaming "USA! USA!" then this is actually a pretty good game for that. But if you want a solid multiplayer experience, look to the competition. 

Two out of five stars. 

BEARD.

Game Dev Story

The Short


Pros
- Silly, addicting little game simulating running a game-making company
- Has a massive amount of variety, factors, and depth when it comes to making games
- While more a game than a simulation itself, the core things work wonderfully
- Seriously, you think you are going to play for five minutes, and next thing you know it's been four hours
- Allows you to start a new game with the (majority) of your upgrades intact
- Parodies of real-world consoles and development stages are entertaining and cute
- I made a "Bikini Kart Racer" on the Game Boy that sold three million copies and got two sequels on a Blu-Ray home system. Game of the year.
- Also, you can hire a monkey

Cons
- If you are Min/Max gamer, this game will ruin you
- Also, if you are not someone who plays games a lot, the complete lack of instruction can be annoying
- It hides most of its math, etc. behind the cute visuals, so it can be hard to know why a game succeeded or failed
- The first hour or so you only make games that suck, which can be discouraging
- Making your own console is so obscure I'm fairly certain nobody has figured it out without reading a guide
- Doesn't use the full iOS/Android screen, and doesn't have retina display support

Yes, I made a wrestling MMO called Wrestle Online. Game of the Year. 

The Long

Before I begin it's worth noting that my wife already reviewed most of Kairosoft's Games on her blog. She's played more of them than I have, and while I've spent at least a little time in all of them, all in all Game Dev Story is really the only one that I couldn't stop playing and spent enough time with to review. Point being: they make some excellent iOS and Android games, all in the style of the old "Tycoon" games, and are worth checking out if you own an device.

But Game Dev Story is my favorite. Here's why.

My game company, Hacktavision, making the big bucks. 

Game Dev Story is about as meta as at gets. A game simulating game making? How quaint! But beneath the colorful visuals and deceivingly simple interface, Game Dev Story is a deep and complex simulation game, one that does a damned good job of sucking all your time away when you least expected it to.

The point is simple: you have fifteen years to make the biggest game company in the world. You start of small in (what I assume) is around 1984-1985, with the NES being the newest big thing. You start with just four employees, but as your games get better and you start winning awards and getting fanmail you'll move to a bigger office and hire more people. All the while new game consoles are coming out (which are entertaining parodies of real-world systems; I always wanted to make a Virtual Boy game) so you have to manage licencing fees in order to keep up with the trend (protip: just build Game Boy games. Seriously, that thing was around forever and always relevant). 

It's funny because it's "Intendro"

So how do you make a game? Well, Game Dev Story streamlines the process. Essentially you start with a limited number of genres and styles, and you mix-and-match two (like "Bikini" and "MMO"), pick your game system, and start development. It always happens in three stages: design, graphics, and sound, where you can pick employees to give it "stats" boosts. Every game also has five key stats: Gameplay, creativity, graphics, sound, and bugs. The amount you earn during the allotted "design time" (no vaporware here; your games are always released on a deadline) depends on employees, and its always followed by bugtesting (or you can just ship the game buggy and take a hit to your scores). Then you sit back and watch the profits roll in! Or design your next game. Which would be smart. 

There's just so much to do in this game it's almost overwhelming. If you are low on cash you can just do side-jobs for other companies to earn the money to fund your next big project. Advertising is important, as you have to cater to both genders as well as a wide range of ages. Consoles rise and fall with market share, and putting a game out on the more popular ones is smart but expensive. Employees need to be trained and leveled up, earning access to new genres and types, but you also need to cycle through them in order to make the best team. Picking a right genre/type combination (like Action RPG + Fantasy) will level it up, earning you points to put into making your game have a niche appeal, be more accessible, etc. Sell well enough and a game can earn a direct sequel, boosting sales but if the sequel sucks the franchise dies. Lastly, you'll receive fanmail, be featured on various gaming magazines, compete to win various Game of the Year awards, and go to E3 every year. Yeah, all in a little silly handheld game. Nuts. 

