Genshin Impact

The real main reason I haven't been doing much else or trying out many other games lately is because I've been on the Genshin Impact treadmill. While part of me feels disappointed in playing so much of a new and popular game yet again while my backlog just sits there and grows ever larger, I've been having fun, and how can I possibly regret that.

First concerns first. "Torn! This is a mobile game, what are you doing? Worse still, it is a gacha game. And their bloody adverts won't leave me alone. What in the world are you spending your time on and calling fun!?!" I know, I know. I had this exact problem as well. A game from a franchise that has been mobile exclusive is a red flag, and widespread advertisement seems to have some sort of correlation with low quality games, which is another red flag. It actually took me almost a month from release, trying to ignore all the people talking about it, before I noticed a suspicious amount of people saying somewhat or very positive things about it, that were not paid advertisements. I still didn't believe it, but as it was free, I downloaded the game and gave it a try, expecting to quit in like 10 hours tops. But... I didn't. And the more I played, the better it got, until the point where I now feel confident giving my thoughts about it, knowing that whatever comes next, this game has given me plenty of hours of quality entertainment.

It is actually somewhat difficult to describe what makes Genshin different. If you've played (action) JRPGs, it will feel immediately familiar. You have your squad of characters who you can equip with weapons and artifacts to boost their stats. Each character has one of five weapon classes, which each play differently, as well as their own unique abilities, which further make playing each of them a distinct experience. Combined with that, every character has one of six elements, which they can inflict onto enemies, potentially combining with other elements or the enemies' innate features to provide a reaction for an extra effect. All of this is enhanced by being able to rapidly switch between characters to get their abilities and elements in for devastating combinations. Topping it all off, there's the nice detail of cancelling your own attacks into invulnerability frame dodges, for very precisely avoiding enemy attacks. Aside from combat, there's also a big open world with enough little collectables and puzzles that you will find a new one every 5 minutes of exploring, yet probably literally never find them all.
It also falls into many of the same pitfalls that I hate about JRPGs, such as starting off with (and seemingly providing with each new event) a load of story you probably don't care about and too many (more than 0) "fetch" quests, where you just run from point A to point B to deliver something or talk to someone. It also frontloads you with a ton of information about everything you can do, from game mechanics to character and equipment upgrades, and more. However, there is a silver lining. Genshin still cleverly spaces these things out, allowing for plenty of time to explore the world on your own between story quests, as well as giving time to try out the existing mechanics you've learned before even allowing you to try new ones. Still, if you want to speedrun through all the story, and unlock all content, you may do so at your own capability.

There are two very common and incredibly large problems, that I was really surprised to not find in Genshin.
One, that none of the game systems are redundant - you should and almost must use each aspect of the game, and it all ties very well into the overall gameplay. I'm not personally fond of the food system, but I can't say it's useless. I've just never personally liked consumables, but I admit that to be my own problem. There is also a small "but" regarding characters and weapons. From an individual perspective, you will stick to your party of 4 characters and 4 weapons for long periods of time, only changing when you find someone or something better. It feels a shame to waste all the other characters, but there really is no use in playing everyone. From a grander perspective though, I'm sure everyone will find their own favorites. Some characters might be more popular, but none are downright useless, so I can't hold it against the game too much.
Two, that it actually manages to keep its difficulty. Games without difficulty settings rarely offer a challenge to me, and even with difficulty settings, it often just feels like the enemies' numbers have been turned too high. Genshin, however, feels genuinely challenging, but I think this is unique to how I play it. It is at this point I must admit that either the developers got really lucky, or they know precisely what they are doing. See, I am a solo F2P player. If you play with friends, it's easier, as there are now more of you to gang up on the enemies. Likewise, if you pay money, you get better characters and weapons, making the game easier. And it is my guess that it is precisely the people who have come to fool around with friends, or who are used to tossing money at games to solve their problems, that are less experienced in games, and thus need an easier experience. I want to, at this point, also alleviate your concerns for this being a gacha game. You do not have to pay for anything. You will not get all the best characters and weapons if you don't (not impossible, just takes impossibly long), but you don't need to. In fact, I wouldn't even want them. If this game was easier, I wouldn't like it as much.

"All that rambling, but I still don't see what's so special about this game, Torn?" Well... there isn't. I don't like it because it has some really cool or interesting new idea that sets it apart. I like it because everything it does, it does so well. It is the most polished and perfect JRPG experience I've had, and that's what keeps me hooked. So, to wrap this long review up, Genshin definitely makes it into my list of favorite RPGs, and I would invite you to look past the mobile franchise and gacha game stigma, and play it as just a game. I would definitely recommend it. If you like action RPGs or JRPGs, you'll probably like this, and even if you don't think so highly of them, maybe Genshin Impact will be a bit better.

while True: learn()

Maybe I'm not best suited for playing programmer games as a programmer, or maybe the opposite is true, but I want to try them anyways. So today I played while True: learn(), which sells itself as a programming puzzle game that teaches you machine learning. Haven't had one of those yet - sounds wonderful.

The problems arise quite early on, as you realize this is not a programming game, nor are you actually learning anything about machine learning. (Unless you click on one of the external links explaining these topics in actual technical detail, but these aren't part of the game and can't be attributed to it.) While True: learn() is more of an automated distribution or load balancing game. You get up to 3 shapes and/or colors that go in, a few very rudimental nodes that act as glorified if-else statements or something similar, and outputs with required quantities and accuracies of these colored shapes you must fulfill. There are other parts of the game, which aren't really related to the main gameplay for some reason, like a small stock-market-like game, cosmetics, and worst of all, upgrades for your computer that allow you to just get a better score when you go back to replay previous levels without actually changing anything.

My initial hope of comparing this to a Zachtronics game would be a terrible insult, as this isn't even worthy of being called a programming game. It does nothing to familiarize people with neither programming concepts nor machine learning concepts, instead acting like a system of belts and splitters from Factorio. The puzzles are either too simple, or can be most efficiently solved through trial-and-error, not thinking.
As an actual example from the game, you're given triangles, circles, and squares, all mixed from the input stream, and have to split them into the corresponding 3 streams. A chilishly simple task, right? 2 if-else statements and you're good. One of the promotional pictures for the game on the store page has managed to convolute this into a mess of 9 nodes, which don't actually solve the problem. And that's most of the game - terrible, complicated, and incorrect solutions for simple problems.
It's not entirely a pile of garbage, but best I could do is lump it in with "casual puzzle games". It thus saddens me that this has probably sold more copies than any single Zachtronics game, which are by and far superior.

