Possibly one of the most significant moments I've had with a game occurred after setting up my XBOX 360 for the first time. If I can recall correctly it was early 2008, and prior to this I hadn't played any games of higher visual fidelity than the PS2. To me, Shadow of the Colossus was about as impressive as things got in the graphics department (I still think it's a beautiful game but man did that framerate get bad). I didn't know what to expect from my new console, but what I got was better than I possibly could have hoped: Medal of Honor: Airborne. Alright perhaps it wasn't the most fondly remembered game (in fact I doubt it was remembered at all), but as my entry point into the next generation it was fantastic. Upon parachuting into the first level of the game (hence "Airborne"), I was greeted by an expansive map, loud gunfire left and right, and the best visuals I'd seen in my entire life. I later realized that filters and ample motion blur largely contributed to the visuals, but when I saw the game running for the first time, I couldn't help but smile in awe.

Then I realized I was still running the game in standard definition.

Perhaps the jump from PS2 to 360 was so significant to me because it was also the first time I had played games in HD. This leap forward in resolution vastly changed how good games could look, and is perhaps why I haven't found my PS4 to be as impressive. To be fair, Medal of Honor: Airborne released a couple years after the 360 launched, and we're currently just over half a year into the PS4's lifetime. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but feel slightly deflated when I tried AC4 on my PS4 on Christmas day. Sure the game is cross-gen so I didn't expect to be blown away, but it certainly didn't have the same effect that Medal of Honor did. Don't get me wrong, the game looks great, but compared to The Last of Us or Killzone 3, it didn't feel like a very substantial step up. Of course this will most likely change in the coming years, as more developers are able to harness the power of the PS4 more significantly. Right now though, I find that for around 90% of the time I play games, my PS4 is sitting gathering dust. Sure there aren't many games out yet, but I haven't had any inclination to buy any more than two (AC4 and Infamous: Second Son). It'll take more than The Last of Us' upcoming remaster to get me excited about the PS4, so I'm crossing my fingers for a new Fallout announcement.

I don't want to be too negative here because I have hope for the system. My biggest problem is there's to much revisiting the past going on with the new consoles. Be it the Master Chief Collection on XBOX One, or The Last of Us Remastered on PS4, I find the current lineup of games fairly uninteresting. Sure these games will definitely sell well as they already have legacies, on the previous consoles. Destiny looked cool but now appears to be more MMO-like than I previously thought, but Far Cry 4 and Bloodborne will both probably be day one purchases for me. So yes, there are some interesting games coming, but not much to occupy my time between now and the late 2015 window which many games have been delayed to. In the end, it really is too early to be passing judgement on the new consoles, but I wanted to write something so there you go.

For one reason or another, I'm way into first person shooters right now. Maybe it was playing through the phenomenal F.E.A.R. that roped me back into the genre, but whatever it was, I'm happy to be back. FPSs were a genre I used to love, but grew tired of after they were popping up left and right without much variety. Sure I still played and enjoyed Syndicate and Bioshock Infinite when they came out, but I wasn't as invested in the genre as I was 7 or so years ago.

Now there's nothing I want to do more than power through some story based shooters. It's a good genre to get really into because many shooters can be beaten in a weekend, and since I'm on summer vacation I have all the time in the world. FEAR has turned out to be perhaps one of the best shooters I've ever played, and I was thinking of trying the sequel as soon as I'm done. But I've also recently downloaded Assault on Dark Athena, which I'm itching to try (Butcher Bay most of all). I'm also going to wait for Wolfentstein: The New Order to go down in price, as I've heard lots of great things about it. Also, as ashamed as I am to admit it, I've never actually beaten the original Bioshock, so that's another on my list. From playing the first level multiple times (for various reasons), I loved the atmosphere of the game, which is one of the most important aspects of a shooter, in my opinion.

