Noel the Mortal Fate

Again, an older game on my wishlist, added back in 2018. I was surprised to find that it had just 50 reviews back when I added it, and that it had since grown to over 2000 reviews, with the percentage of positive reviews somehow even increasing. I was so hopeful I had something good on my hands. Maybe, to some people, I did, but I couldn't appreciate it.

Noel the Mortal Fate is a story-focused RPGMaker adventure game. As these types of games go, there are some puzzles, some action segments, but the meat of the game is in the story told. The game is presented in a total of 14 chapters, of which I only got through the first one, lasting a tad over 2 hours. It's a story about a stupid girl making a deal with a devil, losing all her limbs in the process, and then embarking on a quest to take revenge on the person who decieved her.

Where do I even begin with my personal impressions... I suppose I never took a good look at the game on a large screen. The full body art of the characters, as well as full-screen stills, while not masterful, are entirely decent, but the small sprites you see in game are really bad. I do not exaggerate when I say that I think I could have done a better job. I wouldn't generally complain about art, but this is very much jarring and hurting my experience.
There also seems to be a bit too much gameplay here. I really couldn't care about the RPG elements, fighting enemies, solving puzzles, etc. There isn't so much it would make me quit, but it is a bit more than I've found in the average story-focused adventure game, and even the average is a bit too much for my liking.
Finally, the story. I could excuse almost anything for a sublime story, but I don't have faith that such a thing can be found here. The main character immediately irked me for how dumb and naive she is. Even after suffering the would-be traumatic loss of her limbs, she does not act like it. Of course, with such a main character, it sets a sort of tone for the rest of the story, even if the other characters are more likable. There are hints of a transition in the attitude of the main character at the end of the first chapter, but as the rest of the story was not without some flaws, and then the art and gameplay problems listed, it had simply managed to lose me.

While I feel bad for not being able to ascertain whether the story gets good enough to justify everything else, I still think it's fair to tell you I don't recommend it. 2 hours is not a short time for something to convince me it has potential, and I wouldn't be one to tell others "trust me, it gets good", and expect them to ignore their initial dislike. Perhaps this story is not just about revenge, but also of personal growth, and as such it was important to start out at such an unlikable state. I suppose I will never find out, and I'm fine with that - there are plenty more stories to read.

Ratropolis

Ratropolis is advertised as a fusion of a roguelite, tower defense, city-building, and deck-building game. I'm not really sure about the roguelite part, but everything else is kind of correct. You have a little rat town, a deck of cards, money slowly ticking in, and enemies pouring in in waves from both sides. You interact with the world through cards, which cost money, usually create buildings, create more money, or spawn units to defend your town. Occasionally you recycle your hand and draw a new one. Add in some events to gain new cards and a few other things, and that's most of the game.

While the idea of this kind of fusion is nice and all, the execution is pretty terrible. The game doesn't look all that great, doesn't have a good variety of cards, and has some pretty serious bugs, like enemies clipping through your defenses sometimes and destroying your whole town while your defenders are busy with the ones who didn't clip through the walls. I don't have a lot more to say about it even. It just needs way more content, way more polish, and more stuff to do. Even with optimal gameplay, I'm kind of just spamming cards and maybe waiting for my redraw cooldown to finish. There isn't a lot of thought to be put into decision making.

So, short review, but yeah, there isn't much to talk about. The city building is weak, the unit diversity is weak, the enemies and combat are weak, the strategy is nonexistant... It's just an overall boring game, and I can't recommend it to anyone.

The Messenger

Among the older games I still had left in my backlog, I tried The Messenger today. It's a retro platformer metroidvania from 2018, with, honestly, a surprising amount of content in it. This short description actually describes the game quite well, as there isn't anything remarkably unique to be found here.

I have to start with the usual disclaimer that while I like metroidvanias, I'm not a fan of platformers, so anything leaning more on the platformer than the action combat side isn't going to sit all too well with me. Such was also the case with The Messenger, and I didn't get too far in the game. While it initially looks like there are quite a lot of enemies in the game and even some boss fights, everything still comes down to your platforming skills. A big feature of the game, at least in the beginning, is that by attacking something mid-air, you refresh your jump. These can be environmental objects, but are often also enemies or projectiles they fire. For that purpose, most enemies respawn after being killed to facilitate the platforming aspect.
You will later also get to experience a sort of grappling hook that propels you forward, as well as portals that lead you to a different version of the same map, and probably a few other things. I didn't get that far, as I got upset at the numerous instant kill traps in the game that set me back quite a bit, and so I quit. I will entirely take the blame for being weak-willed on this, but as mentioned, I'm not big on platformers, so any minor gripe will deter me.

I must, however, praise the amount of hidden and optional content there is in the game, as well as the amount of detail that went into minor aspects. They could have just given upgrades at regular points in the game, but they let us have some choice in what to buy in the store. They could have just respawned us at a checkpoint, but they gave us a little devil who joins us on our journey and eats a portion of our earnings instead. And they could have gone without having every character quip jokes at you, but despite usually being adverse to anything funny, they actually got a few laughs out of me.
On the negative side, I also didn't enjoy the "retro" feel of the game, as the low-resolution graphics weren't amazing, and much of the platforming didn't feel very weighty. Especially the mid-air jump refresh mechanic felt very unsatisfying to execute.

Overall, while I didn't like The Messenger due to my general aversion to platformers and the forced retro aesthetic, which I think hurt not only the graphical quality, but also how the game feels, I can believe this to be a fun platformer for fans of the genre. The main complaint about the part of the game I didn't get to is that it actually turns into a metroidvania, instead of a more-or-less linear platformer. I suppose I can't have an accurate opinion on what I haven't experienced, but having more content isn't bad if you like the game. It's not that long of a game. In any case, I can't give it a personal recommendation, but that doesn't mean you absolutely shouldn't play it.

Still There

Man, what a piece of art Still There is. Unfortunately, I don't say that in an entirely good way, but luckily, not in an entirely bad way either. I went in expecting a somewhat technical game about operating a complex machine with bits of story woven in at intervals. I got... almost that.

Still There is mostly a point & click game, meaning it's more about finding the right things to click, rather than solving a puzzle, and definitely not about getting to know your intricate spaceship controls well. While the controls of the spaceship look complicated, they are like that mostly because there are a lot of them. If they were all properly labelled, the game would become quite a bit easier, but then it also wouldn't take you much time to complete it. Additionally, the same controls aren't used many times, meaning that by the time you might learn them, you won't need them anymore. It's probably for the best, considering the puzzles don't have a lot of substance to them once you know what you're doing. On the other hand, I can't say I had any fun at all with the trial and error of finding things out either.

So the puzzles aren't very fun. Sadly they make up for about 80% of the game. This does include the time spent looking around inside the spaceship, which I must admit is intricately crafted. This is half of why I called the game a piece of art. The spaceship may be illogically complicated and the puzzles may lack actual substance, but they look really good, which is also what made me want to try this game in the first place. That's not a bad thing, but I'm afraid it also doesn't nearly compensate me getting bored of doing them.
The other half of art is the story which is sad and is mostly told in a very slow and abstract manner. Maybe that style would work somewhere else, but I feel that due to the story making up for such a small portion of game time, and the game being short overall, it comes together to less than a 50-page book equivalent. Something that short can't afford to tell itself that slow. In the end, I can't say it made me feel much.

In conclusion, I would most definitely not recommend Still There for the gameplay or puzzles. But there is definitely a charm to the game that is rather rare to find, and that I think might appeal to some people. I don't really resonate with it enough myself to say who those kinds of people are, but maybe if the idea of staying in a lonely, claustrophobic space ship, being affected by emotional trauma, and spending your days doing overly time consuming and convoluted tasks is a vibe that speaks with you, you could give it a try.

Bright Memory

Bright Memory (and it's sequel, Bright Memory: Infinite) got an explosive and very positive reception as soon as they launched. I believe this was the main reason prompting me to try them, as I heard they were mostly solo projects, and so the popularity of the reception was very impressive.

Bright Memory is a first-person shooter where your character also has an assortment of abilities to be used. The game focuses on high action combat and rewards more points for combos, prompting for slightly flashier gameplay. There is a clear focus on graphical fidelity and combat, although there is also a story unfolding. I'm rarely a fan of stories, but even by someone else's standards, the story is not worth experiencing. But what about the rest of the game?

Honestly, I was aware that Bright Memory is a very short game, lasting for about an hour for the first installment, and three for the second one. What I hoped to get for that brief time was impeccable combat, jawdropping visuals, and just maybe, a good-looking main character, since I don't think they made revealing costume packs for her for no reason.
While none of those aspects of the game were bad, they really didn't live up to my expectations. Sure, for a supposedly solo developed game (which I have some doubts about), it looks and plays great, but I've seen both better combat and better visuals from many shooters. So I don't really understand what the huge positive reception was about.

Overall, I don't really see a reason to recommend it. The gameplay is fine, but not amazing, and the whole game is so short that even if you did enjoy it, it would be over very soon. The developer quoting monetary constraints for the second game sounds silly, since the first should have brought in on the order of several million euros. If they ever decide to make a full-length game, I might try it, but I wouldn't try another one of this length.

