Sequels to games that I didn't originally care for.

The suave, daring, unrivaled King of Video Games. He is on an EROTIC quest to see if lesbians indeed have the goods. BEWARE, the Moon.

How long has it been since the last one of these? Well over a year ago? That sounds about right. In case you've forgotten, I'll remind you of the old song and dance: I act all nervous about touching another Halo game like I've just gotten out of a seriously abusive relationship. Then I reveal to you that I actually sort of like this particular entry in the Halo series (well, parts of it, this time), and then only four of you bother commenting on the blog itself. Such is the circle of life.

That being said, I only really acknowledge the overall story. I don't like it; I don't hate it; I just acknowledge that such a thing exists. It's been four years since Master Chief finished the fight (whatever fight that was supposed to be), but Microsoft needs more money. In enters the Didact, a magic space genie who wants to assimilate all of mankind into digital ghosts or something? I never really understood the details. They're a lot like a cloud: dense, vague, and sometimes look like asses. Unlike clouds, though, it's best to ignore them, because the overall picture is pretty clear throughout: stop the Didact from being mean, and also Cortana's dying. Did I not mention that? Because it's a pretty big component of the story, and it works? All I can really say is that the ingredients are there. There's tension, a very real relationship between Space Link and Sci-Fi Navi, and some emotion to their lines. Does it all add up to something worthwhile? No goddamn clue. Let's just say that I may be blind to this sort of thing.

Quick! Shoot the science!

I'd also say something about how Del Rio's a flat tire away from taking a gun to everybody or how this vehicle probably costs more than the GDP of several nations, but who comes to Halo for big fucking cars? Misinformed people, that's who! Slightly more informed people come here for the theatrics. Getting dragged into firefights, seeing shit explode around you all the time, and generally being caught up in the moment. I know that sounds a lot like mere gameplay, but it's something more than that. It's like you're playing a movie, EXCEPT NOT AT ALL LIKE THAT. I don't know what that is, but I know that Halo 4 isn't that. It is this: knowledgeable about how to use what tools and when. You want to see the power of a thousand suns drag Master Chief into eternal night? Switch to the first person perspective and experience that shit yourself. How about a slower story moment, where everybody's talking about Forerunners asking the Librarian for the Composer to....write the All Song? I have no clue, but I was going to say that Halo 4 puts that all in a cutscene so that you don't watch lifeless puppets ignore your existence so the story can move forward. Hooray for letting me live the moment, game! Is there anything you don't know how to do?

Be consistent, for one. And here we come to my major problem with the series, rearing its ugly head once again in another numbered entry: the dissonance. (Have I been on a tear with this sort of thing? Feels like it. Just give it a while to work its way out of me.) Allow me to explain: the story of Halo 4 sells Master Chief as some sort of immortal demigod among men. Hell, its first priority is to have some old woman lecture us on how super soldier Master Chief Taco Supreme is the future of all mankind because of how goddamn awesome he is. Let's completely ignore how worrying it is that man's future is supposed to be so dedicated to war that it can't function outside conflict. I'll even completely brush over how the game is trying to establish a warrior fantasy that simply can't exist with the type of military it's utilizing (mainly because that's a larger issue than merely this one game). Instead, let us focus on what happens when the actual game starts up: suddenly, Master Chief can only take three bullets before he has to call time out, and he can only hold two weapons at a time, despite the fact that he can just flip trucks over and jump with a mini-gun in hand like it ain't no thing. Doesn't matter if he's holding a pistol and a banana; he's not allowed to have more than one weapon at a time because the future doesn't know what a belt looks like.

"What's this asshole saying about me?"

Speaking of what, what the hell happened? Why am I supposed to trust my future to a man who thinks he has to dedicate a hand to each weapon he has? What makes him such a trustworthy fellow on the battlefield? Is it his ability to avoid enemy fire and recover from these situations quickly? Put his ass on reconnaissance duty where he can stealth you a victory. Or maybe he's supposed to be intelligent enough to devise tactics that make this all irrelevant? Give the bastard a command role and let THAT lead you to victory. Mayhap he can recover from injury super quickly when his shields fail on him for the 308309th time, like a cybernetic Chidori? (Not that I remember that from the actual game, but I'll give this game very brief benefit of the doubt.) Then send this man's ass to the medics so they can figure out how to give that ability to more soldiers. My point is that the game doesn't provide a lot of strong evidence for what the story claims is the reality of Master Chief's situation. You can't say one thing and do another, Halo 4. That just leaves you with credibility more shot than your opponents.

