I was disappointed that this sequel's first world is nothing more than a review of the basic mechanics introduced in the original Cut the Rope. (Hence its "Getting Started" title, I suppose.) But Experiments' second world proved worthwhile, and I'm looking forward to more labs with the Professor!
The Good: Cut the Rope was originally sold as a 100-puzzle game, which meant that players were paying just a penny per puzzle. The title has now expanded into a 250-puzzle experience, all for the same insanely low price of $0.99. With dozens and dozens of brain-ticklers ranging in difficulty from "swipe here once, whenever you like" to "perform this exact series of actions, with this exact timing", there's never an opportunity for boredom to set in!
The Bad: Cut the Rope's tunes are just fine, but there are only two of them... and one of them is reserved for menu-surfing! I wish that ZeptoLab could've at least offered a few simple remixes of their one gameplay tune. And even though Cut the Rope is a puzzle game, I was a little let down that it had no story beyond a pair of images that bookend the experience. Even offering one new image to introduce each world would have been an improvement!
The Stand-out Moment: Reuniting two candy halves for the first time in the Valentine Box.
The Verdict: 9.0 (out of 10)
However, if I had reviewed this title in its original, 100-puzzle form, it would've earned an 8.5.
I picked up my first smartphone - an iPhone 4s - at the start of this year, and I soon afterwards picked up my first smartphone title. Cut the Rope earned multiple "Best Handheld Game" awards last year, and after quickly mastering its first two worlds, I can already understand why!
The Good: Bastion's arsenal reminds me of one of my favorite last-gen series: Ratchet and Clank. Its soundtrack is easily one of the best I've heard from this generation. Upgrades and "idols" allow players to fine-tune the difficulty of their journey by alternately strengthening and handicapping themselves. And the world on offer is unlike any other; suffice it to say that Bastion is one of exceptionally few games that I've begun re-playing immediately upon completion.
The Bad: Even though Bastion is well worth re-visiting, it's slightly annoying that it's literally impossible to unlock all twelve of its achievements without playing it all the way from beginning to end twice. Another trifling complaint: the Cael Hammer challenge claims that its first-place prize can be earned by destroying 100 objects in "under 27 seconds"; in reality, nothing less than a flawless 24-second run is honored, making that particular proving ground obnoxiously difficult.
The Stand-out Moment: "There, the kid hears something he ain't heard in a long while..."
The Verdict: 9.5 (out of 10)
I enjoyed a demo of Bastion back at this year's PAX East, but I neglected to get my hands on the full title until now. Thus far, I welcome the colorful environments, the charming narrator, and the wealth of customization options. I'm more than willing to linger longer in Bastion's whimsical world!
The Good: Everything that made the first two Saints Row titles appealing has been polished here to perfection. Activities and strongholds have been incorporated into the game's main storyline, and even the concept of taking down rival gangs has itself been streamlined. The Third's voice acting is excellent, and its script proves laugh-out-loud funny again and again. Controls are responsive, characters are memorable, and environments are all well-crafted. Sound design is terrific, menus are stylish, and the many unlockable rewards on offer are invariably awesome. I can't recommend this title highly enough!
The Bad: Reviving computer-controlled allies who insist on running repeatedly into firefights only to be gunned down quickly becomes annoying. Additionally, even though The Third improves upon its predecessors in every respect, the sheer amount of gameplay that it borrows from them causes certain aspects of the experience to feel slightly "been-here-done-this".
The Stand-out Moment: Jumping out of a helicopter to engage in a penthouse shootout as Kanye West's "Power" begins to play!
The Verdict: 9.5 (out of 10)
I've only completed Pierce's "City Takeover Introduction Missions", but I'm already in awe of "The Third". This latest installment in the Saints Row series both looks and plays much better than either of its predecessors. I haven't enjoyed unadulterated gaming fun like this since Super Mario Galaxy 2!
The Good: Multi-player is the first of Battlefield 3's two discs for a reason: this is the way the game was meant to be played. I'm fortunate in that I have three close friends who enjoy playing online as three different classes. As our squad's Recon, I hugely enjoy spotting enemy troops and vehicles before rushing into the fray myself. Seventeen hours of service have elevated me to Rank 17 thus far, and I can easily picture myself re-enlisting for seventeen hours more!