Minit

I've had Minit in my library for a while, and I finally got around to playing it. It's published by Devolver Digital, who publishes a lot of indie games by various people. Some are games with more tried-and-true mechanics and a significant amount of content, and some are more experimental things, like Minit here.

Minit is a very short game, apparently completed on average in some 2-4 hours. It's also a very simple game, only giving you an interact key in addition to basic movement. The gimmick is that you only have a minute (hence the name of the game) to play, before the game starts all over. Most importantly, you, as the player, retain your memories, so you become better with each run at accomplishing your goal, whatever that is. I guess it's also important that items you find show up at the start on subsequent runs, and a few actions in the world persist, but not most. The game doesn't give you a concrete goal, rather sending you off to find things to do. It does have an end though, and if you are so inclined, you can browse the achievements to find ideas what to strive for.

Despite its short average length and absolutely nonexistant run length, it quickly lost my interest. I would say the idea is new, but I've been aware of Outer Wilds since maybe 2015, and a couple other less-known games that explore this sort of time loop. Especially in the case of Outer Wilds (though I haven't played the release version), it has a longer time loop, and a much more interesting world. The time loop gimmick does not do anything for the game on its own, and Minit's gameplay is boring. The world is barely interesting, the puzzles are basic, and I'm not somehow more captivated by having to restart every minute.

So, I wouldn't recommend Minit. Not only is it too short, it's also too unremarkable. If the idea of restarting the game every minute is, for some reason, very appealing for you, go ahead, but from an adventure / puzzle game standpoint, it's quite shallow and boring.

RollScape

Something possessed me to try out a rather unremarkable game that just launched instead of going for another from my backlog. RollScape seemed like a simple dopamine hit that I could beat under 2 hours and refund. Not that I want to abuse the developer, but because I genuinely don't believe it's a good game or a worthwhile purchase. And I was mostly right.

In RollScape, you roll a six-sided die and move forward that many alternating black and white tiles. Each tile starts out with giving 0 points, but the shop at the side lets you buy upgrades which increase the amount of points you get. You can also upgrade your die to roll bigger numbers, and there's a few special upgrades as well as powerups at milestones in the game. The points give you both, well, points, to buy more upgrades, but also energy, which lets you buy more rolls. As upgrades and energy costs get exponentially more expensive, it's your goal to make good enough decisions (and have an amount of luck) to stay ahead of that exponential curve.

It's a very basic incremental game loop with a failure mechanic. I'm sure most of the effort was spent making the graphics, but even then, this is easily a solo project that maybe took a few months. It does what it needs to, but without even a metaprogression system, there really is nothing to do after beating the game in an hour. There are some extra game modes, but it's basically just more of the same. It's a fine game for an hour, but nothing new, and not worth the price. I wouldn't recommend it.

Plebby Quest

Plebby Quest tries to be a more casual take on the grand strategy genre, probably most inspired by Crusader Kings. I figured that since my main problems with Crusader Kings were its excessive micromanagement and too large a focus on roleplaying, then something like this might be a fun little alternative. How wrong I was.

Plebby Quest definitely does have more of a focus on gameplay, with interpersonal relationships and successions not even being a thing. You simply control a country and fight against other countries. Diplomacy still exists with trade and alliances though. The second biggest difference (after not having to worry about succession) is the heavy focus on individual generals and troops. Both can level up, giving more troops to generals, and increasing the stats of troops and even allowing them to learn new abilities. You also take personal control of all battles, issuing commands to all your troops, giving you more influence over the outcome. Further, the game is not real-time, but instead is played in turns, with each general giving you one action per turn to be spent on combat, gaining resources, research, or something else.

There's more stuff in addition to what's listed above, but there's no point in going into all the little details. It's still much simpler than any grand strategy game, while having a somewhat similar feel. While the simplicity is fine, there are two major problems. One is that there is somehow even more micromanagement. I can not set things up according to some rules. Every turn, I have to tell every general what to do, and if it's not combat that I have to oversee, it's some other little minigame that they decided to insert because they thought just playing the main game wasn't fun enough? I don't know. The minigames were fun the first 10 times, but if I have to do them every turn, they get quite tedious. Secondly, the clicking. Oh god, the clicking. I have no idea who in their right mind decided that everything needed to have, without exaggeration, three times more buttons to click than necessary. I should not need to manually dismiss each source of income every turn. I should not have to listen to some character giving me three lines of dialogue every time I buy a medal for a unit, which I can do three times a turn. In fact, all the dialogue they added is insane. Flavor text and descriptions are fine, but I have to dismiss every single dialogue like a pop-up box.

I can't comment too much on how good the game is outside these problems. It's probably fine - I didn't see any balance issues or anything like that. But the two issues I listed above make the game unplayable. I, again, do not exaggerate, when I say that the turns could probably be around 10 times shorter if pointless clicks and minigames were excluded. After just two hours, I was beyond frustrated. I was angry that I was wasting my time and the game wasn't progressing. Sadly, these issues are far too deep ingrained into the game. It's hopeless, and I can't recommend anyone play this.

Prime Mover

A slightly older programming puzzle game today - Prime Mover. It has clearly taken inspiration from Zachtronics games, most noticeably the leaderboard at the end of each level, showing how well you did compared to others. But what about the gameplay? Is it any good?

Primve Mover is a game about moving numbers from the input(s) to the output(s), transforming them along the way. This all happens on a small grid, with the numbers moving on the board, step-by-step. Aside from basic wires, you're also given a duplicator, an alternator, a deleter, and a piece that sorts by positive/negative/zero. You also have an adder/subtractor, a lock, and very powerfully, a piece that toggles an adjacent piece.
While playing the tutorial for these pieces, I already noticed it was rather dry. The game introduced the pieces very concisely, but it felt more like learning than playing. There were some story bits mixed in, but for god knows what reason, they had decided to write it in non-human letters, so I had no idea what the story was about. Similarly, interacting with the board was really, really annoying. I kept accidentally deleting pieces, or putting down wrong pieces, or wanting to shift the whole puzzle around by a few squares, which was luckily possible, but an absolute nightmare. The "coding" part of the solution should be frictionless, not this.

After the tutorial, I wasn't smoothed into the game. The puzzles immediately jumped in difficulty a whole lot, which was also kind of jarring. I noticed two key problems with the way the puzzles were made. One is that, due to the slow nature of the numbers and the importance of which order they were output, it was important to synchronize different parts of the circuit. The only tool for that was the toggle-and-lock combo, but that required that the two circuit pieces to synchronize be next to each other, which meant running a lot of extra wire. Normally, one could count that as being part of the space constraint, but because this game actually has infinitely nestable subboards, it has infinite space, and near-infinite maneouver room. The developer claims this is a defining feature of the game, but I find this to be a terrible crutch that excused the developer from actually designing his puzzles well. Perhaps if I could save the subboards as components that do more advanced operations that I could re-use later, but no such luck.

Overall, while the puzzles Primve Mover presents are interesting and difficult, the tools for solving them are not. The developer has not managed to make a user-friendly UI, and hasn't managed to make good use of the spatial aspect they designed their game with. Ultimately, I feel the game boils down to writing code with just very basic operators and a lot of boilerplate, which is more tedious than it is fun. Programming puzzle games always have to walk the fine line between feeling like a job and feeling fun, but I think Prime Mover falls significantly more into the "feeling like a job" side, and thus I can not recommend it.

Wuthering Waves

A timely review for once. I hopped onto the Wuthering Waves train at launch, and I've been playing it a good few hours every day since. I wouldn't normally be so eager to try a new game, but you know how it is with gacha / live service games - every day you're not there, you're falling behind on the curve. Being forced to play daily is a sad thing for any game, but the live service model has proven very successful, so it seems here to stay.

If you want to stop reading early, then all you need to know is that Wuthering Waves is literally the same as Genshin Impact. It can in no way be said they just took inspiration from it. They very blatantly copied most aspects of the game, renamed them, and reskinned them. I am honestly appalled. I do not know what they were thinking with this decision. Surely they didn't hope to just flat out beat Genshin, which is still one of the most popular games in the world, and has multiple years worth of extra development time and content. Maybe they thought people just wanted more of Genshin. That seems like the most reasonable explanation. But let me get into more details on the differences.

In case you don't know Genshin, it's an open-world action JRPG where you have a team of characters where only one is on the field at a time. The characters synergize with each other, incentivizing cycling through all of them instead of staying on your strongest one. As for the differences in Wuthering Waves... On the gacha front, it's almost a 1:1 copy. Same for crafting and leveling. Any differences are not worth mentioning. About 90% of the innovations are in the combat department. Everything else is lifted from Genshin. And honestly, I feel they did a good job with the combat - it rivals or maybe even exceeds Genshin's combat, which is quite the achievement, considering I think Genshin's combat is top-notch.
Wuthering Waves reduces the team size to 3, but each character becomes more complicated. Aside from their skill which is only limited by cooldown, and their ultimate, which is limited by cooldown and energy, each character also gets an intro and outro skill which occur when swapping characters, under the condition that the corresponding energy bar is full. Aerial combat is also slightly improved, with some characters having air attacks, and plunge attacks being possible from even just a basic jump height. There's also a larger emphasis on skill, with dodges being rewarded by a special dodge counter, and interrupting certain enemy actions via a sort of parry staggering them. More interestingly, each character gains an enhanced version of one of their existing abilities or attacks which is charged by some special mechanic unique to that character. This really sets each character apart.
If it just added onto Genshin's combat, Wuthering Waves would most certainly have superior combat, but they're missing my favorite mechanic - the elemental reactions. They do have elements, but aside from a rudimentary resistance and status effect system that you almost never think about, they amount to little more than having differently colored numbers. I'm not even sure why they added them.