I think the thing that made me realize my love for the genre is how much more immersive these types of games can be. It really is a special feeling to explore the sterile office buildings of FEAR, soaking in the masterfully implemented atmosphere. Sure the combat is fun too, but in most cases getting lost in the world steals the show for me. I think Bioshock might have one of the best game openings of all time, perfectly introducing the player to it's world without any lengthy dialogue or back story. It works wonders to keep the player interested and invested much more effectively than cutscenes in an RPG (not that I don't like RPGs). I've played games in other genres with great atmosphere and world building, but nothing can really compare to a good shooter. The only problem I have with the genre is I'm not very good at it, and often get frustrated when tons of enemies are thrown at the player towards the end of the game (a common occurence in shooters). I understand this is the natural progression of shooting-based games, but I almost never enjoy these end segments, and can very often walk away with a lesser opinion of the game.

Guess I'd better practice then!

It was a suggestion from another GB community member that first convinced me to try F.E.A.R, a game which had been lying uninstalled in my Steam library for months. I think it was the common problem of "shooters don't age well" that kept me from trying it, and I couldn't be more happy that I gave it a chance. The game utilizes a genius mix of horror and action movie style gunplay to create a unique experience that doesn't fall into the trap that many other story-based shooters I've played have. I'm referring to when the game will start to lean more towards challenging firefights then building atmosphere, resulting in frustrating encounters which end up souring the experience for me. In most of these style of shooters (The Darkness, Bioshock, Half Life 2) I find that the gunplay compliments the atmosphere, but shouldn't be the point around which the rest of the game revolves. Maybe I'm just not very good at shooters, but don't take my points to mean I don't enjoy shooting things in shooters, I do. I just find that in story based FPSs, the atmosphere and world should be the most important aspect.

Fear has nailed this so far (I'm only around an hour and a half in), offering challenging, yet fair combat with lots of atmospheric sound and visuals. The game has a very surreal feel, which I think works brilliantly and compliments the solid shooting segments. The slow-motion mechanic is also used well, giving the shooting a Max Payne-esque feeling. Perhaps what I've enjoyed the most so far is how the game doesn't shove enemy encounter after encounter down the players throat, instead offering long pauses in the action. These segments may sound uninteresting on paper, but they work wonders to reinforce the sense of dread that permeates the game. In my opinion, Bioshock Infinite had a fantastic world and atmosphere that was built on well until the final third of the game where it took a backseat to the combat. The combat in the game was good, but I don't think it should have been the focus towards the end of the game, which resulted in me liking the game a little less (still a fantastic game though). I really have no idea whether FEAR will end up following the same path, I can only be cautiously optimistic. But the fact alone that this is a 9 year old shooter which holds up today makes me interested to play through the rest of the experience.

I'm not sure how many other people feel this way, but in my mind atmosphere is one of the most important aspects of games, especially story-based ones. This was what made Alan Wake such an amazing game, in my eyes, and a prime example of how to mix gameplay and world-building. I loved that the nighttime sections were separated by segments where you talked to locals during the day, and worked to uncover the game's mystery. Sure the story was fairly generic and lots of the characters were silly but it was this "slightly off" feeling that made the game so memorable, and why it stands as one of my favorite games of the last generation. Red Dead Redemption also had amazing atmosphere, almost perfectly recreating the feeling of a wild-west film, in interactive form. Again, I felt that the ending resorted to much to gunplay and not enough to further increasing the atmosphere, but that's just how I felt.

Let's hope FEAR continues to impress!

It was a suggestion from another GB community member that first convinced me to try F.E.A.R, a game which had been lying uninstalled in my Steam library for months. I think it was the common problem of "shooters don't age well" that kept me from trying it, and I couldn't be more happy that I gave it a chance. The game utilizes a genius mix of horror and action movie style gunplay to create a unique experience that doesn't fall into the trap that many other story-based shooters I've played have. I'm referring to when the game will start to lean more towards challenging firefights then building atmosphere, resulting in frustrating encounters which end up souring the experience for me. In most of these style of shooters (The Darkness, Bioshock, Half Life 2) I find that the gunplay compliments the atmosphere, but shouldn't be the point around which the rest of the game revolves. Maybe I'm just not very good at shooters, but don't take my points to mean I don't enjoy shooting things in shooters, I do. I just find that in story based FPSs, the atmosphere and world should be the most important aspect.