I know what you're thinking, devil's advocate: "But maybe these elements make the game fun and your complaints irrelevant, Mr. King." First off, what exactly do you advocate of the devil, Mr. Devil Worshipper? Maybe some time with Father O'Floggihan will set you straight. Second, actually looking at your words this time, I understand them, even if I don't approve of them entirely. But that's a subject for another day. Today, I completely understand that sentiment and prove it by using an example that does nothing to support that claim: the cover system. It's not that I'm oblivious to the appeal behind the idea: take a break from the action and think things through. You know, a strategic element to the combat. At least that was the plan. Unfortunately, it comes off less like a tactical element and more like the game's telling you to stop having fun for a bit while it gets its shit together. You don't make a fast-paced game fun by slowing things down. Maybe it works better on the high difficulties, but on the Normal difficulty the game actively recommended to me, that simply isn't the case.

Wait, does this thing have tiny arms in addition to its larger arms? Why wasn't I informed of this at any point in the actual game?

Speaking of maybe, maybe it is again time for me to talk about something I like about the game. Let's make it the shooting, because that oughta confuse the shit out of you. I know that I just spent literally the last 192 or so words criticizing the cover system, but the glorious thing is that there's so much more to Halo 4 than that. "Like what"? Who the fuck said that? Well, first off, how about a shitton of weapons? This is where all the narrative stuff I mentioned before actually works toward the game's favor. Jam in two alien races on top of the humans, and you have an abundance of weapons, each with their own personality. Speaking of two, that's the highest number of weapons Master Chief can carry at any given time. I'm aware that I was complaining about it before, but from a gameplay perspective, limiting weapons like this works really well. It forces you to think on your feet and be aware of what weapons you have on hand and how to use them. (Or maybe you can resort to punching things to death when you've run out of ammo all around. Whichever works.) It's almost like the feature introduces some amount of strategy the cover system only wishes it could deliver.

But let's assume that this still isn't enough for you. I don't know why. Maybe you're a horrible person. I mean, you were worshiping the devil two paragraphs ago. What was my point again? Oh, right: there's more to the action than the shooting. For instance, the vehicles. Maybe it's the sheer variety of vehicles you can pilot; maybe it's how the controls are so momentum based that you feel like maybe Master Chief had one too many drinks before the big battle; maybe it's how Master Chief can simply jump on vehicles and punch them to death; but there's just something really enjoyable about the game's vehicles. Even if that's not your thing, though, there are still plenty of other moments worth checking out, like the jetpacks and the leisurely stroll of a flying sequence? OK, so not all the elements of this game are worth checking out. Still, you can't fault Halo 4 for its variety, and there's at least something admirable in that. Combine all of this into one package, and you have a quite enjoyable shooter fit for short bursts of gameplay. Then add sci-fi mythos, an intrusive cover system, and all that dissonance I mentioned before, and you have Halo 4.

And did I mention that this game looks fucking fantastic?........You know what? This blog is long enough; let's leave it at that.

Review Synopsis

  • Just ignore the dialogue about the Forerunners wanting the Composer or whatever; just come to it for the explosions and stuff.
  • That applies to the gameplay, too.
  • Did I mention that Master Chief essentially has two separate characterizations that are near impossible to reconcile?

One of the many alternate endings to BioShock Infinite. Again.

Hey, remember the original Tomb Raider? (Forgive me if I don't; it's been well over two years since I touched that game.) Remember how all the living beings populating its world looked like grotesque MS Paint monstrosities? Remember how the levels were all confusing and lacking personality and not at all fun? Remember how the controls were kind of bad? Apparently, this was all endearing enough to gamers of the 90s to warrant not one, but a billion sequels. Today, I'm tackling Tomb Raider II. Good news: it fixes a lot of the problems I'd mentioned not a few sentences ago. Bad news: it still has some other, quite important issues that leave it just OK.