Fantasy RPGs are expensive to develop, but can move a TON of units. 

It's extremely addicting, mostly because you are constantly being rewarded. While it is possible to screw up and run out of money completely, usually you are just teetering on the brink between financial success and ruin, making every game's sales absolutely necessary for your company to survive. But, seeing as it is smart to be designing your next game while the previous is selling, you'll be watching sales while working on Bikini Online 2.0 or Guitar Hero Space Shooter. It's very hard to stop making just "one more game," and this was the first iOS game I literally played from 100% battery life down to 0%. Hours and hours sitting in the BYU Library when I should have been studying. Whoops.

Like most Kairosoft Games, however, it has one rather big issue: the in-game tutorials are almost nonexistent. The game gives you the bare basics on how the game works, directing you in how to make your first game, but never bothers telling you how to make a game good or which stats are preferable for which stages of the design process or anything like that. So your first run you might fumble about for the first decade while trying to get your bearings, though it does make the game more intense when you are struggling against total financial and company-wide ruin. Most of your upgrades carry over to new games, so your second playthrough will almost always be better than the first. Just...don't try to Min/Max your stats in this, trust me. It's possible but extremely difficult and has a hefty amount of luck involved. It'll kill you. Seriously.

"Worked really hard?" For 1 Gameplay and 42 Creativity? Somebody needs a motivational poster!

There are a few other little niggles. You can only have one save aside from the autosave, meaning sharing the game is impossible. While it does try to cover a very wide scope of the video game industry, some stuff is neglected. Why, if I make a game console, do I not receive royalties from people making games from it? Why is the PC always the worst console throughout the whole game (if you want a bigger challenge, try beating the game only making PC games. It's hard!)? Why is the best console I can make only 64 Bit, when I can put a Blu-Ray player in there? Why can't I influence market share if I consistently put awesome, high selling games out on a failing system? How on earth did I sell 10 million copies of Ninja: A Noire Shinobi on my home console when I only sold 5 million consoles? While the little touches are what make this game, I couldn't help but think there should be more of them.

Graphics are also pretty unimpressive. On both Android (my Kindle Fire) and my iPhone the game looks blurry and blown up. It also is the only Kairosoft game that doesn't use the whole screen; it's just a rectangle in the middle. I understand these are ports of Japanese PC games, but it kind of looks bad. While it doesn't matter because the graphics are really just placeholders for the mad math going on in the background, it wouldn't have hurt to have updated it for widescreen and retina display. 

"Ponies vs Zombies" is going to sell out.

As it stands, Game Dev Story is fantastic. If you have any interest in the video game industry at all, this representation slash parody of the industry is hilarious and clever. But even if you don't, the core game here is so addicting and fun it's worth checking out regardless. It'll suck you in fast, trust me, and the minute you end you'll want to start over and do it again. Kairosoft is making a name for their fantastic tycoon games on mobile devices, and Game Dev Story is no exception.

It runs at $4 on iOS and $2.50 on Android normally, but every time a new Kairosoft game is put out (which is usually one a month) they tend to discount the previous ones, so if the tag looks a little high you can always hold out. I paid $6 for it when it was the only Kairosoft game on the market, and I don't regret it in the slightest. Fun, silly, and with plenty of tongue-in-cheek, Game Dev Story is downright fantastic.

Now port the second one, Kairosoft! Hurry up!

Four out of five stars. 

This pretty much sums it up. 

Zuma's Revenge

The Short


Pros
- Follow-up to the excellent and addicting Zuma game
- Adds many more levels, a handful of new powerups, and new game modes
- Adventure mode, challenge mode, gauntlet modes, and more make this a robust collection
- Stages have weird boss fights the fit the gameplay style (oddly enough...)
- Graphically superior to its predecessor
- Better learning curve overall, though it does get very difficult by the end
- Makes a fantastic phone/tablet game

Cons
- Core gameplay is identical to Zuma
- Still no actual mini-games aside from the boss battles
- Boss battles can range in difficulty from annoying and difficulty to extremely easy, seemingly at random

Yep. More balls.