I personally place a lot of focus on skill expression in combat, but the sad reality is that gacha games aren't really about that. They need to appeal to a wide audience, which includes casual mobile players. Therefore combat is mostly determined by your stats, not your skill. Sure, you can beat a significantly stronger enemy by being skilled, but the game doesn't expect you to, and the fight will just be against a damage sponge that one-shots you with any hit. In areas where it matters, you'll be on a timer, meaning even the best players won't be able to have their skill compensate for the lack of time investment into building their team.
But worse still is that these games often aren't focused on combat in the first place. Most of the content is exploring the world, collecting thousands of collectibles, and doing hundreds of quests. And this is where Wuthering Waves quickly falls behind. Their story just isn't interesting, and the English dub is terribly directed on top of that.

I'd love to tell you more details about everything, but this review is getting far too long. So, to summarize: Wuthering Waves is a carbon copy of Genshin, but with a worse story, less content, and a different-yet-possibly-better combat system. However, because skill expression doesn't matter in a game oriented towards a wide audience, I must mainly judge this game on the non-combat aspects. And based on those aspects, I find little reason to play this over Genshin. Thus, I can't really recommend it. If you want to play Genshin, go play Genshin. If you want something different, then you won't find it here.
If I had to predict, I would say Wuthering Waves is headed the way of Tower of Fantasy. The population will halve each week, until it almost settles at maybe a few percent of the popularity Genshin has. This will still earn them millions every month, so it will be enough to keep things running, but I doubt it will ever grow into something greater.

Monster Sanctuary

I kind of wanted to like Monster Sanctuary. It's a combination of Pokémon and metroidvania. Clearly a lot more effort has been put into the creature collecting and turn-based combat side of things as opposed to the world exploration, but the way the meroidvania aspect is implemented is quite unique. You see, usually you'd find a powerup in some part of the world that allows you to now get to an area you were previously not able to get to. Here, however, the monsters you collect each come with some ability that can be used outside of combat. So now, exploration is gated by having to first find an area where this monster exists, and then collecting them. It's functionally the same, but it fits very nicely into the world.
I would most certainly not recommend this game for its metroidvania aspects. The platforming and level design are both simple, clearly meant to exist as a somewhat novel way to guide the player to go to one area or another. I can't tell if the game might have been better off without it, because it's easy enough to not really cause any frustrations, but also too easy to not provide any joy in interacting with it.

As for the combat, it's both more deep than I expected, but somehow still lacking. Combat is done with a team of 6, 3 of whom are in play at a time. Each monster has its own basic stats, but also an element its weak to, and a whole skill tree with roughly 100 nodes. The skill tree gives you your abilities, upgrades them, and also gives a whole slew of passive bonuses. As you end up getting about half the nodes, this really gives you a whole lot of customization options for your party, from trying to match your monsters to hit the enemies' weaknesses, to having buffers, debuffers, damage dealers, defenders, and healers. There's also a combo system incentivizing to think about which monsters to attack with first, and 4 pieces of equipment you can give each monster. It's a lot, and this can be either a really good thing, or not so good if you're like me.

You see, I can appreciate the depth of the customization, but there is a problem in the effort-to-payoff ratio. I'm spending more time on customizing my party, choosing skills and equipment for my monsters, and picking the optimal turn order, than I am actually fighting. So much effort goes into being optimal, but then the fights don't really feel all that rewarding for it. And this is not the first game I've had this problem in. I think many games fall into the trap of giving the player more knobs to turn, more systems to interact with, while not considering how fun interacting with those systems is. More isn't necessarily better, because I can't just ignore these systems now that they're in the game, and the game has been balanced with them in mind.
I think deep customization fits when you have only one, or maybe a small party of (up to 4) characters you need to customize. It feels really rewarding seeing these characters become something unique to my vision, possibly different from most everyone who played the game, if only by a little bit. But I just don't have the energy to do it over and over again for tens of characters.

So, is Monster Sanctuary a bad game? I wouldn't say so. But I also wouldn't recommend it, unless you have a lot of time, and wish to spend it on customizing your zoo of monsters. It's polished, has a lot of content, looks nice, and the combat is pretty deep. Still, I feel it's not good enough that I'd be willing to spend so much time on preparing my party instead of playing the game. If that aspect feels like something that's right up your alley, you can give it a try, but for others, I would suggest finding something else.

Crusader Kings III

It's been a bit of a rough month for me, which is part of the reason I've released no reviews. I finally got around to playing Crusader Kings III though. Played it with my friends during the recent free weekend, although Crusader Kings has never really been much of a multiplayer game. Fighting against one another is quick to lead to someone being knocked out of the game, and there aren't a lot of opportunities for co-operative play. Sure you could form an alliance, or invite each other to events, or divvy up the land, but you're not really having too much of an impact on each other.

While I was thinking about what to write about, I went back to read my Crusader Kings II review. I realized not much has changed, so you can go read that, and then return. There definitely are some differences, many possibly arising from the 8 years between the release dates of the two games. I would overall say Crusader Kings III is better, because it just refreshes the game. The UI, graphics, and presentation is more modern, and a lot more accessible. One could argue that the additional accessibility makes the game easier, but I've never felt that difficulty through obtusity is a good thing in any way. A lot of it also comes down to personal preference, or a preference for the old game, because it's already familiar. I definitely think some things have gotten worse, while other things have gotten better. They're still making updates 4 years in, so I have faith there's more improvements to be made yet.

Overall, Crusader Kings III is very similar to its predecessor. A bit too much so, if I were to be honest, where I didn't really get a novel experience playing it. Ultimately, I'm okay with this. I think the game has improved, and making the same thing, but better, is a valid direction for a sequel. To that end, I'd recommend Crusader Kings III just as I recommended its prdecessor. In fact, I'm replacing it in my favorite games of all time list, because I don't see a reason to go back to the old game.

Eronoctosis: Put Yourself Together

A short game this time around. I played it on a whim because it was free, co-op, and promised to be at least somewhat of a fun time. It's Eronoctosis.

It's a two-player co-op horror game that's probably inspired by the old games like Slender. You have to collect a bunch of cauldrons, bring them back to a point, and not get caught by enemies that are chasing you all the while. I'm not entirely sure, but I think each next cauldron makes more enemies spawn. You can't really outrun these enemies, but instead have to work together to defeat them. One holds a flashlight that they must shine on the enemy, and the other holds a camera that must focus on the enemy before it can take a photo and destroy the enemy. While it sounds simple, the timings for these are quite tight, meaning splitting up or miscommunicating can quickly cause enemies to catch up to one player and end the run.

It's not very scary, and it is very short. It took 30 minutes to beat it across 4 attempts, so probably less than 10 minutes for a full run. At least, for the free version. The paid version has 3 more maps, and probably more enemy types, but I didn't play it.
That's about all I have to say. It's charming and well made for the low price of free, but I was hoping for something a bit more original. It's not bad, but there are better co-op and horror games out there, even for free, so I can't really recommend this.

Helldivers 2

How unusual for me, playing these highly popular and newly released games so soon after launch. This time it's Helldivers 2, which caught my eye because it reached nearly half a million concurrent players, and because I almost enjoyed the original Helldivers, which came out nearly a decade ago.

Conceptually, it's the same game. You play in a party of (up to) 4 and drop onto a planet to complete a mission, be it killing a bunch of enemies or gathering stuff (while also coincidentally killing a bunch of enemies). The focus is still on the same goofy stuff - accidentally killing teammates, physics bouncing a grenade off some obscure surface back into your face, or crushing a teammate with a drop pod. But not only has Helldivers 2 expanded into the third dimension, they have added a whole lot of production value to the game to the point it feels close to a AAA game now. For the most part, it's all around a better experience.

Now, about the negatives. There are a lot of problems with network errors and crashes, but I don't want to hold it against the game too much, since I believe they'll be fixed - it's only a matter of time. Still, it currently poses a problem where people will randomly disconnect from your mission (or disconnect you from their their mission) and you won't get a new teammate because their system doesn't like assigning new teammates to existing missions. Don't get me wrong, this absolutely ruins the game at the moment were I not playing with friends who can reconnect at any time, but I believe it will be fixed.
The real problem, I'm afraid, is closer to the central design of the game. This is a third-person shooter about killing hordes of aliens. Sure, the missions are nice, but everyone just wants to kill stuff. Problem is, the design is conflicting, where drawing aggro has no benefits, and a lot of negatives. You do not have enough ammo to kill everything the game throws at you, and so you'll be quickly overwhelmed if you try. No, the real strategy is to ignore as much fighting as possible, running around in circles, splitting up, and trying to sneak objectives between dying.