I'd like to discuss the problems, but first some context that fortunately comes in the form of a compliment. Namely, the level design is...sort of good? I mean, the problems that I discuss later relate directly to the levels, but strangely enough, they're the best part of the game. Gone are the days when you had to blindly bumble your way through a nondescript ruin. Instead, you get large yet still contained arenas, AKA the best thing to happen to the game. It gives you enough direction to know where you're going, but also enough so that you actually have some fun figuring things out for yourself. It's like a puzzle game where every solution is "jump". There are also some secret statues to find in each level, if you're into that sort of thing, but they're not necessary to have fun. They may help (I don't know; I only got the obvious ones), but the absolute core game is fun enough on its own. That's not even counting the circumstantial fun the levels deliver. You're going to be travelling all over the goddamn place in Tomb Raider II. China, underwater, Italy, underwater, floating China, underwater.....a lot of the levels take place underwater, for some reason. Personally, I found the trend strange, but not a major problem for the entire game.

Where can I get that tank top, Lara? I've always wanted that snug, vacuum sealed comfort.

You want a major problem for the entire game? Try the pacing. Dear god, do these levels just feel like they go on forever. Now originally, I was going to cite the time you spend in these levels as an indicator of how long they are, but then I realized that I'd used this same indicator to describe the levels in Halo as somewhat short. This is why I used words like "pacing" and "feels like" instead of "length" and "is": because it's all a matter of perception. In Halo, you're always shooting something and generally moving toward a clear goal. Not so with Tomb Raider. Sure, there are a lot of puzzles to solve, but a lot of your time is simply making it to these puzzles or solving puzzles to get to even more puzzles. The result? A game that feels empty and constantly in build-up to something else. Not the best expression of all the exploring, platformy fun from the last paragraph.

Let it be known, though, that I want to offer some constructive criticism. That's why I tried to think up ways to improve this lamentable state of affairs. I failed, but the important thing is that I tried. "More puzzles" was immediately thrown out as a solution. There are already enough puzzles in the game, and changing them around too much would actually make things worse. I'm already expending brain energy getting through the levels; no need to increase it on one-off puzzles time and time again. I could also think of a few areas where level design could be made less circuitous, but that's more treating the symptoms than anything else. With those two options out of the way, how about combat? Just throw in more enemies and then you'll realize that the combat completely sucks ass. The main problem is that the controls simply aren't up to the task. (The controls aren't so much an issue for the platforming because there's not as much on the line and you're going to adjust anyway.) Lara can turn on a dime, provided that said dime is the size of the Earth's equator. She's also lacking in any sort of appropriate strafing motion, so your only real options in combat are to run around the level, shooting and jumping in all directions until there's nothing left living. I shouldn't have to tell you how clumsy and unfun this tends to be.

"MUST. KILL. LARA."

But maybe the enemy designs make up for this, right? I'm not sure why that would be a factor, but the answer is no, not particularly. Most of the time, you'll be facing off against generic thugs. Nothing bad, but nothing particularly good, either. Their only notable feature is how they can take so many bullets that you'd swear they were half robot. Once you're done with them, you can move onto the animals. For some reason, every animal absolutely wants Lara dead and will instinctively maul her face if she so much as exists, so be prepared to shoot tigers and falcons and other surprisingly innocuous animals. If you know how to position yourself correctly, they won't even be able to touch you. Can't say that for rats and spiders. Their only job is to chew at Lara's feet until she simply collapses dead from chewfoot. They are simply an embarrassment that take time away from the far better parts of the game. There are also a couple of cool boss battles that I won't spoil, but again, you have to fight them with this game's combat system.

Speaking of spoiling, I probably would've mentioned the story by now if I remembered any of it. Italian mafiosi are trying to grab a magical Chinese dagger so their leader can become an immortal dragon or something? That's all I could get from the three cutscenes spread over a ten hour game. Yet somehow, without having (much of a) story, Tomb Raider is an accomplishment in stupidity. Lara can apparently hold her breath for what seems like days, handle underwater pressures that should logically crush her to bloody bits, and walk barefoot on rusty metal. Now before you criticize me for my criticisms, keep in mind that I like this brand of idiocy. It's not like any of this destroys significant plot elements, and it's just dumb enough to be hilarious. Pretty sure that's not at all what the developers had in mind with this game, but what works works. I wish I could apply that to the rest of the game, but damn the myriad problems I'd listed before. Notice one, and another pops up. They're like weeds in the....I don't know where I was going with that analogy, but I do know where I wanted to go with it: this game could have been better. It's not bad, but yea, it could be better.

Review Synopsis

  • Kill all the animals you could ever want! Assuming, of course, that you can figure out how.
  • Hooray for the level design! Unhooray for the pacing!
  • All while playing as the most oddly proportioned woman ever born.