So, would I recommend while True: learn()? No, definitely not. It pretty much lies about the type of game it is, and doesn't do a particularly good job at anything. Want to do load-balancing? Go design Factorio belt systems. Want to play a real programming game? Play one from Zachtronics. But don't try this affront to the programming game genre.

The Gardens Between

The Gardens Between is a short (~3 hours) atompsheric puzzle game. Each level acts like a short animated movie, as you can't directly control the characters, but instead you forward and rewind time. Some elements of the level are not affected by the flow of time however, and through understanding how to properly manipulate these elements, you can complete the level.

Being an atmospheric game, the emphasis of The Gardens Between was on art, animation, and sounds. That appeals to some people as evidenced by positive feedback on the game. For me, the turnoff was the lack of gameplay. Admittedly, this was more of a casual puzzle game, where the puzzles don't require that much thinking, but rather you figure them out in your stride as you watch the game unfold. Therefore, all of my time playing this game was spent of effectively watching the animations and story. It was kind of unique, but it wasn't interesting nor entertaining, and it definitely wasn't challenging either, leaving me with no enjoyment to be gathered from it.

So, personally, a strong "not recommended" for this one. You can probably find a movie or something that is better than this, or even some better story game, if you definitely want some hand in playing back a fixed story.

Among Us

So I caved to playing another fad game, this time it being Among Us. It's always a bit pointless giving my opinion on these games, because everybody is already playing it, or decided they really don't want to, but what can I do. I play it - I talk about it, those are the rules.

So, Among Us is a social game for up to 10 people, 1-3 of whom are impostors and must work together to kill the remaining players without being found out. Meanwhile the crewmates (non-impostors) win if they either figure and vote out the impostors, or complete all their tasks. The latter being more of a time-constraint for the impostors.
There is little to do as a crewmate, other than your tasks and keeping an eye on what others are doing. There are a few helpful appliances like cameras that monitor a select few small areas, or vitals, which show the alive-state of everyone. The crew can not actively fight back. The impostor however has a cooldown on his kill, leaves behind very obvious bodies, can use vents which connect parts of the map to teleport, and cause malfunctions like doors to close, or lights to go out. If a body is found or someone manually calls a meeting, everyone is allowed to communicate for that period of time, and potentially vote somebody out.

The very first thing I noticed as I entered the game was how low quality it was. The level of art and especially UI quality was something out of a game jam game. It baffled me that such a thing amassed so much popularity, and has been around for two years. But, okay, it's never about the art, but the gameplay, right. That said, I can't give its gameplay a much higher rating. The game is shallow. It requires very little learning and you'll see everything you can do in just a couple of games on each map. It doesn't require much mechanical skill (basically none as a crewmate, while the impostor has to juggle more things), so aside from getting better at tricking people, you can't really get good at the game. And it has strategies from the crewmate side that can most probably guarantee a win, so you just got to agree not to use them. It's less about playing the game, more about screaming at and laughing with your friends.
Mind you, this is all from the perspective of playing with a group of trustable people over Discord. I can not imagine playing with randoms. It is so easy to cheat or abuse the game. It takes just one person to mess up the game for others. I also wouldn't want to be typing into chat, as the game has no built-in voice either. Playing with random people would just be a terrible experience.

Would I recommend it? Well, the answer would be clear were I not still regularly playing it. I want to very clearly state that I don't think it's a good game. It's pretty bad on most fronts. However, they hit that sweet spot for a game that friend groups can play together, and, like for pretty much all games that got popular fast, people swayed their friends to join them to play it. Missing a player for today's session? Ask all the players to ask all their friends. And instantly, just because somebody leaves, like 20 more get notified on it. So as a final verdict, if your friend group wants you to join them playing this, and you like just hanging out with them... Sure, go play some Among Us. But try not to be the one looking for a game. If you're lucky enough to not have friends playing this, join them in their other activities instead, or if you're alone anyways, play something else.

Space / Mech / Pilot

What do you mean it's been 1.5 months, and all we get is a review of some free incremental game by the name of Space / Mech / Pilot? It's not even a good incremental game, and all it has going for it is the big-eyed cat-eared person you occasionally get to hear a few lines of dialogue from?

So, excuses upfront, I've been playing other, bigger games lately (will write about those later), and haven't had the time to continue with my usual list of games. However, I saw this short and free incremental game on Steam the other day and figured it was a nice distraction to let it idle in the background while I was doing other stuff.
There's really nothing special to say about the game. As far as incremental games go, this one's pretty subpar by today's standards. They dragged me (and seemingly many other people) in with images of the cute cat person you get to talk to. I figured it would be more of a narrative-based incremenetal game (always looking forward to people combining the incremental genre with other genres, I really think there's good things to be found there), but our friend Kato shows up so rarely that I'm not sure if I even got 10 minutes of dialogue in all. On top of that, the story was pretty meh, and I got the odd feeling it was trying to push some real-world agenda in a roundabout way. Regardless, I didn't like it.

So yeah, a quick review of a quick free game I completed by letting it idle in the background for a day. The art is cute, but that's about where the positives end. It dilutes the "this character is real" trope, and doesn't even have music outside of the short dialogue scenes. The gameplay's even worse. So, yeah, don't play this. I'll be back with some other games in the coming weeks, but I feel there's been a lot of good stuff coming out lately, so there shouldn't be a drought of things to play.

Akane

Akane's a fun little game. You run around a little arena, about 4 times as large as your screen and swing your sword at enemies that swing their swords at you. One hit is one kill, for either party. Want to feel safe? Use a gun instead. At least until you run out of bullets and have to recharge by killing with your sword more. Kill fast enough to rack up a combo and unlock a special move or two which can take out a lot of enemies at once. And speaking of enemies, there's different types. There's the regular sword guys, the rarer gun guys, the as-rare-as-the-gun-guys tough guys who don't die in one hit, and then the boss which gets stronger every time you kill it. Complete some challenges to unlock new gear which has minor effects on gameplay, and... yeah, that's about it.