The Long

So Zuma was pretty good, it just lacked variety. It also had an insane learning curve that turned some people away. Luckily, PopCap seemed to figure that out, because Zuma's Revenge pretty much fixes every issue I had with Zuma, and in the best way possible. So since this is technically the third review of games using this same gameplay mechanic, I'm going to try and be brief. 

Also, balls.

You know he likes it. 

So Zuma's Revenge is Zuma. You are a still a frog in the center of a long pathway of slowly-moving balls, and your goal is to make three or more balls of the same color match so they EXPLODE. Power-ups are randomly distributed throughout the chain and have to be gotten within a time limit or they fade from existence forever. Bonus points (in the form of fruit instead of coins this time) appear every once in a while in the corners, helping fill up your Zuma meter faster and ending the level. There's a boatload of stages to play with hardly any repeats this time around, which is excellent. So it's still Zuma. What's different?

Probably the best change is the increased variety in stages. Some stages have multiple positions the frog can be in (see top screenshot), requiring you to "hop" between them quickly in order to get the best position to land a shot. These can quickly become frantic attempts to not die as you can only hit part of the chain from either position, requiring lots of movement. The other mix-up in variety is the Luxor inspired stages, where the frog is simple on the bottom of the screen and can go back and forth. It's a good change, incorporating the best bits of the games of this type, and it keeps stuff fresh.

Then you have...boss fights?

The game also inexplicably has boss fights, which...are actually pretty decent. Usually the goal is to get through a chain walling off the guy to smack him with a ball, though some require a bit more tactics (one you have to blow up explosive balls near him to damage him, which is a nice touch). They aren't particularly difficult, to be honest, and though they shoot stuff at you it only serves to disorient; you still die from having the balls reach the end of the stage. I found these diversions a fun thing to look forward to at the end of a section, but not particularly enthralling. So in short: good, but not world-shattering.

There's a handful of new powerups, and they axed all the crappy ones from Zuma

The game looks very good graphically. While this isn't pushing polygons or anything (it runs on my iPhone and my wife's computer, so anything can handle it) it has a very pleasing art style, even more so than the first game. It's got a hefty resolution, vibrant colors and effects, and the stages themselves look really good. I would argue this is PopCap's best looking game by a long shot, with tons of visual flair. It's just a colorful joy to look at, and leaves an impression.

Sound is also excellent, with all dialogue in text (but it's pretty witty). The music is good but unnecessary; I played most of this game on my phone with the sound off and still enjoyed at much as anything else. 

If there's anything frogs like, it's going to the beach to get a tan. 

While this has been a sort of brief review, let me get to the kicker: you should probably buy this game. You should especially buy this game if you own an iPhone or iPad, because that is by far the best version of this game. I had a copy of Zuma on my really old Windows Phone that used a stylus, and it was easily the most played game on it. Zuma's Revenge on iOS is absolutely fantastic, retaining everything from the PC original while having the added benefit of the sublime touch controls. It's extremely fun and an excellent time waster.

There's my plug. Because I really do think this game is awesome.

Plus it has the Zuma voice that goes "ZUUUUUUUUUUMA." 10/10.

Zuma was one of my favorite PopCap games, but Zuma's Revenge blows it out of the water. Again, at $2 on iOS that's a freaking steal, and $10 on PC isn't that bad either. It's easily one of my favorite PopCap games, and shouldn't be missed. If you enjoy your casual games to be secretly hardcore, with your puzzle games having a hefty chunk of action and a lot of difficulty, Zuma's Revenge will surprise and delight you. 

Highly recommended. 

Four out of five stars. 

