ll_Exile_ll

Goldeneye is Important™, but it has been a very long time since it was a good video game to play. Like, just 4 years after it came out you have Halo completely redefining the console shooter. Forget about playing Goldeneye in 2023, it was antiquated in 2003.

This is just not true.

Sonic Mania has an average score of 87%, 97% critics recommended. 93% positive reviews on Steam (with most of the negative related to the DRM or PC port issues).

Sonic Mania Reviews - OpenCritic

Also, Sonic Generations would arguably apply as well. Only a 77% metascore, but 83% user score and 93% positive Steam reviews.

I can accept Generations may not apply to your "universally loved" criteria (though, depending on how strictly you define "universally," that could be no game ever), but Mania most certainly fits whatever metric for widespread acclaim you want to come up with.

Finally, you can certainly pick apart how well they've aged, but the Adventure games were incredibly well regarded across the board when they were released.

I hadn't really played a Kirby game since Kirby 64, but the series finally going 3D was enough to get me interested and I quite enjoyed 100%-ing this one. It's a very delightful game. Probably in the bottom half of my top 10 for 2022.

They are on the launch pad, they just need rocket fuel.

There is no third game. I'm sure God of War will continue in some form, but they've been pretty upfront that the Norse saga is a two game story and this is the end of it.

I played Lost Odyssey around the time it came out and really enjoyed it. I've had the itch to play it again a few times in recent years, but the thought of digging around in a closet for my 360 (and hoping it actually works) isn't super appealing. Nor is the idea of dealing with the technical realities of games from that generation.

I would love a PC or modern console port of Lost Odyssey, but it doesn't seem too likely at this point. I am aware it's supported with backwards compatibility on modern Xbox systems, but I don't have any of those.

The Witcher 2 is an action game. Maybe playing with a keyboard and mouse gave you a different perception, but it's essentially the same combat system as Witcher 3, but clunkier. Weapon damage in both Witcher 2 and 3 is based on the damage range of the weapon, so that comment about dice rolls existing in the earlier games but not 3 is inaccurate. I have no idea where you're getting any kind of Dynasty Warriors similarities for Witcher 3, but that's honestly a very silly point of comparison.

The Witcher 3 is not really any less of an RPG or more action oriented than Witcher 2. That big shift from weird hardcore PC RPG to action RPG happened in the Witcher 2. All the Witcher 3 did was take that idea and shift it to an open world and improve the combat from Witcher 2. The only major mechanical change from 2 to 3 was that in 2 you needed to drink potions before combat, while in 3 you can do that during combat.

If anything, Witcher 3 leans more into the idea of you role playing as Geralt with all the Witcher contracts. Being able to role play the Witcher profession wasn't well supported in Witcher 2, with only a few monster contracts that were mostly about killing a bunch of the same type of monster rather than hunting a specific one.

I keep mine disconnected from the internet most of the time. I'll plug it in every once in a while to get firmware updates, but it's not necessary to have it connected at all times since I use a fire stick for streaming stuff rather than the TV OS.

It totally depends on the game. Take Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. To me, this is perfect case where iteration can take something and make it much better. BotW had a lot about it that was fantastic, but it was by no means perfect and there were a lot of elements that I thought could stand to be improved upon. Taking that solid foundation and building on it while improving upon its shortcoming is the ideal path for the next game. Trying to take the next game in a totally new direction would feel like a waste of the untapped potential of BotW.

In other cases, iterative sequels can feel less exciting. If the sequel is unable to build upon what the previous game did in a meaningful and interesting way, it's probably better to just try something new. I feel like you see this with a lot of third entries in a series. The first game is the proof of concept, the second iterates and builds on the first game to a strong degree, but by the third there isn't much room to take the idea further and you end up with a game that is technically a bit better than the second, but feels far less impactful. See Uncharted 3, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed Revelations (Ezio's third game), Mass Effect 3, Dead Space 3, and many others I'm probably forgetting.

Considering this, I think it was actually a very smart idea for the God of War Norse sage to wrap up in two games. I liked Ragnarok, but if they tried to do another one of these without shaking things up a lot I think it would be one too many.