Honestly, I liked playing Akane. The combat's fluid and responsive. There's nice attention to detail like swords clanging together or deflecting bullets (which can actually hurt those they bounce to). I'm a bit against dying in one shot, as there's a big difference between playing perfectly (never getting hit) and playing near perfectly (getting hit very very rarely), which you don't want to force on people, but for such a short game, it's actually fine. The challenges are difficult, but not overly so, and the game requires real skill (even if it can be cheesed a bit).
But as mentioned, the game's real short. You'll see the gist of everything within 30 minutes (15 if you're good), and then it's maybe a couple of hours more before you feel you've exhausted the gameplay. I didn't unlock all equipment, but I didn't feel the desire to.

Overall, good game, too short. The low price point might make it worth a buy, but you're not missing out on anything if you don't. Technically I wouldn't recommend it, but I won't judge. I had fun for about an hour, and maybe that's worth a couple units of money for you.

Shadowhand

I am once again amazed by how blind I am that I managed to completely ignore that Shadowhand is a Solitaire game. I should've looked at the art and the dialogue... It basically screams "mobile-level casual game". I tricked myself into playing Solitaire, I can't believe it.
Looking it up, Solitaire refers to a wide variety of games one can play alone (most videogames, anyone?), but this one's kind of similar to the most famous one, Klondike. Arguably it's even simpler, as you don't have any free slots nor cards to stack, only the waste pile. As with most Solitaire games, Shadowhand is heavily based on luck, with very minor skill being involved, despite the added equipment and abilities. The most difficult part is predicting the course of action for the highest probability of a longer chain, but you generally just click on all the cards you can until you can't. And as I said, the art and story are horrible.

While I don't play them, I have more respect for "pure" card games. Solitaire being one of the least skill-involved, but even then it's better than this junk. If you insist on paying for something with a free equivalent available, I would suggest throwing your money at Shenzhen I/O's Solitaire, but I simply can not recommend Shadowhand.

Sky Force Reloaded

Today's game is Sky Force Reloaded. It's a shoot 'em up / bullet hell, and it's... incredibly bland.

This genre of games generally isn't anything complicated. You control a ship in top-down view (or side view, but not in this game) and shoot a lot of bullets to kill enemies who shoot a lot of bullets back. Because of the simplicity, most good examples of the genre have a lot of extra mechanics and challenges sprinkled in to keep the gameplay fresh, exciting, and challenging. Sky Force Reloaded doesn't.
To simply list out problems with the game, in no particular order:
1) All your attack patterns are very simple, with no variety. You just shoot forwards. Upgrades make your shots larger, faster, maybe give multiple columns, or a slight spread, but no fundamentally new shot patterns emerge.
2) Your hitbox is huge, encompassing your entire ship, instead of just a little piece of the center as is the accepted standard for bullet hell games. This signifincatly lowers the skill ceiling, as you're forced to always look for huge gaps in the enemy's attack pattern instead of allowing extremely precise dodging.
3) The ship variety, as far as I saw, is laughable. Wow! New ship! 10% more damage. That's all.
4) Your shots don't travel straight. Because the game is 3D with a perspective camera, and some genius decided to have it point slightly forward instead of completely top-down, your shots converge as they travel forwards, massively throwing off your aim.
5) Each level has the same nonsense challenges: "kill x% enemies", "don't get hit", "rescue people". I'm going to do these things anyways! Give me something different and exiting that might make me want to play differently. The overarching achievements are also dumb, mainly just "complete stage x".
And many more minor or slightly larger problems.

Point is, this game stands out in absolutely nothing. It filled out the minimum checklist for a shmup, and even then failed on a few points. I can in no way recommend this. There are way better examples to be played, such as one of my favorites Bullet Heaven 2. So go try that (or the first installement, or one of the games it says it's inspired by if you've already played it) instead if you want a bullet hell.

Snowflake's Chance

Snowflake's Chance is some Getting Over it with Bennet Foddy type of shit, albeit not as popular. It's an incredibly tough and unforgiving platformer which doesn't hesitate to kick you down, take away everything you've achieved, laugh at you, and then make the game even harder despite your recent failure. Upon realizing this, I quit it before it managed to drive me insane, but I don't think it's all bad. There's a reasonable game underneath the unreasonable criteria it places on the player.

In Snowflake's Chance, you play a bunny who happened to get dropped through some 20 layers of hell, and who's now trying to make their way back up, given 99 lives to do so. You have meager, near-realistic bunny-like agility. No sprinting, no dashing, no double jumping or walljumping, or anything like that (at least as far as I got). You have a weak swing to temporarily knock away small critters or break small objects, and the ability to hide in foliage. Perhaps your most impressive ability is to devour whole friendly animals to later regurgitate them as bait for the hostile fauna to make your escape.
Dying makes you lose a life, lose all your items, cause the evil ghastly version of yourself chasing you to become stronger, and get you dropped off at the last checkpoint, which is basically the only form of permanent progress you make in this game. And they take "dropped off" quite literally. A crow literally drops you near the general vincinity of your last checkpoint into the giant shaft connecting the whole underground. You probably won't actually land at the checkpoint. If you're lucky, you'll land a screen's length below it. If you're unlucky, you'll tumble down the whole shaft back to the very beginning of the game, or straight to your death. Similar options, because sometimes dying seems a better option than climbing the whole path up again.

It really is the death and the giant shaft in the middle that break this game for me. There seems to be a ton of content in this game, seemingly all handcrafted (like the hand-drawn artstyle, which is quite interesting). Most people, myself included, probably just give up before they see even a small fraction of it because of how cruel the game is, while the fans are super dedicated, pouring some 50 hours into it. I might have even kept going, but the nail in the coffin for me was how often I had the chance to drop to the beginning. A common occurance upon death, and quite possible while jumping over the gap in the middle, which was a necessity every so often. Playing the whole game over again was not fun for me. I wanted to experience what more it had to offer, not drill the beginning into my head until I had achieved complete and utter mastery of it.