Keep in mind that I only write controversial titles when I can’t come up with anything better.

30 Comments
30 Comments
Edited by EXTomar

The story for Halo 4 is just nonsense. It seems like the only reason to bring him back to Earth is to have a bunch of humans run around and order Master Chief to do something other than "save Earth" so he has to anguish over following some moron's order or literally "save Earth" (why is this is a tough decision??) and meanwhile Cortana short circuits for drama. This does make me wonder if it would better to put Cortana in Short Circuit or put Johny-5 in Halo 4? Hmm...

And I never understood why Tomb Raider 2 gets hate but then again I never had a desire to back and replay it either. I remember the plot to Tomb Raider very well mostly due to the "twist" of the scion actually doing something more than being an expensive artifact and whats-her-face turning into a space harpy of doom but can't remember much about TR2. Something about a dagger... Assuming I didn't have my memory scrambled, the thing I remember the most about TR2 is the underwater, upside-down ship thing. I also remember the same issue you did where the levels were long. They went on forever. And ever. And ever. I think I initially had to stop playing it and come back to it months later because of the "vastness" of the game.

Posted by Sinusoidal

I'm completely with you on Tomb Raider 1. I played that shit back in the 90s when it was fresh and couldn't stand it then. The clunkiest game ever, but yeah, boobs = sequels apparently.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@extomar:

Wait, Halo 4 was on Earth? I thought it was on some alien planet. That's a major oversight. I will agree with you, though, that the General who was giving orders was pretty damn weak writing. (You didn't say it directly, but it was implied.)

I think the plot to Tomb Raider II was that the mafia wanted an ancient Chinese dragon dagger that would turn their leader into a super mega dragon. Why they wanted that, though, is beyond me. Still, that's more than I can remember of the first Tomb Raider (Atlantis? And cowboys, I think?).

boobs = sequels apparently.

Even when they aren't very good (or even realistic) boobs?

Edited by mrfluke

@video_game_king said:

@extomar:

Wait, Halo 4 was on Earth? I thought it was on some alien planet. That's a major oversight. I will agree with you, though, that the General who was giving orders was pretty damn weak writing. (You didn't say it directly, but it was implied.)

nope halo 4 takes place on a forerunner planet called requiem. at the end of the game is when they bring him back to earth.

i actually agree with you on halo 4, even as someone who loves the extended fiction, they did an abysmal job with the story in this game and setting up a grand saga, like usually halo would be the thing where i would actually buy a system for, but buying halo 5 for the xbox one so i can see this dumb ass story continue? fuck that now.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@mrfluke:

The way I remember it, the only really dumbass parts were the ones that related to previous Halo games, which was pretty much Master Chief's dual characterization. Oh, and this part that looks ripped from Aladdin, but mostly the other thing.

Edited by EXTomar

Sorry I didn't mean that the beginning was on Earth. Part of my issue with Halo 4 is was the promising premiss of Halo 3 seemed to be abandoned: Master Chief and Cortana heading off to parts unknown. It turns out that it is just goofy planet and the humans and space marines were hanging around the corner. It is kind of like being promised a grand, exotic, far away adventure and it turns out it was just a dopey museum across town you could have gone too any time you wanted but didn't because it was dopey.

And I am glad I was not the only one who thought "Didn't this happen in Aladdin??"

Now that you mention it the details on Tomb Raider were pretty thin but that was part of "the charm of the new" where nothing like it was seen before so they could get away with a lot. Lara is running around the world to find 3 pieces of a "scion" but whats-her-face wanted it to unlock her true form (Pokemon!). The details (would changing into a flying space harpy throwing balls of lightning really help her take over the world?) or setup (why the scion pieces where in those tombs?) didn't seem to be important as much as "omg t-rex!" For Tomb Raider 2, that gets harder because we have seen that before and start asking questions like "Why would they want this anyway?" and the equally important "Why did the bad guys do that?"

Maybe that is the lesson of Tomb Raider 2. If you are going to make a big dumb action game, don't put details into it or it will point out how dumb it is.

Edited by mrfluke

@video_game_king said:

@mrfluke:

The way I remember it, the only really dumbass parts were the ones that related to previous Halo games, which was pretty much Master Chief's dual characterization. Oh, and this part that looks ripped from Aladdin, but mostly the other thing.

some of my issue with the game is with chief yea but generally i thought that stuff was fine, but my problem was all the forerunner stuff, i read the books, found that stuff very interesting that could translate well into a game, problem is, i thought they did a piss poor job of doing anything with it in the game and setting,

but i guess thats on me for reading the books.

but i dunno, like the didact is actually sort of a good guy and kind of a complex character (and there's actually 2 didacts), and he's kind of whatever in the game.