Fear has nailed this so far (I'm only around an hour and a half in), offering challenging, yet fair combat with lots of atmospheric sound and visuals. The game has a very surreal feel, which I think works brilliantly and compliments the solid shooting segments. The slow-motion mechanic is also used well, giving the shooting a Max Payne-esque feeling. Perhaps what I've enjoyed the most so far is how the game doesn't shove enemy encounter after encounter down the players throat, instead offering long pauses in the action. These segments may sound uninteresting on paper, but they work wonders to reinforce the sense of dread that permeates the game. In my opinion, Bioshock Infinite had a fantastic world and atmosphere that was built on well until the final third of the game where it took a backseat to the combat. The combat in the game was good, but I don't think it should have been the focus towards the end of the game, which resulted in me liking the game a little less (still a fantastic game though). I really have no idea whether FEAR will end up following the same path, I can only be cautiously optimistic. But the fact alone that this is a 9 year old shooter which holds up today makes me interested to play through the rest of the experience.

I'm not sure how many other people who feel this way, but in my mind atmosphere is one of the most important aspects of games, especially story-based ones. This was what made Alan Wake such an amazing game, in my eyes, and a prime example of how to mix gameplay and world-building. I loved that the nighttime sections were separated by segments where you talked to locals during the day, and worked to uncover the game's mystery. Sure the story was fairly generic and lots of the characters were silly but it was this "slightly off" feeling that made the game so memorable, and why it stands as one of my favorite games of the last generation. Red Dead Redemption also had amazing atmosphere, almost perfectly recreating the feeling of a wild-west film, in interactive form. Again, I felt that the ending resorted to much to gunplay and not enough to further increasing the atmosphere, but that's just how I felt.

Let's hope FEAR continues to impress!

Up until yesterday, I found it incredibly difficult to engage with anything older than N64 games for more than half an hour or so. Of course this is a very vague estimate of which time period it is exactly, so you'll have to bear with me here. The problem was that many games from the 16-bit generation (SNES, Genesis) and older utilized difficulty in a way that has become a lot less common. Of course, this was already starting to decline during the 16-bit era as games became more complicated and lengthy, and no longer needed difficulty to extend their length. Even games considered relatively easy in the NES catalogue such as the Super Mario Bros. games and the Disney-licensed platformers (Duck Tales, Rescue Rangers), still utilized challenge so that each level would have to be replayed to be beaten by the average player. A lot of trial and error, patience, and determination were needed to complete many of these games, especially some of the more difficult ones such as Ninja Gaiden or Ghosts and Goblins. Of course, what separates the good from the bad (in my mind) is whether the challenge seems ultimately conquerable, or just downright unfair. This however is not something I want to get caught up on in the next few paragraphs. The fact of the matter is games have generally become longer, more complicated, and as such no longer need to be lengthened by difficulty. The games that utilize this philosophy nowadays (Spelunky, "Souls" games, "Rogue-likes" in general) are not only niche, but also layer some sort of progression on to the repetition.

The game that inspired me to delve deeper into this topic was Mega Man 2, a game which finally got me into the "old-school mindset". Playing through a stage in a Mega Man game requires patience at first, as you learn enemy patterns and how to exploit them. Then the player moves on to carving out a path through a level that works for them. Then it's just a matter of tweaking this pattern to work more efficiently, until a stage is at last conquered, and the process is repeated for the remainder of the levels. This however requires something which I took issue with (prior to very recently): a lot of repetition. These levels aren't randomly generated like Spelunky, and you aren't leveling up between runs so that the process is a bit easier, like the Souls games. You are simply memorizing enemy attacks, jump timing, and the most efficient way to complete a level. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, please don't take this as some sort of rant on whether or not games have become easier, I'm simply making observations that I wasn't before. Now that I've begun to notice the design philosophy of these games, I've started to appreciate them more, and my patience with them has improved. This excites me because it will hopefully allow me to get fully on board with the 3DS Virtual Console and finish many games I would have never dreamed of completing before. It really all comes down to a matter of patience and careful observation (and in the case of some stages, fast reflexes), something which isn't taught a whole lot in modern games. Playing through a story-based shooter is about experiencing the narrative, interacting with the gameplay systems and making progress through a roughly 8-10 hour experience. This is not lengthened by the difficulty, it is designed to be a certain length which is acceptable for a 60 dollar purchase, provided there is either incentive to replay the story, or multiplayer to engage with as well. I would be interested to see a tough-as-nails FPS in 2014, with only 6 levels or so that needed to be replayed and memorized in order to be completed. This genre however has a lot more random elements. Be it AI behaviour or what weapons the player is currently equipped with; there are countless variables, even in linear first-person shooters. This is not the case as much for 2D platformers and brawlers.