In conclusion, if you like being in a relationship with a platformer that hates your guts and does everything in it's power to stop you from completing it - this is the game for you. For anyone who isn't a diehard hardcore platformer fan, it's probably best you find something else. I can't recommend this one.

Undertale

Hooo boy, Undertale. Clearly in the top 50 games on Steam. Rare we roll such a treat to play. I've heard a lot about it, mostly escaping spoilers. So, I could finally play through it, but what impression did it leave on me?

Undertale was one of the biggest games to come out in 2015 (Witcher 3 took the top spot, sorry) and so I had high hopes for it. From it's description and initial impressions, it wasn't anything special. Sort of an RPG Maker-esque game with the additional option of not fighting back. Running for about 6 hours, you get to experience a bunch of dialogue, complete some puzzles, and dodge some bullets, optionally fighting back or using other means to "best" your opponents. And I suppose most importantly, depending on your actions onto the world, the response from the world differs as well.

While the concept was somewhat novel, I must admit it left me cold. Looking at each of the aspects of the game, none really appealed to me. The puzzles - far too simple. The gameplay - challenging at times, but still not even close to being fun. There's miles better RPGs and bullet-hell games. Art was meh as well, though I really liked the music.
Now, I know, I know, "Torn, this isn't at all what Undertale is about". It's about the story, the world, and the characters. And these were the best part of the game, but I just didn't find them that stellar. It tried to be quirky, and make jokes, and satirize certain concepts in other games, but it didn't hit the mark often enough. I had a genuine laugh or chuckle every now and then, but just as often the attempted joke was annoying instead. Most of it was just bland and predictable after the tone of the game was already set. Sans was probably the best character, but I couldn't develop an attchment to them, let alone anyone else. For a game's standards, the story was good, but sadly I've come to expect stories in games to be terrible, and for a truly good story, it needs to be absolutely exceptional among games. Undertale's was only just "good".

So, yeah, I ultimately failed to see the reason for the hype around Undertale. I was expecting something a little bit more different, but I still got the standard RPG Maker experience with bad gameplay and a mediocre story. Maybe there was more potential in the game, maybe you would consider it unique enough to enjoy it, but I didn't. As is standard with these immensely popular and highly rated games, I can't truly not recommend it, because statistically speaking, you will like it, but I can't personally recommend it. Not that it matters. Everyone who's going to has already played it anyways.

DDraceNetwork

I found a curious game on Steam the other day. Completely free, apparently roughly a decade old, and open source to boot. It's called DDraceNetwork, and it's apparently a standalone mod of Teeworlds (which I have heard of briefly, but never played). At first glance, it looked like a speedrunning platformer, and while that's not entirely incorrect, it's more than that. It's really quite unlike anything I've ever played.

Being an open-source game, one can't really draw a line between what's made by the developers and what's made by the community, since everything's kind of made by the community. As such, there are better and worse maps and servers and I only tried few of them, but I feel my experiences are worthwhile nontheless.
Entering the game, you're greeted by some customization options, but mostly a server browser. Entering a server, there's probably already a map underway - you join halfway. You're given a double jump, a grappling hook, and probably some weapons. The weapons might strike you as odd in a platformer, because DDnet is not a PvP game. Quite the opposite really - most maps partially or fully require the help of at least one more player to complete them. All players have full collision with you, your weapons have various effects on them, generally shoving them in some direction to help move, and most importantly, you can grapple not only walls, but each other. There are multiple mechanics, tools, and building blocks for the world, and many many more clever ways to combine all these. So much so that much of the game is learning and perfecting using these few things you are given to their absolute limits. And some people have been doing this for almost 10 years, making them extremely good at the game.

Upon first entering the game, without reading up on what it was of course, I joined a server of about 50 people. After the initial bewilderment that my weapons were in fact not doing damage, and nobody was shooting me to stop me from completing the track, I discovered the grappling hook and was on my way. For about 3 seconds. I had fallen into a transparent black block and found myself unable to make any further actions. I was amazed that people were spending their time pulling me out time and again, and some even tried to not only complete the obstacle, but juggle me through it as well. "How kind of them towards newbies", I thought, as someone whose skills were beyond my understanding grappling hook flung me up to them before booting me over a wall with a hammer and then rushing past me. But boy, was I about to learn that this was the norm here.
The map was huge, and despite the first obstacle being completable solo, the second one obviously was not. I saw a few people ahead completing it and soon found myself doing the same with a stranger. It just worked, as I leapt into the immobilizing darkness, knowing the one on the other side would pull me across. They did, and then ran off to complete the next obstacle, as it was my turn to help the next person coming. It was a big, amazing, and admittedly quite wonky and inefficient clockwork, but it worked! Obstacle after obstacle we completed, with new and old faces alike helping each other pass, and after an hour, the map was complete.

The other maps followed suit similarly, but often requried some different tricks to get through them. Still, after a couple more, I felt tired of it. The novelty of such a tightly co-dependent co-op experience had worn off, and what was left was the platforming challenges to overcome. Admittedly, it didn't feel that rewarding to have someone pull you across an obstacle without you doing anything, but it also didn't feel very fun trying to get people across who were even less skilled than me. Combine with the much repeated fact that precision platformers aren't my cup of tea, and it's clear why I soon quit the game.
Still, I would recommend you try this free gem. At least complete one of those hour-long levels with a bunch of other people to really experience what true teamwork feels like. This isn't your Counter-Strike or League level teamwork - this is advanced, and the experience alone is worth it. If after that hour you feel like you don't like the game, that's fine, but I believe you'll be richer as a person for playing.

In Celebration of Violence

Oh, it's been a while. I've finished moving to an apartment in the city and living on my own again. Schedule's been hammered though, leaving me with little time to play new games. Totally my fault, but at least I have a great new game I want to tell you about called In Celebration of Violence. Outright, let me say that this is probably the first game I've put on my list which was made with the free version of Unity (as evidenced by the Unity logo when starting the game), as well as the first Action Roguelike I've played that is not just decent, but actually good.