The core gameplay is fun, and the combat feels good, even if it takes a bit of getting used to. Everything in the game feels like it has real, tangible weight to it, and that's odd if you come from games with very snappy movement, but I learned to absolutely love this feeling. There's also not too much content, but I believe that can all be fixed. If the developers decide to change the design to really encourage combat, which is where this game shines, I think it can become something really enjoyable to play, even if you were to grind the same style of content over and over.

At present, play with an established friend group, and don't feel bad about sticking to lower difficulties if you want to actually have fun and kill the enemies. For players who want to be more dedicated or run solo, I'd advise waiting another few months to a year and hope the game's still alive by then. I hope they'll fix the crashes. I hope they'll change the design to incentivize combat. And I hope they will add more content. I would love to play more of it, but as it stands, I can't quite recommend it.

Granblue Fantasy: Relink

Covering a relative recent game for a change, it's Granblue Fantasy: Relink. I'm always on the lookout for new multiplayer games to play, and I saw this having over 100k concurrent players even weeks after release. I pitched it to my friends, got a couple of them to agree, and so we set off.

For a bit of background, Granblue Fantasy itself is a 10-year-old turn-based mobile gacha game. Relink is nothing similar. It's not available on mobile devices. It's fully action-based. And there are no microtransactions. The characters are the same, and it takes some thematic ideas, but the games are completely different. Relink has you controlling a single character in a party of four. There are a total of about 20 characters, with more on the way, and each character has a unique moveset, as well as a choice of 4 abilities out of 8 (usually). Each character also has several different weapons (stat differences only), as well as a pretty lengthy yet linear skill tree and 12 sigil slots for slotting various powerups.

The game is essentially divided into two parts. The first is the ~20 hour singleplayer campaign which tells you the story and runs you through most of the game's content and mechanics. You can already do some missions on the side in multiplayer as you progress through the campaign, but for most people, the majority of the game is after you've finished the campaign. Basically, you play through isolated encounters of harder and harder versions of the game's content, mostly bossfights, as you evolve your characters on the side. This part is entirely multiplayer, with each person controlling a character, and while you can play it solo with bot teammates, the game heavily recommends you play with others (premades or randoms). It plays quite a bit like Monster Hunter, except without the tedious bits of tracking and chasing the monsters, instead focusing on getting straight to the juicy combat. The combat also just feels better than Monster Hunter, at least in my limited experience, perhaps because of the flashier special abilities all characters have. Overall, it was just a real joy to play. The bossfights, which there were dozens of, were some of the best ones I've ever experienced, and that's already reason enough to recommend it.

Now, this is already 40+ hours in, and well past the end of the campaign, but it does eventually start to settle into a bit of a grind, and not the best kind. Despite the very fun bossfights, I feel the difficulty wasn't balanced all too well. For most of the game up to this point, encounters were never a question of "will I win", but rather "will I get the best grade", so running through them felt like a bit of a chore. Eventually, the missions do get more difficult, but then you're left to farm older missions for resources. Sadly, it's generally not the most difficult missions that give the best rewards that you should be playing over and over again, but the easy ones, which doesn't feel so great. I'd love to just do some of the hardest missions I can until I've progressed enough to move on, but that's not how the drops system works.
In the end, it took me about 70 hours to beat the final boss, and while I was nowhere near maxing out even just one character, I didn't feel like continuing to grind out more progress. Due to only being able to use a single character in combat, there was also little reason to heavily invest or even ever play other characters, which I feel was a missed opportunity, considering how well made most of them were.

Despite most of the game being too easy, and the part that wasn't too easy forcing me to play the not-so-enjoyable content over and over, I must say I still really liked Relink. The quality of the gameplay, the animations, the voice acting (I still wish they'd stop with the annoying high-pitced helper NPC trope), and most importantly the epicness of the bossfights was really, really good. I would recommend at least playing through to the final boss, and maybe if you like the grind more than I did, to see how much further you can take your characters. The harder bosses also have new moves, so there's fresh gameplay for 60 hours, and then grind for another couple hundred hours, if you're so inclinced.
For my final verdict, despite its flaws, this goes onto my list of the best action RPGs I've ever played.

NGU Idle

I got the craving to play an incremental / idle game suddenly, so I looked up what the highest rated ones were on Steam. After Cookie Clicker, which I had already completed, the second highest rated one was NGU Idle, so I took it for a spin.

Somewhat anticlimactically, despite my urge to play an idle game, that urge soon vanished. Not that there was anything wrong with NGU Idle. I just realized that the good feeling of seeing a number go up was countered by the feeling of wasting my time just clicking on things. Kinda silly of me to say that - that's the point of idle games after all, but for a "good" long-lasting idle game, you need a lot of mechanics, a lot of features, a lot of buttons to press. And yet, the act of managing all my various bars and numbers is not quite a full-time enough experience to qualify as playing a game. On the other hand, I still have to put in enough effort that I can't just leave the game running and go do something else without the time spent idling being basically meaningless, at least for the first 90+% of the game.
A similar problem of a system being neither here nor there is that the gameplay is not braindead enough to allow me to do it without any thought at all, e.g. while talking to someone or watching a video, but is also not meaningful enough to make me really think and care about what I'm doing. I need to level things up and click certain buttons eventually, but the exact order in which I do stuff isn't terribly important, so there's no excitement of figuring things out.

Overall, this review isn't about NGU Idle but more about idle games as a whole. I think there's definitely room to "fix" these issues I spoke of, and there are definitely more involved "idle" games out there (though I suppose they wouldn't qualify as idle games then), but I also think some people like them as they are. If I had to say a few words about NGU Idle, then it certainly has a plethora of things to do. The quality of those actions doesn't seem that high, and the look and feel of the game isn't polished (there's no audio at all, for example). Other than that, it's a pretty standard idle game. So if you like idle games in general and like quantity over quality, go try it. As for me, I think I'll skip generic idle games for at least a few more years.

Baldur's Gate 3

I've been wanting to play Baldur's Gate 3 ever since it was announced back in 2019. The developers' previous two games, the Divinity: Original Sin series, were my two favorite turn-based RPGs ever, and considering their success, I was hoping their next game would be even better and more polished. Definitely wrong of me to get hyped, but looking back at it now, it sure delivered, right? Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't really require me to say anything about it, as it's one of the most popular and highest rated games of all time now, not just among RPGs. I played through it in co-op with a friend. But what did I think about it?

Baldur's Gate 3 is a game that runs in real-time as you move about in the world, but once you switch to combat, everything goes turn-based. It is almost entirely based on the D&D 5e ruleset, and so I dare say has very traditional RPG combat. Thinking about it, I couldn't really highlight any elements of the game that were really unique to it. But then again, with how well everything is executed, it doesn't need to do anything unique to be appreciated.
I do have a problem with how directly it copied the D&D experience. See, D&D is a great tabletop game, because the rules are deep enough to allow for a myriad of different possibilities at the hands of a dungeon master, while being simple enough to be fulfilled by the players and the one running the game. I don't think they're a good fit for a video game though. Despite how many different outcomes and scenarios the developers wrote into this game, a program still doesn't have the creativity of a live person responding to the actions of the player - that is not the strong suit to play for in a video game. Meanwhile, the mechanics of tabletop game are simple due to necessity, not because that's the most interesting option. A video game could do much more by delegating work to a computer, and I feel sticking to closely to the tabletop rules fails to take advantage of that. And I write about this in such detail, because it's by far my biggest problem with the game. I believe that mainly due to this, the gameplay is not fun. It's fun experiencing the story, and finding creative ways to approach the problems it gives you, but I find the combat quite sub-par.

Now, arguably a bigger problem, although one that I don't take as seriously, as it's not deep-rooted and will hopefully be fixed, is how full of bugs the game is. The first act is relatively polished, but acts 2 and especially act 3 is where everything starts to break down. The most jarring problems being quests that are left in broken states, unable to be finished. The worst of that being the main story quest that prevented us from getting to the end of the game. With a bit of cheating through modding we managed to resolve the issue, but I'm quite certain more than 90% of the playerbase could not manage to do so, and would have been forced to start a new game.
Aside from the extra bugs, I found act 3 to be the weakest act overall. This was in part due to the game being far too long in total. When I heard it was a long game, I was expecting 90 hours, not the 150 hours it took us. By act 3, I was already slightly exhausted with the game, and with the quests now just being thrown all over the map with no clear order in which to do them, completing them felt all the more tiresome.

Despite all my negativity, I still liked Baldur's Gate 3. It's just that, as I said, it doesn't really have anything unique to talk about. It's really well made in general (bugs aside), and is the closest thing you could get to a giant, well thought out D&D campaign in a video game. I just feel the focus was too much on the story and the many ways you could go about it. That's not something I care about, and I even believe that the more branches you allow to the story, the less the maximum potential of the story is. Meanwhile the gameplay was quite uninteresting, and even too easy, despite playing on the hardest difficulty (on release, not the new Honor mode). All in all, I would still recommend it to anyone who likes turn-based RPGs, and especially to people who like stories in their RPGs.

Final Fantasy XIV

As the next MMO release is perpetually one year away, I decided to give one of the latest released MMOs a try. Latest being 2010, so almost 1.5 decades ago now, but sadly, that's the state of MMOs these days. I'm talking about Final Fantasy XIV, which I got a bunch of my friends to try out using the free trial.