And this'll be the last review about shooting balls for a while, I swear. 

Week in Review for 4/29/2012 - Doublin' Up

First off, my apologies for missing last week's Week in Review. I totally spaced it! So that's my mistake. It wasn't that busy of a week, but I've been doing this pretty regularly so it was weird to miss. So now you get DOUBLE the week reviews!

The past week had some craziness. At first I was just going to do casual games, and then I decided to do a bunch of fish games because...why not. Then we went back to casual games but I somehow never got to Zuma's Revenge or Bejeweled, which is...a weird oversight. Maybe next week.

In good news, next week due to my work schedule I will actually be doing more reviews (which, coincidentally, only happens when I'm scheduled more. Don't ask why; it's complicated and involves a spouse's work schedule). But anyway, I'm hoping to be much more consistant and charge through a TON of reviews to make up for April being lazy-town. So see that.

Currently I'm playing Age of Empires Online (still), as well as the Silent Hill HD Collection (gotta get the Dog ending...) and finally Mass Effect 3. Once I beat it I'll review all three games in a row, and while I'm loving ME3 I'm worried about the ending because...yeah. You know why. Lastly, I'm finally playing through Sword and Sworcery EP on my iPhone, after owning it for a really, really long time. I'm digging it a lot! It seems to be quite short, but hopefully I'll beat it tonight or tomorrow and get a review up of that as well. I'd love to do an iPhone themed week; maybe it'll happen?

Anyway, 15 reviews of the last two weeks (which averages about one a day, so not bad despite it all) bringing the total to 163. BALLIN. Wet was review 150 (whoops?) but hey...it's under-appreciated. Also we'll be hitting numero 200 soon, so who knows what that review will be of? Something good? Something horrible? A request?

As a reminder: I'm always open to requests. I'll have to have played the game, of course, but I love reviewing what people ask. I might even do a "requests week" sometime if I can get enough feedback!

Lastly, this week doesn't have a theme, but I'm considering digging up my past and reviewing some really old PC games I loved as a child (like Odell Down Under was). This might make for some irrelevant reviews, but I'll enjoy myself so tough toasties. Also, my quest is to review every game I played ever, so...they'll have to get reviewed eventually.

Without further ado...the games of the last two weeks!

You Don't Know Jack - 4 / 5 Stars
Wet - 3 / 5 Stars
Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers - 2 / 5 Stars
Magic the Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 - 3 / 5 Stars
Kirby's Adventure - 5 / 5 Stars
Silent Hill HD Collection - 3 / 5 Stars
Luxor 2 - 2 / 5 Stars
Feeding Frenzy - 2 / 5 Stars
Feeding Frenzy 2: Shipwreck Showdown - 3 / 5 Stars
Odell Down Under - ? (4) / 5 Stars
Shark! Shark! - 3 / 5 Stars
Insaniquarium! Deluxe - 3 / 5 Stars
Peggle - 4 / 5 Stars
Peggle Nights - 4 / 5 Stars
Zuma - 3 / 5 Stars

See you on the flip side! Feel free to post requests in comments, at me on Facebook or on Twitter (@TheUselessGod)!

Zuma

The Short


Pros
- Fun ball-shootin' puzzle action game that's simple in concept but gets difficult
- Aztec/Mayan theme is appealing and looks bright and colorful
- Tons of levels and a variety of stages
- Power-ups are unique, helpful, and require still to obtain
- Can get stupid addicting

Cons
- Ends up recycling stages near the last 1/2 of the game
- Later levels have a difficulty level bordering on insane
- Very hard to play with an Xbox 360/PS3 controller
- No real bonus content to speak of

Another day, another game about balls. 

The Long

So in my Luxor 2 review I pretty much panned the game for ripping this one, Zuma, off. So you'd expect I liked Zuma more, and you'd be correct. While the core components between these two games are essentially the same, Zuma does it with much better skill, style, and polish compared to the inferior Luxor 2.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's just do this review for Zuma.