In broad, In Celebration of Violence has a basic linear branching level structure with randomly generated levels, enemy placements, and item drops. You run around the levels, swing a variety of weapons at your enemies, and collect their loot to get stronger. Basic stuff, but looking at the details is where it gets good.
This game takes a lot of good ideas and mashes them together. It has permadeath, but also the tried and true practice of giving a little bit of character advancement that persists through death. In this case, it's small stat boosts, new classes to play, and most importantly - knoweldge about the game. This knowledge comes in the form of weapon stats and item descriptions, which you progressively unlock the more you use/find them. And speaking of items, it borrows this nice idea from incremental games (or more recognizably The Binding of Isaac or Risk of Rain) that some equipment can just stack forever.
The environment is almost fully destructible, allowing for increased tactics on how to engage combat encounters. There's fine details like how your movement speed and actions cause noise - slowly walking on grass will get you around most enemies, but an ongoing fight or banging a hammer against anything acts like an alarm for everyone nearby. There're also slightly more fancy status effect systems, like how getting frozen next to a campfire won't last very long, how you can douse yourself in water if you're on fire, or how you can handle more poison before taking damage if you're healthy overall, and many other small systems that add depth to the gameplay without being a nuisance.
There is an impressive variety of weapons (and spells, but I didn't really like them since they felt weak for what they cost), and they have multiple attack patterns depending on the previous attack, your current movement, and maybe more. There's a lot to explore, mainly because... Well, for better or worse, the game explains almost nothing to you. You don't understand how the world or anything works, and it's up to you to put the pieces together and make sense of it all. This forced intuitive exploration could be a deal-breaker for some people, but for someone like me, the feeling of discovery is amazing.

Truthfully, this is probably a solo project of someone's. It's absolutely amazing for that, but a bit rough around multiple edges. Mainly, the ideas upon which it was built make for a phenomenal game, but the execution could have been better. While the pixel art is decent and fitting a rougelike, it's basic and often doesn't get its function across. Music was also basically non-existant (even if the quiet ambience sometimes added to the atmosphere, which was amazing for something composed of large pixels). There are some balance issues with classes, different weapons, magic (as mentioned), and I feel it could've used more polish overall.
But I don't want to let the negatives distract from the fact that I played this game for 30 hours easily, and would probably play it just as much more. I'm only maybe 1/4 through the game in terms of discoveries, and haven't actually completed a full playthrough. I just found myself a bit pinched for time to put more into it right now, and opted to write a review for it as-is.

So in conclusion, In Celebration of Violence is a great Action Rogulike composed of an excellent combination of ideas, only somewhat suffering from the production quality. It takes patience to understand and overcome it, but if you have that, it will be a very rewarding experience. I'll admit it's not for everyone, but I would most certainly recommend playing it if what I described sounds like your cup of tea.

Tower of Time

Today's game is Tower of Time - a real-time with pause tactical RPG about descending a tower.
You control a party of up to four various characters, each with a few skills that can be upgraded in a small "tree" (if choosing between two options counts as a tree), as well as some run-on-the-mill offensive and defensive attributes and items. The levels contain equipment, small "puzzles", and gold to upgrade your characters. There are also of course combat encounters which are held in a separate arena and consist of waves of spawning enemy units. Each floor is pre-built and non-repeatable, meaning you're stuck with however well you do on that floor.

To start off with the not-gameplay, there's a story which doesn't consume too much of your time, provides some context to what your doing, but failed to pique my interest overall. Tower of Time seems to be from a small-ish development team, and for that, the art is very well done, rivalling any other game, and I've no qualms regarding the audio, level design, environmental lore, or any other aspect surrounding the game.
Sadly, the gameplay itself, the most important part of any non-story game, is lacking. For all the supposed enemy variety, there isn't too much distinction to be made in terms of how to actually fight against them. Aside from the enemy being melee or ranged, what they are may change how hard it is to fight them, but more often than not doesn't create strategic depth as there's not much to do about their differences.
However, by far the most irking is how much good micromanagement will let me play better, yet how much more time it will take. This is just my usual strong dislike for real-time with pause games, as turn-based would no doubt have served this better. The enemies and my characters are already somewhat tanky instead of squishy, making this a slow-paced game. It doesn't help that my characters tend to move faster, making kiting a very effective strategy against melee enemies, and peeking very effective against ranged, who will miss if you go back into cover after they fire their projectiles that are barely faster than your movement speed. This amounts to a staggeringly slow game pace, which is downright sleep inducing.
The combat arenas are repetitive, sometimes just floor-themed reskins. Bizarrely, pause is not instant, but rather slows time to reach pause after about a second, which is significantly irritating when trying to time certain actions. The items and level-ups don't offer much either, and perhaps only the skill points and upgrades you get increase the depth of the gameplay, but even then not by much.

Overall, a game ruined by shallow combat paced far too slow. I believe you'd find an all around better experience from some larger RPG. I'd recommend Divinity: Original Sin, as usual, but even something like Pillars of Eternity and it's successors should fare better on all fronts, if you really want pause-based combat. But Tower of Time I would not recommend.

Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls

Latest game I played read was Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls. If you're familiar with the Danganronpa series, then the visuals, atmosphere, and story are the same crazy, unrealistics, yet oddly fascinating ones. By far the biggest difference, however, is that this one is a shooter instead of a series of murder mysteries like the previous installments.

The game opens with a lot of story (and quality animations, instead of the 3D animated ones throughout most of the game) frontloaded onto you, perhaps in an attempt to grab your attention. However, the amount of meaningful story quickly drops off and you're left with horrendous gameplay to fill most of your time. I don't want to dwell much on just how bad the experience is, but it's safe to say the developer has not played any shooters worth their salt. Just to give some examples: The camera points to a different spot when actually firing. Enemies die in one hit if you hit them in the right spot, which isn't difficult, making the game dead easy, even on the hardest difficulty. There's an interruption every couple of minutes, be it a cutscene, some dialogue, or an animation that lasts for a few seconds. They really add up and waste your time.

From the story side, which is the only thing you should care about in this game, there isn't much. Maybe around 10% is meaningful story, and even then I'm quite sure you could skip this game and go to the next one without leaving gaps in your knowledge. Better yet, don't play this, and watch two hours worth of YouTube videos showing all cutscenes and a summary of the whole thing instead. To give a quick overview of what you're missing (minor spoilers included):
The story follows after Danganronpa 2, and has two main characters you could care about - Makoto's sister, and Toko. Some of the old characters make an appearance, but don't play a big role. Some of the characters' relatives also show up, but most of them die shortly after with no time to get attached to or learn about them. On the "evil" side, we have four children with a traumatic past you'll get to briefly learn about, but all but one of them will die too, leaving them out of the picture for the future. Aaand that's basically it.