I'm going to be brief, and just say that it was just about the most disappointing experience I could have had. If I had to name one unique thing about this game, where it showed innovation that MMOs before it didn't do, then I couldn't. Not only was the level up process, questing, exploration, combat, and everything else I could think of, as generic as possible, it was also downright bad.
We started off in a "recommended" server, which doubled all our experience gain. This meant we were always overlevelled for all content, making every encounter in the game trivial all the way up to the end of the trial. An exception was cases where our level would be brought down for doing the content, removing some of our stats and skills, effectively nullifying the point of leveling up in the first place.
The quests were not only very basic, only being "go there and talk to that guy" or "kill X monsters", but they were also placed in the most incovenient manner, where you couldn't even go gather all the quests in an area and then go do them. Most quests were locked behind other quests, and the amount of running back and forth between empty swathes of land (or trash mobs you had no reason to kill) seemed as if it was purposefully done to inconvenience players. Without exaggeration, about 80% of the game was not "gameplay" by my definition. It was running from place to place and reading/skipping dialogue.
Exploration felt nonexistant. No secrets, no collectibles, no areas of note as far as I found. There was no reason and nothing to be gained from running to an area that you weren't asked to go to.
Combat, what should be the most important part of a game like this, was also laughable. Not only was it outdated, it was already outdated in 2010 when the game released. Animations were not synced up to damage, everything just hit air in everyone's general vicinity, abilities couldn't even be queued up, and there wasn't much strategy in selecting which skills to use. Just run through your standard rotations and apply buffs as you can. There was also no customization to your character, as all skills were gained through levels (or quests locked behind levels), allowing no option to specialize in one skill or another. All equipment just gave stats, not requiring any thought what to equip.
And finally, of course the multiplayer was nonexistant. Players are segregated for hours at the start, depending on the class they choose. Content would frequently force you out of your party for some instanced content. Open world content had little reason to be played together, and dungeons, while requiring a party, could also be done with NPCs.

I didn't go in expecting anything I would have actually stuck around with, but I wasn't prepared for how dated the experience felt. To me, it seems like it was around the early 2000s that people realized that the... well... everything this game did, was not a good way to build an MMO. Every other popular MMO I've played that has released around the same time (Tera, Rift, Guild Wars 2) has been way better, and I'm genuinely surprised why FFXIV has been the one to stand. This is not even counting MMOs that have dared to do something different like Runescape or Mabinogi, which were way better. Anyways, not that I could recommend much any MMOs anyways, FFXIV would be just about my last pick, if I absolutely had to pick something. Support innovation instead, and support MMOs doing something different than what they've done for 20 years now.

The Dungeon Beneath

The Dungeon Beneath is a fun little roguelike-like game combined with an auto battler. You have a team of 4 characters and a hero placed on a 2x3 board, and you fight the enemy's hero and whatever minions they fit on their board. There's a good amount of variety in the characters and their special abilities, but especially due to the limited board size, the synergies don't get too crazy nor exciting. The gameplay consists of arranging your team before the battle, and then maybe rearranging some units between each round of battle. The caveat to rearranging mid-battle is that (most) rearranged characters then skip their turn, so for many battles you don't give any input at all. There's about 40 floors, a bit less than half of which are combat encounters, and the rest are shops or treasure rooms for swapping out your party, getting new equipment for them, or something of the sort.

I found the game more fun than I expected, but I find the main problem to be that it lacks replay value. I beat the game on my first try, and then beat New Game+ on my third try. That's not to say it's easy - the victories were quite close and the New Game's go up to at least New Game++++, I believe, which will certianly be more challenging. No, the problem is more that the runs don't differ from each other too much. Sure, you get a different hero, and different artifacts, and you even unlock new units between runs, but the units still feel kind of similar, and while the dungeon is branching and somewhat random, the enemies themselves are always the same. I did a few runs, beat the game twice, and I feel I kind of experienced all the game has to offer in those few hours.

Overall, I'd give this a partial recommendation. It was fun, but nothing amazing. If it was longer, had more enemies or randomized enemies, a larger board, more synergies, or other things that would make it more replayable, I would definitely have liked it more, but as it is now, it's just a bit too unambitious.

Dark Souls III

I finally, finally, got around to playing Dark Souls III. I think this took extra long because I had had enough of the previous two games, so I wasn't even considering playing it for a while. Yet here I am.
I'd hope Dark Souls requires no introduction. It's really a genre-defining game, even if that genre is mostly just "a difficult action RPG". Sure there's also the "convoluted, interconnected level design", and "world state persistence through death" aspects, but at the end of the day it is just an action RPG.

I'm going to be brief today, and mostly refer you to find my review for Dark Souls II. I couldn't get into the third game. I couldn't get into the previous two either, but I think this one was even worse somehow. Perhaps it was the experiences of the previous game still being fresh enough in my mind (it's only been several years after all) combined with this being just... more Dark Souls. Aside from being two years newer, I didn't see much innovation, just new content with a fresh lick of paint.
I'd like to add to what I previously said. I think difficult games have the obligation to be fair. It is important that if you're going to make the player lose, that they feel mostly responsible for that loss. Dark Souls III still hasn't managed to properly port their game to PC, because the keyboard and mouse support isn't of acceptable quality. I do not have sufficient control of my character - I execute certain actions without meaning to. Be those attacks which are triggered by a button combination that has an ambiguous meaning, or the game sometimes not intercepting mouse clicks in menus (so they still perform an attack, plunging me off a cliff or attacking a friendly NPC). There's also issues of enemies hitting you through solid walls, or level geometry making you think you get somewhere, only to be interrupted by invisible walls or bumps, again, causing you to lose. These are not super common occurances, but they happen far more often than I find acceptable, given how punishing such issues are. And I won't repeat what I believe to be persistant issues in level design.

Honestly, my opinion on this isn't really important. I'm happy for what the game has done for the genre, and I know there's plenty of people who enjoy it. Good on them. I find this brand of difficulty to be more frustrating than fun, and I get bored of playing the same content over and over again until I'm perfect at it. Recommending this, or not, is simple. Did you like the previous Dark Souls games? If so, you'll probably like this one. If not, you probably won't like this one. If you haven't played any souls-likes, then maybe the best comparison would be to the more recently popular brand of "difficult" games that you see streamers playing. Getting Over It, Jump King, etc., except instead of being just difficult, with no substance, Dark Souls is the same brand of difficult, but with a lot of substance. Regardless of this, I don't enjoy this kind of difficulty, so I can't recommend it. Perhaps my opinion would be different if the game was of a higher quality, but it isn't.

Fury Unleashed

I was incredibly put off by Fury Unleashed for some reason, as soon as I saw its store page. I think it was the old Flash game art and animation style that caused me to be biased against it. Still, because it had relatively good reviews at the time, I decided to add it to my backlog. Looking at it again now, the reviews had definitely taken a turn for the worse. But what did I think about it?

Fury Unleashed is a platformer shooter. You go between small rooms, evading traps, killing enemies, maybe a boss every now and then. You have a gun, a melee weapon, a special ability, some grenades, nothing unique really. The levels are randomly generated, and there's a focus on fast-paced gameplay - building combos and getting a high score.

Well, truth be told, I didn't get very far, so I can't speak much for the actual depth or difficulty of the game, but I can say that it feels like it looks. The movement and combat is very floaty and does not at all feel expertly made. You can just spam your weapons, you're really mobile, and there doesn't appear to be any weight to neither the attacks nor the movement. The game's also quite zoomed in, as if it was made for a smaller screen, which limits the amount of stuff that can be happening at a time. I wouldn't really say the game feels casual, more like really outdated and cheap. I definitely saw no redeeming qualities in it, so combined with my intial bias, I was quick to toss it aside, and move on to the next game.

So, in short, I think my personal dislike for Fury Unleashed is greater than the game is actually bad, but regardless of that, I can't really see anything unique or particularly well-executed in the game either. It's just another action platformer with an emphasis on speed, which is another thing I personally dislike. In any case, I can't recommend it.

Sea Salt

I think I picked up Sea Salt because of its interesting visuals and the unique concept of controlling a swarm of creatures, instead of just a few of them.
However, interesting concepts do not always translate to interesting games. You see, Sea Salt is a very simple game, with effectively two actions you can do. You can tell your swarm to go to a place, and you can tell your swarm to attack. Considering this, I'm amazed there is no mouse support, as it can be quite annoying to switch directions with how slow your cursor moves with the arrow keys. I guess you can also choose which units you summon, but that's only an action you can do every once in a while. Your swarm handles the pathing, which includes evading obvious danger, except when attacking, then they just diregard their safety to strike. There's various enemies, and numerous bossfights with different mechanics, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to positioning and choosing when to attack, because that's all you can do.

I don't have a lot more to say about this game. There might have been something here if there were more options, both in terms of controlling your army and general things to do. As it stands now, I very quickly got bored of both the simple gameplay, as well as the subpar execution. The AI was dumb enough to constantly force me to question its decisions, be it splitting up the swarm, or focusing the wrong things during attacking. The graphics were perhaps a bit too pixelated and hard on the eyes, and the music, while fitting, wasn't very enjoyable either. Overall, I can not recommend playing it.