It's worth noting of course that the "level repetition" design philosophy does not apply (to the same extent) for certain genres. There were lengthy RPGs on NES, and especially the SNES, which were long because there was a lot of content in them. Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest, and the early Final Fantasy series were all examples of games that were already fairly long (although many required more grinding than is seen in modern RPGs). Repetition was still being utilized in enemy encounters, just not to the same extent as with platformers, and other, more linear games.

Anyway, Mega Man 2 is an extremely enjoyable game, once you've broken through it's relatively tough barrier to entry. Breaking through however, can be done by anyone who plays games today (I would argue), it's just that the mindset required is fairly uncommon in games today. When I say mindset, I mean accepting that replaying levels is simply part of the game, and is needed in order to complete it. Once you are able to dedicate this time, it becomes exhilarating to see your own improvements as you progress. A stage that gave you a lot of trouble half an hour ago, becomes one where you are able to fully immerse yourself, knowing exactly when enemies will appear and how high your jumps need to be, and when to shoot, and so on. I look forward to playing more of Mega Man 2, and hopefully completing it (and then moving on to the rest of the series).

The main issue that kept me from getting Shovel Knight until now was that it seemed like any other retro-themed platformer. This is an aspect which has become extremely overused in the Indie scene, so much so that even rave reviews didn't convince me that Shovel Knight was worth getting, at first. I decided that there must be some reason to the hype, and after all, it's only 16 dollars on the 3DS eshop. It only took playing through the first level to realize this game is something special. The story is simplistic, and lets you get to the action right away, with the brief monologues from bosses not repeating after retries. You play a knight with a shovel (surprise) and it's your duty to look for your former accomplice, the shield knight. The levels are similar to the Mega Man games, with each reflecting the theme of the end boss. They start out very simple, introducing the gameplay loop of fighting enemies, digging up loot, and finding the many hidden rooms and other secrets. Most stages end with a boss battle, which are difficult, but never unfair. In fact, the game thus far has been very reasonable in terms of difficulty, never really reaching the high skill requirements of something like Mega Man, but still offering enough challenge to prevent boredom. The town areas that I've visited so far are also interesting, offering a break in combat, upgrades and new items for the main character, and some entertaining NPCs. This is a world where horses mixed with humans are common, and all of the characters have something unique (and quite often amusing) to say. The established universe is focused, and very well constructed, helping to show that Shovel Knight is more than a simple nostalgia-grab.

The combat is simple as well, with your two main attacks being striking with your shovel and bouncing on enemies with it, similar to Duck Tales on the NES. The stages and enemies are varied enough so that each level feels entirely unique, with new ideas being introduced at a comfortable pace. The stages are challenging, but none had me stuck wondering whether I would ever complete them (a problem I had frequently with this year's Strider reboot). The game looks just like a game of the era, complete with respawning enemies each time you leave and re-enter a screen (although not all enemies reappear). A healthy use of colour and detail further help the game's world-building, accompanied by some high quality music. These tunes also feel like they could have been lost classics from 20+ years ago, and got stuck in my head frequently as the game progressed.

Not much else to say about the game so far other than I can't wait to jump back in and hopefully complete it in the next week!

I've decided I'd like to keep track of which games I'm working on, and then make notes of any I give up on or add to the list.