Seriously though, don't play this. I don't recommend it. If you don't know about Danganronpa at all, there's nothing for you here. If you've gone through parts 1 and 2 and loved them, settle for watching someone else's recap instead of suffering through 20 hours of this. I found the previous parts barely passable, but once you swap out the nice murder mystery aspect the author was kind of good at, you're not left with enough to justify trudging through this awful "game".

Everspace

I haven't been having a good streak of games recently. I really hope I'm just being unlucky and getting mediocre games instead of being unable to enjoy any games for some reason. Anyways, with that spoiler of my thoughts about Everspace out of the way, let me tell you a bit more about my rather brief time with it.

Everspace is a six five-degrees-of-freedom (no roll, but I don't miss it) space shooter with permadeath. It's level-based so each level you get some enemies you have to shoot while trying to dodge their shots. You got a recharging energy bar that powers your two primary weapons you can switch between as well as your movement, and you got a secondary weapon with limited ammunition, as well as two active or passive ability slots.
Between levels, it's a bit like FTL. That is, you warp forwards in a linearly progressing map and have some resources you can use for various things with different levels offering somewhat different content. Mostly still just shooting things. If at any point you happen to die, you get to use your credits to buy your ship some upgrades before going for another round from the start.

The problem with shooters is that firing a weapon is usually very similar in nature. You aim at the enemy, and you hold down the fire button. So the combat has to be really good, because it's very difficult to make something conceptually unique in a shooter. Sadly, Everspace's combat is mediocre. It's not bad, but just being mediocre makes it unenjoyably repetitive. What doesn't help is the downtime between fights as you collect the resources scattered around the level, which is just menial labor. Warp in, shoot at stuff, fly around collecting all the things they dropped or that were already in the level, and warp out.
The upgrades between lives aren't particularly imaginative or game-changing, so I found it difficult to care about them much, and starting from the beginning does not help with the repetitivity at all.

Everspace delivers you mediocre 3D dogfighting combined with some progression of your ship throughout the run, as well as across runs. As the overall gameplay isn't very fun, I find the entire thing dull after just a short while. I don't really know of any similar games to offer as replacements, but I've heard there's some cool mecha-based 3D dogfighters out there. Regardless, I can't recommend the game beyond its graphics, as it lacks any meaningful substance.

The End Is Nigh

My thoughts on The End Is Nigh are quite similar to my thoughts on Celeste, as well as Super Meat Boy, which this seems to be a kind of worse version of. Let me elaborate on that.

The End Is Nigh is a game by Edmund McMillen, famous for The Binding of Isaac, and more relevantly, Super Meat Boy. I was somewhat surprised at the existance of this game, considering he already has a major platformer under his belt, and that this one... doesn't really add much. While I initally thought there was some story here, it really isn't in any focus worth mentioning. It's all just platforming, like Super Meat Boy, except you're less slippery, somewhat slower, can't walljump, but can grab onto ledges and little spikes.
There seems to be less stuff / variety in the world overall, as well as fewer levels and less bonus content to explore. So it's not so much that I'm surprised that he made another platformer - by all means, you should stick to what you're good at - but that this one is significantly more bare-bones than something that came out 7 years ago.

Despite a relative lack of content, the platforming is as tight as ever, the difficulty is quite right for just completing the game, and reasonably more difficult if you're getting collectables. A seemingly not-so-good decision was to make those collectibles lives later on, meaning the difficult spikes at the end if you've tried to go for a more casual playthrough. This seems unnecessarily unwelcoming.
What else... Soundtrack's great, as usual. The atmosphere and feel of the game are in line with Edmund's dark style, with much death everywhere, and you're literally collecting cancer. The gloom makes the game mostly monochrome, which, while appropriate, is sadly visually unappealing.

Overall, an all around lesser experience than Super Meat Boy (play it first if you haven't), but a very solid platformer nontheless. As I'm personally not a big fan of "vanilla platformers", and Super Meat Boy just barely made it on my list, this will not. But if you liked Super Meat Boy or like platformers, by all means play it. Despite my criticism, you must consider Meat Boy is still one of the best platformers out there, so despite not being as good, The End Is Nigh is still a great platformer. So I'd recommend it if you fit the target demographic, even though I do not.

Pit People

I just can't find a good game lately, I swear. I tried Pit People, which is supposedly a big game by a famous developer that has a lot of very positive ratings. To spoil the review, it frontloads all of its quirkyness and fun in the first 30 minutes, and then sharply falls off to absolute tedium, or maybe a silly checkbox ticker at best.

The Behemoth, developers of Pit People, are quite well known for the humor and weirdness their games extrude. I've played most, but not all, of their past games, and they're all about in the same vein. The art style is very colorful and, quite often literally, bouncy. There's a narrator telling jokes, who quickly runs out of lines as you complete the opening bit of the game, and keep in mind that the rest of the content has been passed through a 300% silly filter, examples being a number plate as a shield, a blade of grass as a sword, and paper airplanes as arrows. It's a lovely atmosphere, but sadly does nothing for the gameplay.

Pit People, specifically, is a turn-based strategy game where you control a group of fighters and can run around a medium-sized map picking fights, completing quests, levelling your characters, and earning loot. It sort of plays like other TBS games, except majorly dumbed down, where the only command you can give each fighter is where to move. They handle all the attacking and abilities on their own.
The town allows you to customize your characters, fitting each with whatever equipment you want, suddenly negating a lot of differences between characters. You do have the possibility to capture enemies as your fighters, and while there are different character types which can equip different kind of attacks and equipment, there still isn't much actual use to it. You quickly unlock all possible weapon types, and while, again, they have some variety and counterplay mechanics to them, you'd be no worse off for any practical reason if you just outfit your 6 characters identically. The strategic depth just isn't there.