Atomicrops

Atomicrops combines twin-stick shooter roguelike gameplay with a farming simulator. It's a game that's visually very exciting. I suppose that's half the reason I picked it up. Looking at the screenshots on the store page, the graphics are quite stylized, and there seems to be a lot going on at the same time. None of that's wrong, but perhaps the busyness of it all is actually a downside.
See, the game gives you a brief tutorial on how to shoot, how to till your fields, plant crops, water them, and then harvest them. That's all fine, but that's a small portion of things that you can do. The game starts off slow with a small patch of land and enemies only appearing at nighttime. It feels manageable, but you quickly realize you can decide to just ditch your land and go to another area to fight enemies instead. You also run out of seeds, because harvested crops don't drop new ones. You don't really know what the right course of action is, and the game doesn't lean you into it either - everything's available straight away, and time is ticking away. Each next day is harder, and each next season is harder, and each next year is harder. Sure, you get some upgrades between all that, but still. So at least I was quicky overwhelmed, trying to juggle somehow getting new seeds, not leaving my farm unattended, planting, watering, harvesting, and defending my crops at the same time, all the while trying to figure out if I might be playing the game entirely wrong.

In the end, after a few failed runs, not that the game expects you to get far at first, I gave up. Part of me feels like I should've stayed for longer to see more of what the game had to offer, but my experience thus far was stressing and confusing, and that's not something I want from a game. I was constantly out of seeds, but I also couldn't go get any because I was always being attacked, and I felt like there was some way to get better crops, but the game didn't teach me any of that, and then every plot of my land was instantly overcome with weeds, or short on water, or in need of tilling, or... You get the point - I always had to do something, and I didn't get much more action speed as the game went on, but I was expected to attend a larger field and defend it from more enemies.

Atomicrops is definitely more of a twin-stick shooter than a farming simulator. I'm not convinced it's a bad game, just a bit unapproachable. So if you're looking for a twin-stick shooter with a twist, then it's possible you'll enjoy Atomicrops. I didn't experience it enough to really tell, so from a personal standpoint I can't recommend it. I couldn't get over trying to do too many things at once, and for a combat-focused game, I can't say I found anything special or particularly enjoyable about the combat either.

Children of Morta

I picked up Children of Morta, which I had sitting in my library for quite a while. I don't remember where I got it from, and I didn't think I'd enjoy a random game, but it turned out to be quite fun, and I'm not even entirely sure why.

Children of Morta is kind of like a mix between an action roguelike and an RPG. The bulk of the game is the campaign, where you run through a series of around nine stages, each comprised of a few randomly generated maps. During a stage, your character gains gold, experience, and items. Items expire at the end of a stage, but can grant powerful active or passive buffs. Experience can be used to upgrade your character on their talent tree, while gold can be used to purchase upgrades for all your characters. You have a total of 7 characters who lore-wise form a family, each playing like a different class. Slow, fast, ranged, melee - something for everyone. There is a minor incentive to actually try different characters, as leveling each gives passive bonuses to all the other ones, and playing one for too long inflicts a debuff on them that decreases as you don't use them.

There is also a more roguelike mode, which does not let you get any upgrades between runs, but makes the runs 13+ maps long, and gives you a a random choice of powerups upon level-up, as well as a lot of currency to purchase and upgrade items at shops that occur every now and then. I found this mode both more fun and more challenging than the main story mode, although there are basically no gameplay differences. It just adds more randomness, and lets you more heavily customize your character with items before the run is up, potentially unlocking very strong combinations.

There's no mechanic that stands out, and I can't say the game's super well made either. I definitely found some smaller bugs, balance issues with certain characters or upgrades being too strong or weak, visual clarity problems, and other imperfections. I think the strong side is the storytelling. The main story actually has a voiced narrator, and the characters have a lot of animations and well-defined personalities that make them feel more alive. Of course, I've never been one to prioritize that too much, so why do I, despite the unimpressive gameplay, like this game? I thought about that for a while, and I actually don't know. Perhaps it helped that I played it in co-op, sticking mostly to ranged characters. Most characters felt too slow for me, some being so immobile and slow to attack while having very few upsides, I wonder why anyone would want to play them at all. I did find one character I really liked who could attack and move at the same time, which caused me to play a lot of the game like a twin-stick shooter instead, but then again, what's stopping anyone else from doing that too, if that is the most fun way to play.

While Children of Morta is far from my favorite action roguelike, it's definitely up there. From a more objective standpoint, I don't think the game's all that good and there are probably similar games out there that are better, but at the end of the day, I liked it. So personally, I would recommend it. It's not super long, not super replayable, not super difficult, but I got a good amount of fun out of it and perhaps you will too.

The Finals

Another recent game for a change, because a friend invited me to play it - it's The Finals, a 3-player-team-based first-person shooter with destructible terrain.
I suppose the reason I agreed to play was because it is free to play, and the low barrier to entry is always nice, but I quickly got bored of it because it really doesn't stand out that much.

There are a couple different game modes, but they're all about collecting, then depositing money, basically like a capture the flag game mode with a slightly modified ruleset. You have a choice of three classes from light to heavy, with heavier classes generally having more health, slower movement speed, and weapons / abilities that are, well, heavier. A light class can, for example, go invisible, use a grappling hook, and use a sniper rifle or submachine gun. A medium class can heal or deploy a jump pad, and has an assault rifle. A heavy class can ram through walls or deploy a barricade, and use a rocket launcher. This is not the full list, as each class has 3 abilities, a couple unique deployables or grenades, as well as the default pool of grenades, and several unique weapons.
Still, having some variety is the baseline minimum I feel a game could do, and with just three classes with abilities that don't majorly define their playstyle and differentiate the gameplay experience, it really just felt like a bland and small round-based shooter. The destructible environment is a cool gimmick, but I don't feel it created many unique or memorable scenarios.

Overall, while The Finals doesn't have any outstanding flaws, it also doesn't have any outstanding qualities. I'm neither for or against FPS-style gameplay, but I don't enjoy most round-based games. So that's the main reason I couldn't recommend The Finals, but even if you were to compare it to any other round-based FPS like Counter-Strike, Overwatch, or Valorant, I don't feel it is in any way better than them, nor different enough to provide a feeling of freshness.

Songbird Symphony

Songbird Symphony is a platformer and a rhythm game. You explore different levels, doing platforming puzzles and collecting some items, and end each level with a rhythm-based boss fight.
I was quickly put off by this game, as it felt a bit too childish for me, with a big focus on the cute and happy art as well as silly lyrics and animations. I've never been too good at rhythm games, and I don't like them a whole lot either, but I still think that the timings of the rhythm bits were quite bad, and the visuals weren't clear if you opted to ignore your ears and follow your eyes instead. Similarly, the platforming seemed quite simplistic, with more time spent trying to figure out where to go than how to complete some part of the platforming.

A short review for a game I didn't spend long playing, but I don't feel like I missed much. The game advertises itself as a metroidvania, and I'm not sure I'd quite agree on that. It's really more of an exploration game, with subpar platforming and rhythm aspects, and probably only enjoyable if you value the style and theme over the gameplay. As for me, it's a most definite no.

Opus Magnum

I'm only 6 years late, but Zachtronics just doesn't miss with their games, and even in all these years, no one has managed to compete with the absoute brilliance that are their puzzle games. I completed Opus Magnum, and while it wasn't my favorite Zachtronics game, I sure as hell enjoyed it.

Opus Magnum is a game about assembling (or sometimes disassembling) compounds from atoms or other compounds. You have an infinite hexagonal grid, arms that can rotate, extend, and move along tracks to move these atoms and compounds around, as well as mechanisms for bonding, unbonding, and altering them.
As usual, there aren't a lot of different mechanics, but they work together very well to create interesting puzzles that have a lot of different solutions. In fact, as far as I know, it is not too difficult to create puzzles with just a single solution, but Zachtronics' games are good, largely because he consistently manages to leave the solutions up to the player's personal creativity.

The reason Opus Magnum is not my favorite from the series, is because the infinite boards give us too much freedom, and make the problems a bit too easy. Of course, having a low skill floor is not too big of an issue, because a big part of Zachtronics games has always been getting high scores on the leaderboards for making good solutions. Still, even in terms of going for high scores, some categories seemed more tedious to set up than difficult to come up with, such as minimal cost solutions, which usually just had one or two arms along some track, and very, very long lines of instructions stashing and retrieving pieces in elaborate ways to prevent collisions.
The appendix was actually space-constrained, and the journal offered more difficult puzzles, but they were not part of the main story, and thus not the bulk of the game.

Regardless of all that, I still heavily enjoyed Opus Magnum. Perhaps due to its lower difficulty, it is the highest rated Zachtronics game, so even if you don't think highly of your puzzle solving capabilities, it would probably be the best Zachtronics game to try, if you were going to try any. I would absolutely recommend it, and I hope to get around to playing the next game in not too long of a time.

Happy Stealing with Kirisame Marisa

I'm on a roll with these sub-hour games. Happy Stealing with Kirisame Marisa is a horror game in the same vein as all those really short and badly made ones you saw YouTubers playing for a single video. Perfect for that, since after 30 minutes you'll be done with the game either through completing it, or by having enough of trying to do so. And it relies on cheap jumpscares to get funny reactions. This one's Touhou-themed, so you get anime girls too, oh joy.