The games I'm currently working towards completing are:

Persona 4 Golden (thoughts in previous blog post)

Shovel Knight (thoughts forthcoming, I've got a fair bit to say about this one)

Mega Man 2 (haven't started yet, will make a post in the next few days)

I've stopped starting games if I don't 100% intend on finishing them. Then why, you might ask, would I try to tackle Persona 4 Golden, a game which takes many upwards of 80 hours to complete? The answer is simple, summer break. As I have roughly a month and a half left of break I figure I'll have more than enough time to dedicate to this mammoth of a JRPG. It also helps that I'll be able to play it even if I leave the house for a few days on vacation.

So far I've put around 5 hours into the game (I know, I've barely scratched the surface), and I plan to detail my thoughts on the very lengthy establishing scenes, and my first trip into the dungeon. Right from the start, I knew I would enjoy at least one aspect of Persona 4, it's music. The opening cinematic is accompanied by an infectious, poppy tune which I couldn't help humming long after I'd put the game down. The dialogue between characters which forms the roughly 3 hour long intro of Persona 4 is handled wonderfully, forming bonds between the character and the vibrant cast of high school students. You play as a student who has moved to a new town, where a series of murders are beginning to take place. By mingling with the other kids at the high school, you begin to form connections with people who may be involved with the murders. Because of this, you set out on a mission to solve the case and rescue any more potential victims. The way you undertake this task however, is wholly unexpected, and involves entering an alternate world within a television. I found that all of the characters I met in these establishing scenes developed at a surprising pace, making them feel a lot more real than your average videogame accomplices. It takes a very special game to make me care about it's characters, as I find this element is lacking in the vast majority of games. Luckily, Persona 4's characters are cartoony, yet relatable people who create unique bonds with the player character as the story progresses.

Gameplay is split between visual-novel style everyday life segments, and dungeon crawling in the TV world. I've played a considerable amount of Persona 3 in the past, so the gameply was instantly recognizable. It's the small changes that have been made to streamline the experience, however, that truly set the game apart. You and your friends fight using Personas, reflections of your inner self that take the form of creatively designed creatures. You can level these Persona's as well as fuse them together to create new, more powerful ones. This is the main gameplay hook of the Persona games, and if Persona 3 was any indication, it can become frighteningly addictive to fuse Personas and create more powerful allies in battle. In Persona 4 Golden, you are presented with which Personas you can currently fuse, and which were the most popular with other players around the world (on of the game's simple, yet useful online offerings). This was absent in Persona 3, and does a great job to ease the player into the complex gameplay system. Other minor improvements abound, including the ability to repeat missed dialogue, retry without exiting to the main menu, and other less prominent, yet still important aspects. I feel like Persona 4 Golden is an example of a development team perfecting their art, with refined gameplay and storytelling systems that display years of fine-tuning. I look forward to devoting a healthy chunk of my free time to chipping away at this gargantuan experience.

This is a question that has popped up a lot lately as I've been getting into playing games with the intention of reviewing them. The kinds of games that I'm labeling as "unbeatable" are ones that either rely on being replayed to get value out of them, or ones where the main singleplayer components are a very small piece of the game.

I recently bought Lumines: Electronic Symphony for example, a game whose main mode can last for more than an hour, but is played for high scores and therefore it is encouraged for the player to replay it. I thought that perhaps, in reviewing a score-based game of this nature, it is necessary to at least replay the vanilla puzzle mode until you get a good feel for how the game is played, and then try all the others so that you have a good knowledge of what is and isn't good about the game. I find it very difficult to decide whether or not I'm going to write a full-blown "review" on the game, simply because I don't believe I'll ever truly "beat it". Would you trust a review of Lumines from someone who had played all of the games modes once (even when doing so could take no more than a couple hours?). I'm thinking of reviewing the game after I've unlocked all of the songs and have tried all of the modes enough to make educated commentary on them, but perhaps I don't need to get so caught up on this when my review most likely will be seen by a handful of people.

