Some thoughts on Castle Crashers

As you can probably tell, things get all
kinds of crazy real fast in multiplayer.

I always knew why the beat-'em-up genre fell out of vogue alongside arcades, but playing Castle Crashers really made it clear why this isn't such a popular genre anymore. It's a good game, sure; I had a fun time with it. But between a shallow, repetitive combat system, mindless foes who always either charge you only to stop just long enough for you to lay the beat-down on or sit back and fling endless projectiles your way (which is especially vexing), and no real narrative to drive you forward, I can't help but be just as annoyed and bored by the game as I am entertained by it.

I understand that Castle Crashers was meant as a throwback to beat-'em-ups of yore, and I respect that. Clearly the guys at The Behemoth are fans of that genre. It's just that I, like many others, think that the genre is archaic by today's standards. It works well enough, sure, and was fun for what it was; it just doesn't hold up for long.

During the first couple hours, mindlessly cutting down leagues of foes was good fun. Though I only had light and heavy attacks and some magic at my disposal, it appeared to have enough options for some decent variety. Mixing physical and magical attacks together to string combos together to see what means of quick dispatching foes I could come up with as I unlocked more and more preset combos kept me driven to level up some more (oh, yes, there's a leveling system here -- forgot to mention that) to see what other methods of dispatch I could find. Play it in co-op and gets better (though, regrettably, I didn't play much co-op).

By the fifth or so hour, however, that hook began to lose me. The further I got, the more combat became formulaic. Enemy types stuck to only two basic builds -- a small, diminutive character much like your own in terms of size, and a large, hulking foe who likes to throw you about like a ball -- who I had quickly worked out how defeat while sustaining little damage. A lot of them also had a tendency to just sit back and take the beating rather than put up a strong fight. At that point, it became a case of repetition. Occasional boss fights did freshen things up a tad, if only because they were a touch different from the usual leagues of foes, though even they didn't remedy the constant settling of dullness that had started seeping in. I think that came about as a result of suddenly needing to do a bit of leveling to get past a certain stage (grinding ain't fun here either, folks). Wouldn't be the first time a grinding session has almost turned me off a game.

It was around that time that I started playing it in short bursts. That made Castle Crashers fun again, but my thoughts had already been set, always in the back of my mind no matter how thrilling the game became. Maybe this should of been a simple 3-4 hour adventure instead. A quick bout of beat-'em-up action would be much easier to enjoy that way, I'd think. Otherwise they should have tried and added something to make the game more interesting throughout.

Probably the most egregious thing about this is that they're selling it for $15. That's quite a price for a game of this sort. For that price, I'd think it's fair to expect something more than just another old-school beat-'em-up with some gorgeous flash art (not that I was, mind you; I mostly knew what I was getting into beforehand).

Still, for all my complaints, it is a fine game. Not a bad introduction to the olden days of beat-'em-ups, I'd say, but the not the best, either. Don't think I'll be playing another one of these games again, though.

Super Stardust HD Review

Frustration may reign supreme in Super Stardust HD, but that doesn't stop it from being a thrilling shooter experience.

Utter madness: that's what Super Stardust HD is all about. Whether or not you consider that a good thing or not is largely dependent on your feelings toward shooters of the bullet-hell variety. Though even if you're one of the many crazies who adore those kinds of masochistic punishment, I'm more than willing to bet that you haven't experienced something as brutal and infuriating as Super Stardust HD -- at least in the dual-joystick shooter sector. The sheer intensity of the action here is as exhilarating as it is maddening, and though you'll frequently feel compelled to quit, its fast and furious action is almost hypnotic in how it manages to constantly call you back for more no matter how much abuse is inflicted upon you. It's there where Stardust HD's brilliance lies.

Professor Layton and the Unwound Future Review

Layton's latest continues to deliver with an enchanting tale and more stupendously designed puzzles than ever.

Time travel: one of the most tired tropes in entertainment media, and also the latest subject for the dapper professor/detective Professor Layton and his young apprentice. "Tired" isn't an adjective I'd use to describe the professor's foray into the matter, however. Rather, the series' endearing cast and engrossing narratives and puzzles make Professor Layton and the Unwound Future another swell, puzzling adventure.

Shatter Review

A number of small innovations and delectably addictive gameplay make Shatter a (brick) smashing good time.

Shatter is, at a glance, just another Arkanoid clone with excellent production values. But to say that would be like saying Geometry Wars is just another Robotron clone with those same values. The point is, that's selling the game short. What Shatter really is is a brilliant new take on the Arkanoid formula. A strong competitive component, cool new gameplay mechanics, and great production values are what make up this gorgeous brick-shattering good time, and they all come together in a truly singular fashion.

Graphic critiques in reviews: A necessity or a superfluosity?

In Giant Bomb's review for Dead Space 2, editor Brad Shoemaker made a passing comment about describing visuals in reviews. Specifically, he said he dislikes doing so because "it's 2011. That's what we produce videos for." A harmless comment given their focus on video content, sure, but it does raise an interesting question:

With all these videos and screenshots within easy reach nowadays, is it really necessary to spend time describing videogame graphics in reviews anymore?