Honestly, I didn't have high hopes for this, but I thought it would have at least a little more substance, humor, dialogue, or anything, really. You run around a maze with some rooms, trying to collect 6 books while two 2D sprites chase you in the dark. It takes 5 minutes if you know what you're doing, though as it gets harder with every book, the last ones are quite difficult.
Honestly, it's just bad. I don't like horror games, but that has nothing to do with how low-effort this is. Only the power of memes, anime girls, and cheap horror keeping this afloat, and that ain't enough for me. I'd recommend staying away.

Return.

I probably wouldn't give such a game a try these days, but since it was already in my backlog, I had to play it, and since I already played it, I have to talk about it. It's Return., and it's a free 30 minute platformer about returning an antropomorhic axolotl to life, or something.
It's really basic, with just movement and a tiny little hop you can repeat 3 times. Why they opted for 3 hops instead of a single larger jump, I'm unsure. It was quite unintuitive how to get enough air time at the start, but apparently I just had to mash jump really fast. The game looks like it could have some clever little secret with the progress bar stopping at 2/3 of the way to the finish, but apparently that's just a bug. There's no secrets. You just finish the game, and that's it.

There isn't really anything here to talk about. It's a free game that lasts half an hour. Less if you're good at it. Not that it's particularly challenging. There's no secrets, no branching, no particular story, and no reason to replay it. There's nothing bad about the game per se, but the platforming is just underwhelming enough that it's not even worth checking out, not even for free.

Quantum Protocol

Quantum Protocol is a PvE card game where you choose one of a few existing decks, and then expand that deck over the duration of a level by acquiring new cards as you defeat enemies. It's quite unique in terms of gameplay, and features multiple novel mechanics.
For starters, the game is asymmetrical. While both you and your enemy have a 5x2 board, your enemy's cards come in waves, each appearing after the last one is defeated. Each enemy card has a timer, indicating how many turns are left until it does an action. Meanwhile, you usually play cards from your hand, move cards around on the board, and choose which ones to activate. Each of these actions normally costs a turn, bringing you closer to the enemy's attacks. Each card can only be activated once, except after 5 turns, you can spend a turn to draw a card and refresh your board, allowing you to activate each card again. The actual loop generally relies on clearing your board often and building it up again, as you can choose to activate all your cards (even already activated ones) in a single row in just 1 turn if you discard them after. Many cards then return discarded cards back to your deck.

There are a lot more mechanics, definitely more than I care to list, but I feel that's the gist of it. While novel, these mechanics aren't necessarily good. I can't quite pinpoint my frustrations, which I suppose goes to show that they weren't that severe, but I never felt like there was a pleasant flow to the battle, despite the game advertising "it's always your turn". The general favorable emotion I get from deckbuilders is building a sort of machine that spirals to become better and better. Meanwhile here, I felt I was throwing a lot of trash onto the board, and instead of building up momentum, I was losing it the more the board got full. Sure, cleaning it up and starting fresh is a central game mechanic, but it's the opposite feeling from what I wanted. Add to that that your decks only last for the duration of a level, despite it possibly being half an hour long, and I really didn't feel I was getting anywhere in the game, short- nor long-term.
Oh, and if you were wondering about the visual novel aspect of the game, don't bother. There is a story, but it's very shallow, and only exists to provide context to the gameplay. That's fine, but don't expect to find a good read here.

Overall, Qunatum Protocol might be a fine game for you if you're a fan of card games, thinking, and prefer novelty to tried-and-true gameplay. The levels can be quite long, you can lose and have to reset to the beginning of the level, and you will probably be spending a lot of time reading and thinking, not playing. These aren't necessarily bad things though, just not something I enjoyed. As such, no recommendation from me, but I don't want to discourage you from trying, if the description seemed interesting.

Yume Nikki

It's been well over a decade since I first saw Yume Nikki. It was a Let's Play from a YouTuber I used to watch. I don't think they ever finished it or even got close, but the game definitely seemed intersting from what I could remember, so when I saw it appear on Steam at the start of 2018 for free, I added it to my library. 6 years laters, I finally got around to playing it.

Uhmmm... I don't have a lot to say about it. The game is incredibly cryptic and gives no hints on how to progress. Though I did not intially know this, your goal is to gather all the "effects", which are like little accessories for your character that grant you powers to do things and get to places you couldn't before. I found 4 out of the 24, and found a use for none of them. I spent about an hour wandering around aimlessly in creepy, desolate worlds, listening to the unsettling, and somewhat irritating, background music. There's 12 worlds, I think? They kind of connect to other worlds too and feature sort of unique scenery. None of this tells you anything though. What do you do in the worlds? What's the goal? Where do I go next? Is this a dead end because there's nothing here, or is it a dead end because I don't have the right effect equipped? You'll never know, and the game won't so much as hint to it.

Listen, after an hour, I was emotionally tired. I had kind of given up after 30 minutes, which doesn't sound like a lot, but if you asked me to recount what I saw in that hour, I couldn't tell you. The game is so devoid of any meaning, and it doesn't make it easy to explore it either, with the worlds being large, the field of view being small, the things you want to find being hidden, your walking pace being a crawl, and the music eating away at your sanity. It's definitely an experience, but it's not an experience I would recommend having.

Neoverse

Neoverse is yet another Roguelike deckbuilding game. I really should get around to Slay the Spire in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of the genre, but until then, you're getting comparison-free reviews. For what it's worth, my judgement of Neoverse mostly did not come down to how good it was in its genre.
Neoverse has a selection of 3 characters, each with their own decks and playstyles. You start with a few cards in your starter deck and proceed through a series of fights. The default mode has a total of 24 encounters, and up to 4 enemies per encounter. You are given 5 cards, each with some effect, but most importantly, a mana cost. Many deckbuilders give you a limited number of cards per turn, making card draw very valuable, but here you are instead trying to optimize your mana usage, because you always draw a new card upon spending one, unless you mill your entire deck in a single turn. Each encounter gives you a mission that can be completed even after the encounter, with a reward upon completing it. You may choose a tougher encounter for a better mission, more gold, skill points, and better cards at the end of the encounter. Gold can be spent on 1-time consumables, new cards, and skill points. Skill points can be spent on passive upgrades to your character.
There's even more to it, but I can't explain everything, and the point is that there are plenty of mechanics to make for an interesting game. The cards are made well enough to have good synergies that aren't entirely trivial to achieve, and do reward thinking and good planning. There are also different game modes which shift around difficulties and make some changes into how you power up, but the core game is the same.

Based on just the above description, you might think the game is great, but there are a lot of problems. As far as gameplay is concerned, it's too easy. It's simple to get the deck you want, so there isn't a lot of randomness to the game, which also limits replayability. On top of that, the amount of content is still somewhat limited.
Beyond gameplay, the game just lacks polish. The translation is poor and limits understanding of certain game mechanics. Some tooltips are missing, leaving you guessing what some effects do. The graphics may seem like they have high fidelity, but as I understand, most of the game is made with pre-existing assets. This explains the visual dissonance and the clunky animations. There's also plenty of weird bugs, like scrolling a menu too fast makes the music temporarily stop. It's just shoddy work, and I think a big draw of the game for many people who did decide to buy it were the hot anime girls in revealing outfits.

Overall, I had my fun for the first run or two, despite everything. It's an entirely playable game, but I know how popular the rougelike deckbuilder scene is these days, and I'm certain there are many better games than this. I think it's more fair to see Neoverse as a rushed, yet oddly solid, attempt at a quick cash grab from the popularity of the genre, instead of something well-made. I would rather advise to stay away and find something else.

MO:Astray

I picked up MO:Astray because of its positive reviews, because it seemed there had been a lot of effort put into crafting the levels, with the pixel art being both beautiful and quite varied, and the environments looking like they were telling some interesting story. Also because I recognized the publisher as having published some of my favorite mobile games. Even though those were rhythm games, and I don't play many mobile games in general. While those assumptions were correct, there were some caveats. But first, let me explain the game.

MO:Astray is an action and puzzle platformer, with a strong emphasis on the story. You play as a little blob who can jump in any direction, stick onto any surface, and latch onto the heads of enemies to control them and read their thoughts. The thought reading is just for the purpose of storytelling, and is the main method of explaining the lore, allowing you to skip it if you so desire. You will also get some other abilities later on, such as briefly stopping in mid-air and doing another omnidirectional jump from there. I would say that there is a lot of inspiration taken from Ori, both in terms of how some of the story is told, as well as much of the platforming. The biggest difference would be that this is not a metroidvania, and there's no real combat to speak of. Personally, I actually prefer this pure focus on platforming and puzzles, and I would say MO:Astray can definitely stand up to Ori, even if they feel very similar.

I'm a big fan of storytelling in games that is not in your face and not forcing you to pay attention to it. I think the story, or perhaps rather the lore, of MO:Astray can be quite interesting to follow along and discover, but wasn't quite enough to grip me. For people who care more about storytelling though, it's probably worth experiencing. Similarly, the art and many of the backgrounds are very beautifully drawn, even if I feel the animations could be a bit better.
Finally, the platforming, my only complaint is the focus on mobile screens and controllers. I think it would have taken but an hour or two of development time to add a better control scheme for the mouse, but as it stands, you're forced to drag your mouse every time you wish to make a jump, whereas a single click while showing the cursor would have been much more natural. Other than that, the platforming was quite fluid and had a reasonable amount of skill expression without being frustrating for someone like me, who's only average at this.