Fighting games run into a similar issue to Lumines, or any score-based game which encourages replay-ability for that matter. Sure you could complete the arcade mode and go through a few of the character trials in Street Fighter 4, but you would only have scratched the surface of the game. I've put more around 50 hours into the various SF4 iterations (barely anything compared to the real fanatics), and with this time I've tried to wrap my head around 1 character, and he's probably the easiest to learn (can you guess who?). I've played the arcade mode countless times, as well as completed a healthy chunk of character trials. I've played split-screen multiplayer with friends, and had my ass handed to me in the few online matches I tried. So my question to you is: Would you trust my opinion if I wrote a review of Street Fighter 4? Granted, not all fighting games follow the same blueprint. Mortal Kombat 9 is a good example of a fighting game with a lengthy story mode, which gives players the opportunity to try out the games entire roster (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). There are tons of multiplayer options, as well as a huge challenge ladder. I would say to review MK9 you would have to complete the story and try a healthy chunk of the other modes.

Perhaps it would be good to explain what I perceive to be the difference between these examples, and other game which are "beatable" in the strictest sense of the word. Story driven experiences like the Uncharted and Silent Hill series' fall into this category, as well as puzzle games which aren't meant to be replayed endlessly for scores, like Pushmo. Huge RPGs like The Elder Scrolls games are beatable, but I think to review one of these games you would have to complete the main story and give quite a variety of the sidequests a try (though not all because that would take a very long time). I would say MK9 falls into the "beatable" category as well, along with really any game that has a campaign mode which is presented as the "primary way to play the game". Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure many people will disagree with the points I've made. Or maybe this is a dilemma that no one else has, and I simply don't properly know my way around game reviews yet. Either way, how would you say a reviewer would have to play a score-based, replay-able game like Lumines for to make an educated assessment of it's quality (some other examples could be any Tetris game, Super Hexagon, or Pac-man Championship Edition). Same goes for fighting games.

Thanks for any responses! :)

For some reason I wasn't able to select the game when using GB's reviewing interface, so here is my review of Monument Valley.

Monument Valley is a perspective-based puzzle game that will leave you scratching your head, but not for the reasons you might think. From the simplistic yet beautiful art and music, to the instantly understandable controls, it has all of the trappings of a great mobile game (plus a bit more).

In Monument Valley, you play an unnamed character who traverses M. C. Escher style environments in order to pick up polygonal objects of unknown importance. The narrative is revealed to the player piece by piece throughout, offering up some interesting themes that many won't be expecting (and some very thought-provoking reveals). The lack of any dialogue between characters really works towards creating a lonely environment, even when that environment is so colorful and vibrant. There are enemies, but it is impossible to die in Monument Valley, begging the question: why do there need to be enemies in the first place. The importance of these "enemies" is revealed towards the end of the game, something which should not be spoiled here.

As a puzzle game, Monument Valley isn't the best of the bunch. For one thing there isn't really anything in terms of challenge, as the solutions to most puzzles are immediately apparent. This lack in difficulty does however allow the art to be appreciated, as there won’t be many difficult solutions to occupy the player’s thoughts. If you go into Monument Valley expecting a mentally-challenging experience, you will be disappointed. To reiterate, this is more of a "get from point A to B and enjoy the sights" game. There are 10 total levels, and the game can be completed in around 1 1/2 hours, with no real incentive to be repeated. This is acceptable, because like “The Room” and other fantastic mobile games before it, the first playthrough of Monument Valley is well worth the asking price.

Monument Valley is a heavily atmospheric game which greatly benefits from it's art and music. The twisting and turning level design never get old, displaying stunning creativity polished to a fine sheen. It’s immediately apparent that by shortening the game to no more than ten levels, the developer has made each it’s own entity, without any reused elements or art. It’s refreshing in a time where many games are artificially lengthened by repeated segments. Normally graphics don't hold as much sway as gameplay, but in Monument Valley's case, the art is perhaps just as important as the core gameplay. Later on the narrative takes the forefront, offering up some great surprises, but it's the way that these levels look that really sets the game apart. The music is quiet and minimalist, which only adds to the already great atmosphere. The inventive art design practically begs for screenshots to be taken and framed, it really does look that good.

Monument Valley utilizes great art and sound, simple controls, and some interesting (and surprising) narrative threads to create a memorable, albeit short experience. The game isn't trying to challenge you, but it is trying to make you think. If you own a mobile device, you have every reason to play it to completion immediately after reading this review. Set aside an hour or so, kick back on the couch, and enjoy one of the most stunning experiences mobile gaming has to offer.