There's the combat, which manages to be the worst part of the game, as you're just forced to watch your characters slowly make their animations. The enemy AI also visibly queues their character actions one-by-one for you to see before executing the move and then there's more animations to watch. It doesn't help that every single thing is a massive damage sponge and there might just be a healer in the party too. The amount of time these battles take is an insult to the player, considering there is no depth to them at all.
What's left is a staggering amount of "checkboxes to tick", as I put it. Collect all the items, collect all the characters, level stuff up, do the quests, etc. etc. But it's meaningless. These things are supposed to complement the game, not to be the game, considering how tedious they are to achieve.

Pit People tries to lure you in with an hour or two of promising a vibrant game with oh-so-many features and things to do. But just a bit beyond that time, you come to the realization that the game is shallow, repetitive, and boring. I'd recommend this to your child who is in elementary school or kindergarten, but to no fans of strategy games, RPGs, or other respectful game genres.

Legends of Runeterra (and some other card games)

I hit Master rank in Legends of Runeterra today, signalling me being in roughly the top 1000 players in the Europe region. It never crossed my mind to write about it since I don't usually do that for games with no clear end, but I'm not sure why. Anyways, as I feel reaching Master rank is sort of the "end" of my journey, being the highest rank one can achieve, I figured I might as well give my thoughts on the game, now that I'm "qualified" to do so.
This post will be a little longer, as I also wish to explore some other card games I've played.

Card games are something I played more as a child. They tend to be pretty exclusively PvP-based, and as I've gotten older, all PvP games have become inherently competitive for me. Sometimes I wish I could enjoy the games without caring about the outcome, but the mindset of improving has been ingrained too deep in me to not try to learn from losses and get better. This sadly involves a degree of beating myself up over losing as a form of discipline, increasing the frustration these games supply me with.
I started off playing Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh as those card games first came out and my brother bought the cards. He needed people to play against, I needed something to do with my life back before I had unlimited computer access. So he would always make the decks, hand me one, and we'd play, me losing like... 80% of the time, I guess, but it didn't bother me back then. I had no competitive drive, I just had fun.

I think a lot of my attitude from that point onwards towards card games can be derived from that last paragraph.
Making the decks has never been the fun part of card games for me. There's an incredible amount of cards in most card games. Even just reading them all (and you do have to read them all, lest you don't know what you're not putting in your deck) can be a daunting task, let alone thinking of all the combinations they could be used together in. Normally, I would praise that kind of complexity and depth, but there's a huge problem here. The problem is known as netdecking, and unless you're willing to spend an ungodly amount of time considering all the options available to you and have the skills to actually make the right conclusions from considering those options, you're just not going to make a better deck than somebody else has. You can play for fun and maybe feel like you've "earned" the victories by making your own decks, but that's no proof to others. Besides, where do you draw the line? Can you ask for advice? Can you look at what other people are playing and try to guess what decks they're running to imitate them? At some point, you'll gravitate towards playing what other people are playing, whether it's blatantly copying a deck online 1:1, or indirectly doing so by copying ideas and cards from the decks you play against (many of whom blatantly copied a deck online). There's nothing wrong with copying though. It's adapting, and not adapting is begging to lose, so you might as well not lie to yourself and take one of the good decks straight away. Of note are game modes like Arena (I think it was called that) in Hearthstone, or Expedition in Legends of Runeterra, where you can't just copy a deck, because you have highly limited choices what you can use. These bring back the skill of constructing a deck, but sadly have another caveat, which is the focus of the next paragraph.
That problem is luck. Games are so much based on the luck of the draw, in Expeditions the luck of the draft, and even the luck of the matchup, as the odds are heavily tilted right at the start, depending on what deck archetypes are facing up against each other. I think luck is both one of card games' greatest strengths and weaknesses. I could experience it back in the day when I was playing against my brother. I can be sure he was a far better player than I was. He also knew the decks we were both playing, since he put them together. And on top of that, I would wager he more often than not gave me the worse deck. But I still won a significant amount of games - something impossible in 1-on-1 games based on skill. I was so far behind, I should have lost every time, like I did in chess. But unlike chess, I didn't refuse to keep playing against him, probably because I had a chance to win. And I think that's the strength of card games, that luck can offset everything else and give you the perfect cards to win an otherwise doomed match. Sadly, it can also do the opposite, causing frustration at your inability to do anything.

Now, combining those two elements, what's left for you, the player? Making your deck is (mostly) not up to you. What cards you draw are not up to you. All you can do is play them. While I will admit that it's exactly this skill that differentiates great players from good ones, namely knowing the cards and thus the possible futures, how likely they are to occur, and accordingly, when you should play which cards, it's still not a large portion of what decides the outcome. I don't really feel like I've ever outplayed my opponent. Best I can feel about myself is relieved that I made the right decision in hoping they couldn't react to something I did, or that my stalling allowed me to counter their actions, instead of the other way around. But it still is mostly luck, not skills like aiming a gun in a shooter, nor psychology (or whatever their special term for this is) like predicting the enemy's next action in a fighting game.

I think a lot of card games since Hearthstone haven't been all that different. The constantly increasing mana curve has been the main difference from older card games, instead of being able to play almost whatever you got in hand. Runeterra mianly differs from Hearthstone in that the blocker can, for the most part, decide who fights whom. However, like many other card games that resemble Hearthstone, the differences are minor enough that they don't usually change the essence of what a game is. They all feel the same, looking from the outside, even if the new mechanics are a breath of fresh air to the player who has grided a single game for too long. The reason Runeterra is the first card game I've gotten so far in, is that it's the first card game that has given me the resources to build the decks I wanted. I'd argue that most other card games, while not having a technical paywall, released new cards too fast, and gave too few away for free to allow for people to be competitive while playing a reasonable amount of time.
Maybe it comes as no surprise, based on what I've already told you, that I don't really like card games. I don't like building my decks, I don't like netdecking, I don't like losing to luck (and don't care enough for winning due to it). There have been some better attempts at card games, but sadly they've died off. One I quite liked was Duelyst, which also introduced a board to the game, bringing a new aspect of non-luck-based gameplay. I think that is a massive improvement to shifting games away from being luck-based and increasing depth. They also had an amazing feature allowing to swap one card from your hand every turn, lessening the effect of the luck of the draw on the game. Why they scrapped the latter later on is beyond me. Sadly, it was also plagued by stuff costing a bit too much, especially as they started to run out of money before finally closing up.
I think the only card game I can truly say I think is good, is Prismata. It has no luck, no making of decks whatsoever, and no imbalance of matchups since you're playing the same deck. It's a game purely based on skill, yet it feels every bit as fun as the other card games I've played. (Okay, I actually really enjoyed the board mechanics in Duelyst and related board-based card games, but that's not important right now.) It also has an amazing AI, providing a challenging game to all but the very best of players, yet hitting that sweet spot of allowing you to feel good about yourself by letting you win more than 50% of the games. It's also dead. Not that it was ever alive. I don't think it ever hit even 100 simultaneous players, and is at maybe around 10 right now. And that's sad, because it also means there's no development resources to keep the game fresh and going.