Honestly, I don't think so. Video and image embeds have become a standard inclusion for professional works (and a good number of amateur works, too); so much so that no one really puts any real effort into describing a game's visuals anymore (of course, they never really did to begin with). Readers can, and will, already have a clear picture of the visual side of things long before the review hits thanks to the enormous amount of media circulating around the 'net. Heck, most of it is posted onto the game press' sites, only furthering the circulation rate. By that point, what good do graphic critiques do aside from satisfying that need fulfill some arbitrary criteria for the article to be considered a review?

Not a whole lot, especially given the tendency to use vague sentences over illustrative ones. Grayson Davis of Beeps and Boops demonstrated it best in his piece where he took excerpts from Banjo-Kazooie reviews and applied them to Uncharted 2. The results of that particular experiment were enlightening to say the least: the comparisons were indistinguishable. Nothing in the construction of the excerpts made any sort of allusion to what game they were referring to, making them easily cut-and-pasted into any other review with nary a loss. Not very encouraging. It's almost as if they using the mass amount of media available as an excuse to remain vague in their works. Rather accusatory, I know, but that's about the most probable instance I can think of.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words,
and yet we can barely string together a good sentence or two for them.

That's also why I think graphical critiques should go: because the majority of attempts made are mediocre at best. If we can't rely on the press to effectively illustrate a game's visuals, then they might as well quit trying and start relying solely on the myriad video and screenshots they have. At least then we'd be getting a clearer picture. Plus we'd be saved the horror of reading more dull, abstract writing!

Many of us amateurs aren't much better, granted (I've used my fair share of abstractions in regards to visual depictions as well -- feel free to lambaste me however you see fit). But then, we aren't professionals, and therefore aren't expected to uphold a certain standard. The press don't have that luxury, however, and that many of them simply skim over that aspect is, frankly, despicable. Do they really care so little for quality writing?

Now, obviously screens and video aren't entirely indicative of how the game will look on our TVs or monitors -- screens are typically doctored to make the game look better than it actually is, and videos sometimes look worse because, well, it's online video: there's only so much a flash video player can do (though the advent of HD video has certainly helped subvert that). But even so, that doesn't stop anyone from gaining at least a basic understanding of the game's visual quality. If it did, we'd all probably stop being so rabid about them and wait to get the actual product in our hands.

I see only two options: 1) improve the means by which graphics are evaluated (that is, start putting some effort into being more descriptive and illustrative), or 2) just remove that section altogether because obviously it's beyond the ability of most writers in the industry. I'd recommend 2 if only because taking criticism isn't something many in the profession can do, but hope that 1 would be pursued instead (that's what I'll be doing). I suppose that's asking a bit much, but hey, a guy can dream, right?

Risk: Factions Review

A surprisingly fine adaptation of a classic board game.

Board games, like movie tie-ins, are just one of those things that often doesn't work in videogames. Risk: Factions, however, the latest adaptation of the classic board game from Electronic Arts, is one of the few exceptions. The reason for that being because it's one of the few to actually make the board game experience entertaining on the console front by removing they're usual arduous nature. It doesn't evolve the game by leaps and bounds of course, but what little iterations it makes go a long way.

Super Stardust HD is brutal

Like, seriously. I haven't played anything this hard since BIT.TRIP BEAT back in '09. And that's saying something!

So I started playing this a couple days ago. I had some prior experience with it through the demo last year (hard to believe how quickly time flies), though it was a lot easier back then from what I recall. Those five minute games must have simply ended before the mayhem set in, 'cause the full game is pure madness!

If you haven't heard of Super Stardust HD, let me educate you: It's basically a Robotron/Geometry Wars clone exclusive to the PlayStation 3. The game sets you as a lone spaceship charged with, what I assume, is protecting a planet from an oncoming onslaught of meteors, UFOs, and all sorts of other nasties. Standard fare, really. Well, except for how surprisingly punishing it is. Not because it's naturally hard, mind you, but because it's simply sheer chaos.

Every game begins easy enough: a couple meteors make contact with the grid the planet below with them splitting apart into smaller hazards as they get shot, much like Asteroids, making the field slowly more dangerous. During the first phase (there's five total per level) it's easy enough to manage. Come the second phase onward, however, when enemies start flooding in and the meteors start coming down more often and in higher numbers, things get all kinds of crazy and nigh impossible to manage. This is mostly on account of the myriad particle effects produced by destroy meteors and enemies that could your view. And in a game like this, visibility is of the utmost importance, so any sort disruption can easily spell disaster.

By this point, I'm usually exclaiming something like: "AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!"
I'm sure you can guess why.

And in this game, it always spells disaster.

Frustrating? Yeah, definitely. Does that stop me? Heck no! It only encourages me to keep going, actually. Why? Because, like any good bullet-hell shooter (which is what this is as far as I'm concerned), failure makes you better. Now, typically, this is because you begin to memorize enemy placement and learn the most efficent ways of vanquishing them. And while there some level of memorization here, victory is mostly obtained through perseverance, and maybe just a smidge of luck. Not the most scientific way, sure, but it keeps a nice element of unpredictability in play, which is more than can be said for most bullet-hell games.

That's what I like most about these games: they're unpredictable, yet clearly methodical logic that dictates the flow of enemies. For usual shoot-'em-ups that stuff is mostly set in stone; for stuff like this, though it probably still is, it never once feels that way. That's impressive.

So, yeah. Super Stardust HD. It's awesome. Brutal, yes, but awesome. Look for a review sometime after I finally conquer this game (and finish up that Shatter review, too).