The Bad: BF3's campaign, when played on Hard, is brutally difficult; it's not so much challenging as it is downright frustrating. I can't count the number of times I died simply because I'd dared to poke my head out of cover for two whole seconds to shoot someone. On Hard, it took me about 90 minutes and 50 continues to complete the game's penultimate mission, "Kaffarov"; replaying that same mission on Normal took me less than half the time, and I died just once!
Is there really no setting between a Hard mode that feels like Insane and a Normal mode that feels like Easy? On the one hand, the frequent deaths that I faced on Hard nearly ruined the plot's pacing for me; on the other hand, I'm guessing that if I'd played through BF3's entire campaign on Normal, I would've been itching for a more substantial challenge. Yet this is a minor complaint, considering that - as I mentioned before - BF3 is designed for online play!
The Stand-out Moment: Scoring my first Roadkill with the MAV!
The Verdict: 9.5 (out of 10)
I'm new to the Battlefield franchise, but this installment has already won me over. Multi-player reminds me of MW2, if all of the latter's killstreak rewards were replaced with vehicles and larger maps. BF3's campaign feels polished, too... though I doubt that anyone comes for the single-player!
The Good: The series made me like Baird for once! The controls are nearly flawless. Multi-player comes in a variety of deathmatch and objective flavors.
The Bad: Everything else? First and foremost, the campaign's story is lacking in every way: its premise, plot, and storytelling all disappoint.
In short, Gears 3 is the story of Adam Fenix's quest to eradicate the Lambent. When I began Gears 3's campaign, I didn't remember much of anything about Marcus's dad or his "glowy" nemeses... which was especially strange given that I had just watched the 2-minute "previously in" video that Gears 3 offers. Said crash course in Gears history discusses E-Day, the Hammer of Dawn, the Stranded, and Jacinto... then introduces the Lambent as if they were a brand-new threat. Am I not the only one who'd forgotten about them since 2008? This video doesn't even allude to Adam, and it's his project that drives the entire plot!
Speaking of Gears 3's plot, it follows a familiar three-act structure. And by that, I don't mean that it follows a traditional three-act structure; I mean that it follows a particular three-act structure: namely, the one outlined by South Park's underpants gnomes in their legendary business plan.
No, seriously. This is Gears 3's entire plot:
Literally 60% of the game is devoted to looking for fuel.
Alas - even if Gears 3 had carried a decent plot, its narrative would've been undermined by shoddy storytelling.
Why do cut scenes interrupt gameplay so frequently and abruptly? Why does the game's camera force players to press and hold a button when it wants to focus on something important, instead of just auto-panning? And why does every handle, switch, and knob in the game shimmer like a sun-struck diamond, as if Epic thought that even the most experienced players might need constant reminding of how doors work? These hold-overs from 2006 didn't grate in 2008, but now, they serve only to annoy; I suppose that's just how rapidly game design has advanced in the past five years.
And really, that's the main problem with Gears 3: it does so little to advance even its own series. It features plenty of new locales, but none of them are memorable; it introduces a slew of new faces, but not one of them leaves an impression. Even graphically, Gears 3 is scarcely superior to its forebears.
When the first Gears launched, it offered a fresh experience: roadie run and grab cover, then down foes and curb-stomp them. When Gears 2 shipped, it revitalized that concept by introducing game-changing new weapons and modes, 5v5 matches, and the ability to use downed opponents as human shields. With the release of Gears 3, I honestly don't know that there are any new features worth boasting about. (Dedicated servers for online multi-player sure are nice, but they would've been even nicer three years ago.)
Don't get me wrong: despite all of these complaints, Gears 3 is a perfectly competent game. But considering that its single-player is a plodding mess and its multi-player feels like little more than a glorified Gears 2 map pack, I'm ultimately left wondering, "What was the point?" *
The Stand-out Moment: [Character name redacted] sacrificing himself to save the rest of the squad.
The Verdict: 8.0 (out of 10)
* Obviously, the point was to get suckers like me to hand over $60. And it worked!
Log in to comment