So I didn't explain what Legends of Runeterra is actually about, but should I really? I think a lot of people have played at least one card game with attackers, blockers, and spells. They're all so very similar. Hearthstone mainly brought in the constant mana curve which gates playing cards, and Runeterra mainly switches it up with the blocking player deciding who fights whom, alternating turns letting both players play within the same "mana turn" with the attacker alternating between "mana turns", and maybe the 3 mana that can be left over each turn to go into a reserve for spells only. Draw a card, play your units and spells, attack, end your turn. They're all the same, and if I had to recommend one card game, I would indeed recommend Legends of Runeterra right now. It's got a big company backing it financially. It is very generous with cards, allowing anyone to be competitive, and it's still fresh right now, with promised changes bringing a lot of variety. Personally though, I don't think I'll be playing it much anymore, and I wouldn't recommend it (nor any other card game) to someone who doesn't already know they like card games. As explained, I don't like that so much is decided by just copying the best decks and being lucky. I feel the losses aggrevating because they're undeserved, and the victories meaningless, because they too are undeserved.

Slipstream

Racing games are in a weird spot for me where I really liked a few as a child, but I haven't played anything quite as good in the last... 10 years? So I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or if I really haven't found / given any good racing games a try. Well, I played some Slipstream today, and it was at least as bad as the other ones I've played recently. So that just adds to my reluctance to try them out.

Slipstream is very simple, veering more towards "realistic" racing games. You got your accelerate, break, and left and right turns, and that's all. The tracks consist of straight segments, and curving segments. You can execute a drift by a quick and simple key combination, and driving behind a car will give you an acceleration boost.
You have 3 attributes on your car - acceleration, top speed, and handling. Handling is useless since you'll need to drift on every curve anyways, and that will be enough to make every curve if you're playing well. Acceleration is only useful if you're not playing well and losing speed, at which point taking it would gimp your other stats putting you even further behind. And then finally top speed is all you need if you can just play well and not hit walls or other cars too much.
Speaking of other cars, they don't exactly follow your rules. Their speed and turning is "as is convenient". Some examples include: Everyone overtaking you at the start of a race with extreme acceleration, possibly so it would be "fun" to catch up to each of them? They can execute instantaneous turns to avoid crashes. And I could swear there was something off with how fast they went at different parts of the race. It was as if they were trying to keep a semi-constant gap with each other when you weren't there.

Overall, the cheating AI and having very few game mechanics sucked. It had some different game modes but there wasn't much of a functional difference. Cars felt the same, tracks felt the same, and oh I hate having car collisions in racing games where it's not some central game mechanic. A penalty should not be imposed on me because someone else is occupying the same space as me while the lead, who is already better, is driving further away without interruption.
To compare to the racing games mentioned at the start, I was a big fan of Trackmania. The tracks were really interesting, had realistic-seeming physics (yes, I do question being able to drive on walls, the ceiling, or flying through the air to land so very nicely again, but I never felt like I was non-physically glued to the track), and I could see other cars without bloody running into them. Another one was some flash game, the name of which eludes me, that very much had collision as a game mechanic. It had massively unique cars from formula-like cars that were super fast, but you basically lost if anyone hit you or vice versa, to a damn truck which was slow but could just ram the opponents to oblivion. It had ramps, jumping through rings, doing tricks in the air for speed boosts... It was great, and a good example of varied cars and how to incorporate car collisions into a racing game without it feeling shit.

I got rambling a bit in the end about other games, but I wanted to mention them, since I have no clue when I'll next play a racing game. I'm trying to steer clear from any aiming for realism at least, since I really don't feel like driving on a 2D track just going left, right, and forward is fun. But Slipstream, I wouldn't recommend.

Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon

As I first saw Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon, I thought I misremembered. Bloodstained had... graphics. Real graphics, not the 8-bit era graphics I was seeing here. Well, luckily I was right. Curse of the Moon is a short game made as a stretch goal reward of the Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night (which I will get around to eventually) Kickstarter, and I had added them both to my backlog as they came out.
Now, I can't say I have any nostalgia for the gaming of the 80s or 90s (possibly because I wasn't alive for most of that time, and was definitely not playing video games), or even that of 10 years past. I think games are becoming better and better thanks to advances in technology, mainly processsing power and tools, but also the amount of resources people put into game developent as a non-niche entertainment branch, and I'm happy to keep playing fresh games. Still, I thought, people are saying it's like an authentic Castlevania knockoff, why not experience it.

It definitely feels true to everything I know about the 8-bit era. From the graphics, to the sounds, to the controls, to how the character is obeying some very weird rules of motion which, under some observation, can be seen as very primitive and simple methods for approximating the physics of (the various parts of) jumping. I've never played (any) Castlevania, but I recognized it, somehow, so make of that what you will.

But ho boy, am I glad I'm not playing these games anymore. Mainly from the aspects of game design and system limitations, we've advanced leaps and bounds. So it's not just the hardware that has gotten better, the developers have too. (That is, if you ignore the lower-end who are producing trash because it's so easy to do these days.)
This devolved into less of a review of the game and more about how games are getting better. Honestly though, that's probably a better topic. This game's short, and has nothing new, literally. If you're getting old and want a childhood nostalgia experience, but for some reason don't want to play one of the actually old games, then, sure, I guess. For everyone else, play something new, from at least the last decade. New games are good, trust me.