Frogs n' balls.

Zuma is essentially a puzzle action game, with further emphasis on "action" than "puzzle" as the game goes along. You are a spinning frog in the middle, and around you a winding trail of multicolored balls weaves. By shooting colored balls of your mouth, you insert them into the sequences, and if you make a match of three or more of the same color the balls explode. Your goal is to fill the Zuma meter at the top, at which point the balls will stop coming and you have to clear out the remaining ones to win. If they reach the mouth at the end of the stage you are done. And that's it.

Where Zuma works is not just it's obviously addicting formula, but it's well-designed stages paired with a difficulty curve that starts on "sleepwalk" to "absolutely infuriating." You start with only four different colors of balls, and after each chapter another color is added. Of course, the more colors mean the less combos occurring naturally in the chain, making it harder to get combos. While this is going on the required combos to finish a level goes up, the chain starts further out, and the game basically just gets much harder. By the end the game is straight up crazy, and I take no shame in saying it's one of the hardest casual games I've played.

I mean seriously. Look at this. This guy is so screwed. 

The game tips the balance in your favor with power-ups. Unlike Luxor 2, where just getting three matches in a row drops a random one (letting you "break" the game), Zuma distributes the powerups as special balls on the chain. Destroy them and you gain the power-up, be it area damage, lasers, precision shot (aka useless). But wait too long to claim them and they go away. This adds a sense of reckless abandon, ignoring long-term strategy in an attempt to get to that powerup explosion. It's a sense of risk/reward that Luxor 2 completely ignored and Zuma perfects.

Another risk/reward factor is the coins. Coins are often in the worst spots (see lower left of the above image) but add such a huge boost to the Zuma meter (especially on later levels) they can turn the tides quickly. So trying to get to those while managing powerups and the steadily-increasing difficulty makes Zuma stressful, in a good way.

Exploring ruins with a frog. It's like...everything I ever dreamed of doing. 

Zuma has excellent level design as well, again unlike Luxor 2. While Luxor's paths are just there, Zuma's are obvious from the start, and clearly planned around the spinning frog mechanic. There's also more of them, though they do repeat, but the repeats are so far distanced from the originals it never annoyed me.

If Zuma has one major flaw it's that there are no tricks up its sleeve. Tactics mentioned above (going for powerups and coins) persist throughout the entire game, it just adds more colors of balls. And while you can shoot for high scores or par times (which those par times get nuts), other than keep on playing over and over there isn't much to offer. Sure, the core gameplay is extremely solid, it just lacks in variety. 

You can also cheat with Gap Bonuses if you are a sneaky player. 

Graphically the game looks pleasing throughout, even if the colors are a bit muted. I appreciate the "all pixel art" graphics vs. ugly pre-rendered backdrops that would look bad on the PS1. Effects are a bit underwhelming, though, and it would have been nice to have seen a higher resolution. Still, it's a fine looking game overall, with plenty of colors mixed with a good art style that ties everything together nicely.

Mobile versions look good, too. 

To be honest, Zuma's biggest problem isn't anything core (though it is a bit too simple for its own good) or even within it's control; it's that it exists in a world where Zuma's Revenge has been released. Zuma's Revenge (essentially Zuma 2) fixes all the issues I had with the first game with flying colors, adding more variety, stages, and zaniness that the series needed to stay fresh. Compared to it, Zuma actually comes off as stale. Again, no fault of its own, but it's more of a "testing the waters" game rather than a "refining a concept" game. 

As it stands, it's still worth getting if you don't have a platform that plays Zuma's Revenge (like if you only own an Xbox or a PS3 and no computer or smartphone). It's still a blast from beginning to end, just don't expect much to change (minus the difficulty. HARD.)

Three out of five stars. 

I always thought "Deluxe" was a weird word. Trying saying it. "Dee-lux." Weird!