Edited by ThunderSlash

As a person that actually enjoyed the original Tomb Raider back then (I can't say now because the tank controls must be awful), I can agree with you that Tomb Raider 2 is a better game. In fact, I think it might be the best one out of the original trilogy. That underwater sunken ship level was fucking scary back when I was 8 years old. I recall there being a giant eel thing?

Edited by jiggajoe14

I appreciated 343 attempting to put a singular face behind the antagonist of the game and trying to emphasize the relationship between Chief & Cortana (STRONG FEMALE CHARACTER). However, like you said it's just a clusterfuck of a story trying to put the pieces together. Attempts at giving the Didact backstory or something beyond the face failed miserably (according to the wiki for the game apparently the Librarian was the Didact's wife....I never picked up on that). And did they ever revisit that opening scene you mentioned where the military guy interviews the scientist about Chief? It's like they start something in the story but never really close it.

Edited by Video_Game_King

@mrfluke said:

(and there's actually 2 didacts)

Does that mean Halo 5 is just gonna be Halo 4 Again? Because I'm pretty sure somebody already covered that ground.

I recall there being a giant eel thing?

I think there was one? I remember those annoying tentacle things when you went into underwater caverns or whatever, although I think you might be remembering the giant eel from Super Mario 64.

Edited by ThunderSlash

@video_game_king: I thought that might've been the case, but I just found an image of it online:

Cue horrifying flashback

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Edited by jiggajoe14

Wait there are 2 didacts?

I don't know what to think anymore..

Edited by EXTomar

Oh and this reminds me of another big complaint about Halo 4: There is a stupid amount of stuff in that secondary add-on thing that came with the game. I remember playing through Halo 4 being confused and bewildered at some points in the story where they would just introduce some one and all of the characters behave like they've run into them before. It turns out you were supposed to go to that other thing and get that information in there.

Why were important plot elements not in the game? Was it a technical limitation? Did they think adding important plot points to something outside the game was neat? I have no idea but it was definitely another thing to throw on for the problems with this game.

I really don't want to sound negative with Halo 4 but there was a lot to be desired and difficult for me to come up with positives things to say. It sure was pretty. I guess.

Edited by Video_Game_King

@extomar said:

Oh and this reminds me of another big complaint about Halo 4: There is a stupid amount of stuff in that secondary add-on thing that came with the game. I remember playing through Halo 4 being confused and bewildered at some points in the story where they would just introduce some one and all of the characters behave like they've run into them before. It turns out you were supposed to go to that other thing and get that information in there.

Why were important plot elements not in the game? Was it a technical limitation? Did they think adding important plot points to something outside the game was neat? I have no idea but it was definitely another thing to throw on for the problems with this game

Again, that's a feeling I've gotten with a lot of Halo games. I shouldn't have to dig into any outside material to understand what the hell is going on. Here, I got the basic premise, if not the details (that Didact/Librarian crap).

Posted by believer258

Why am I supposed to trust my future to a man who thinks he has to dedicate a hand to each weapon he has? What makes him such a trustworthy fellow on the battlefield?

He had something they [meaning the rest of the Spartans and everybody else alive] didn't: Luck.

I shit you not, this is in the monologue of the third game. Speaking of, I still think the first and third Halo games are the best ones. Have you ever tried to go back and play the first one? You should. It's the one where the story makes sense.

And, speaking as someone who has played all of the Halo games multiple times and has read a few of the earlier books, Halo 4's story doesn't make tons of sense. Well, the general idea works (Didact wants to turn humans into the Borg and Cortana is dying) but a lot of the details are muddy. You shouldn't think about it too much.

Online
Posted by Video_Game_King

He had something they [meaning the rest of the Spartans and everybody else alive] didn't: Luck.

I shit you not, this is in the monologue of the third game.

Hopefully, they didn't say that as evidence of him being awesome.

Speaking of, I still think the first and third Halo games are the best ones. Have you ever tried to go back and play the first one? You should. It's the one where the story makes sense.