Ultimately, would I recommend MO:Astray? Kind of. If you are a fan of either Ori game, or enjoy other non-combat-focused platformers, then MO:Astray is definitely one of the better ones. The problem for me is that I've never enjoyed those kinds of games, and I know that's just a personal problem. So therefore, I would have to give this a partial recommendation, because while I can appreciate and recognize this as being a good game, I still didn't quite like it myself.

There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension

Today's game is one of the higher rated ones on my backlog - There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension. Opening it up, it immediately seemed familiar to me, which must have been because it was originally a free browser game back in 2015. It has increased from its previous 30 minute length to a much more reasonable 6 hour length, and it seems a lot more polished as well, at least as far as I can remember.
There Is No Game is a point-and-click adventure about how there is supposedly no game for you to be playing. It focuses on humor and having you solve casual puzzles by thinking outside the box. It's divided into multiple chapters, each having a different style.

While there are plenty of games that still break the fourth wall, I don't feel it has ever become a common thing in video games, so the concept is usually novel enough for me. However, this kind of fourth wall breaking is only interesting by itself the first time you see it, and I already expect there to be either a solid story or solid gameplay accompanying it. The puzzles presented weren't particularly difficult (time consuming, perhaps, due to having to click around, finding what the game wanted you to click, as is standard in point-and-click games), and the humor of the game didn't even manage to get a chuckle out of me. So between an unenjoyable story and unenjoyable gameplay, I didn't have much reason to finish it.

As usual, I can't outright dismiss the positive reception this game has. If it looks like something you might enjoy, then statistically it's quite likely you will enjoy it. On the other hand, because I did not like it, I can not personally recommend it.

Oh My God, Look at This Knight

A shorter one today - Oh My God, Look at This Knight is a 10-15 minute free adventure game I added to my library some years back.
I was expecting there to be a little bit more to it, but no, what you see on the screenshots is 80% of the game. There isn't even enough to write a review off of. It's slightly humorous, I suppose, but it doesn't subvert expectations enough to actually be funny. There isn't really any gameplay to speak of. You just walk around and click the attack button to whack things, and move out of the way of enemies' attacks. "Help" a few people, do a bossfight, and that's the game.

Usually, I find these short games to be worth the nonexistant time it takes to complete them, but not this one. There isn't really anything remarkable here, and the joke they make is far from novel. I suppose it's just highly rated because there isn't much to hate about it, but I wouldn't recommend you play it, even for the low price of free.

Creeper World 4

I was surprised when I found I hadn't written a review of Creeper World 3, but then I realized its release date was nearly 10 years ago. Turns out Creeper World 4 is not that different of a game, despite visually becoming 3D. Since the Creeper World series is something I've played since the Flash game era when I was still a child, I figured I'd cover the previous game in the series as well.

Creeper World is a mix between a tower defense game and an RTS. You must build towers and harvest resources to protect your base, but your enemy does not do the same. They, the "creeper", are a giant mass of viscous liquid that destroys anything it comes in contact with. It slowly creeps forward from its spawning points, and you have to build a defensive battlefront to halt its advance. After managing to do so, you must then slowly push back the creeper by having your defenses clear a small area in front of them, then building new defenses there. Each map is this tug-of-war between you and the creeper, usually ending when you have managed to push it all the way back. There are several different towers, types of resources, other buildings, and ways for the creeper to spread. Terrain is also an important part, with high ground generally being better to defend, but also harder to attack, as the creeper flows from high to low areas.

I think Creeper World is a very unique game, and I love the feeling of fighting against this giant mass that is bigger than yourself. It feels like keeping an ocean at bay. It's quite exciting for the first 10 or so minutes of each map, as you figure out how much area you can grab for yourself before the creeper reaches your outer buildings and you frantically try to allocate resources to get all the various types of defenses operational and strong enough to withstand the approaching flood. However, after some intial setbacks of maybe losing a few buildings if you were too greedy, or running out of resources if you weren't greedy enough, you arrive at a stable base that can keep the creeper at bay forever. Unless you do something really stupid, it becomes impossible to lose the game, and the remaining time, possibly even as long as an hour, you're just fighting a battle you know you've already won. This is by far the biggest weakness of Creeper World, but honestly, most strategy games suffer from it. At some point, you will just tip over the balance point and become stronger than your opponent, and from there on out, it's just a task of wiping them out. For the player's sake, hope that you can win soon after, but sadly, that's not usually the case with this game. I don't like RTS games, and I'm lukewarm on tower defense games, but despite that, Creeper World is still something that I've enjoyed. Perhaps I don't mind the tedious latter 75% of each map, because it feels satisfying to assert my superiority over the enemy that gave me trouble for the first quarter of the level.

Creeper World has always been a 3D game in some sense, as the creeper is a liquid and flows in accordance to the terrain, which has a different height at different points of the map. So, despite visually extending to the third dimension in Creeper World 4, the game still played the exact same. It looked quite nice, seeing the waves of creeper in 3D, and I found no downsides to the added dimension, but I also found very few benefits. I started off playing in 3D mode, but the erratic terrain elevation made it confusing where things really were, so after a few maps, I just switched to the top-down view, which was exactly like the old 2D mode, only switching back occasionally to admire the view.
Creeper World 3 was the best release in the series, and in terms of features, 4 didn't change a lot. In fact, I'd argue that despite improving the balance of the game in some aspects, it was made worse in others, to the point where I actually enjoyed it substantially less than its predecessor. I did still enjoy it, much like I enjoyed the first game in the series, but after over a hundred hours of playing them all, the new ones really need to innovate in order to keep me engaged for a similar length of time, and Creeper World 4 did not manage to do that.

Would I still recommend Creeper World 4? Yeah, sure. Although, if you have played Creeper World 3, don't really expect anything new or better. If you haven't played Creeper World 3, then maybe that would be the better starting point. The series is definitely starting to show its age, with not having many improvements for over a decade, but I think it's still good as long as there aren't any other games of this type. I do think it's a bit of a niche game, and it's hard to guess if you'd like it because it's so unique, but I know I like it, and if your interests generally align with mine, then perhaps you will too.

Fae Tactics

Another turn-based tactics game today, this time with a better concept, but not as good of an execution. It's Fae Tactics.

I was initially very hopeful for this, considering the large amount of mechanics this game had implemented. It had a good introduction to them as well, usually introducing a new mechanic one battle, then giving one to practice it, then introducing the next one.
You control up to 6 units on a small map. Each unit has 10+ stats, and then several passive abilities as well as an element. You have melee units, ranged units, terrain has varying height, and units have stats for how much higher than themselves can they move and attack. There's benefits for attacking from above, from behind, against enemies of an element weak to yours, combo attacks, and more. Every unit also has an assist or wait ability they can use instead of attacking that turn, those usually being an allied buff and a self-buff, respectively. Combined with leveling, equippable items, customizable team compositions, and probably many more things I forgot, Fae Tactics is actually quite a deep game.

However, the problems start to arise as you actually get into the game. I think the overall largest problem is the sub-par AI. For one, the enemies are very passive until you actually get close to them. They clump up into small groups (or alone, if no one is nearby) and start buffing each other forever while you have your fight at the other end of the map. This trivializes many encounters, because as long as you survive the first group of enemies near your spawn, you can take all the time you want to apply all allied and self buffs, wait for your spells to be off-cooldown, and heal all your units to full. This wouldn't even necessarily be a problem, as the game can be difficult despite allowing you these times of respite, but it takes very many turns to reach an optimal state if you only have a single unit handing out good buffs and/or many injured units to heal. I could just forego this tedious phase and rush onwards, but a good developer knows that the optimal way to play must also be the most fun way to play. At the very least, these two things should be strongly correlated.
The AI troubles don't end here, because the developers have failed at yet another common design aspect - they gave you allied units that aren't under your control, must not die, but are also bad at keeping themselves alive. They do often force you to adapt a more aggressive playstyle to keep up with them, but that still feels bad because of the reasons mentioned above.
Other minor complaints include character level-ups feeling unsatisfying, as they are just stat bonuses, the effects of multiple stats being unexplained, as well as the game lacking a manual to look up mechanics after they were first introduced. Sometimes the party composition decision feels kind of fake, as you just pick the same team, or as many units as you can that are effective against the element the enemy has the most of. Finally, I would also like to mention that while the pixel art looked good, the entire game had a terribly low resolution, making most areas of the screen very blurry and somewhat unpleasant to look at. The entire UI looked more like it was designed for a mobile game, which this game might actually have been good as.

Overall, Fae Tactics has interesting ideas, many systems, and potential to be a good high-depth game. This potential, however, does not translate into reality mainly due to a poorly implemented AI, but also other, less serious problems. I wouldn't go as far as to say Fae Tactics is a bad game, and it could definitely be fun if you're specifically looking for another turn-based tactics game to play. If you're not a huge fan of most games of this specific genre though, and only somewhat like strategy games, then there are probably many better picks out there than this. So, personally, I can't recommend it.