Not yet. I usually borrow Halo games from other people (because blog material), and since I don't know anybody who owns the first Halo, I don't see myself playing it any time soon. Still, I have to imagine the story would make sense, unless Bungie released a bunch of supplementary material five minutes after the game's release and people praised that, for some reason.

Posted by believer258

@believer258 said:

He had something they [meaning the rest of the Spartans and everybody else alive] didn't: Luck.

I shit you not, this is in the monologue of the third game.

Hopefully, they didn't say that as evidence of him being awesome.

Speaking of, I still think the first and third Halo games are the best ones. Have you ever tried to go back and play the first one? You should. It's the one where the story makes sense.

Not yet. I usually borrow Halo games from other people (because blog material), and since I don't know anybody who owns the first Halo, I don't see myself playing it any time soon. Still, I have to imagine the story would make sense, unless Bungie released a bunch of supplementary material five minutes after the game's release and people praised that, for some reason.

No, really, they play the whole luck thing straight after the third game. And actually, there were Halo books released soon after Halo 1 came out, though they're not necessary to understand the first game's story. They are, however, actually not bad books. The Fall of Reach is a particularly interesting read. It does a really good job of setting up the Halo universe before the Halo universe started becoming really stupid.

Also, don't quote me on this but I think the developers of Tomb Raider 2 had done something really neat and cool with water graphics back in the day and wanted to show that off. Kinda like how Square Enix revolutionized CG, bad voice acting, cutscenes, and belts in Final Fantasy X.

Online
Edited by Video_Game_King
Edited by Slag

How do you decide which games you are going to play, because damn if I can find a pattern to it.Tomb raider 2? Holy randomness Batman.

Had no idea you even played FPS games.

You got varied tastes good sir.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@slag said:

How do you decide which games you are going to play, because damn if I can find a pattern to it.

The pattern is here.

Had no idea you even played FPS games.

Really? Because this isn't the first time I've done one. Just last week, for instance.

Posted by theanticitizen

My two cents: I love Halo for it's gameplay. Used to love it for the stories. Still love the "emergent" nature of the battlefields in single player though. Also my sequel to a game I never cared for(or even knew about in this case): Spec Ops The Line

Posted by Slag

@slag said:

How do you decide which games you are going to play, because damn if I can find a pattern to it.

The pattern is here.

Had no idea you even played FPS games.

Really? Because this isn't the first time I've done one. Just last week, for instance.

Uhhh what? All I see is two more random games that are more similar to what seems to be usual fare.

Bioshock Infinite I suppose is a FPS game, but it isn't a purely action focused shooter like a Quake so I guess I didn't think it really counted.

Posted by EXTomar

I personally think Halo 2 is might be interesting for VGK because it is a bit unconventional and a bit controversial. Halo is a bit rough and still feels experimental while Halo 3 is the culmination of what they had learned. Halo 2 is the middle child where they were they were confident in their abilities but still had to experimenting and was a bit reckless. I wonder if what the story they were going for in Halo 2 was one of those "ahead of its time" things where today you'd almost expect that kind of "twist" in a FPS campaign.

Have you done Dark Cloud or Dark Cloud 2?

Posted by crithon

tomb raider and halo, your in deed a braver man then me. I'd stick with Street Fighter Zangief storyline is wonderful.

Posted by Ravenlight

Halo and Tom Braider? Sellout.

Posted by Pepsiman

If you play the Halo series backwards, it becomes a series about how Master Chief brings so many aliens to life with his magic gun that they have to build a giant artificial space ring to put them on, subsequently achieving peace with the human race.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@extomar said:

Halo 3 is the culmination of what they had learned.

Oh, shit.

Halo and Tom Braider? Sellout.

Don't worry. I'm going back to the obscure stuff next week...sort of.

@pepsiman

And how he gives birth to a schizophrenic fairy AI who decides to hang out with this green voice until she sorts her shit out?

Posted by Pepsiman

@video_game_king: One of the subplots is about how Cortana overcomes her rampancy and becomes a pleasantly sane and helpful AI, yes. Part of her character development also involves changing her outward appearance to become increasingly docile and less ambiguously pandering.

Posted by EXTomar

If you want obscure, I've got a copy of Jade Cocoon in the storage/closet somewhere. Probably next to Kartia and Elemental Gearbolt. Hmm...I wonder if those light gun games work at all on a modern HDTV.

Edited by Video_Game_King

@extomar:

I've actually played Elemental Gearbolt before. I don't remember it being that good.