Elfboy's 2010 Game Retrospectives

[Dark Holy Elf]

Sorta inspired by CK, end-of-year lists are fun! Basically, I'm looking back at every game I either played for the first time, or played fully for the first time (so a 2-hour foray a few years ago doesn't count) in 2010. They'll be reviewed in order of how much I liked 'em, starting with the worst.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'll post one a day, most likely.

EDIT2: People are free to comment and such if they wish to! This is the discussion forum after all.

[Dark Holy Elf]

15. Devil May Cry 2 (PlayStation 2, Capcom, 2003)

When I first picked up Devil May Cry 2, I knew very well I was picking up a game that could bottom out a list like this. I was certainly forewarned about the game's flaws. And overall, the game is roughly as advertised.

DMC2 is not without redeemding features. The platforming, a weakness of the series (and perhaps the genre) is actually respectable, and the game's successor would have been better served if it had copied it. The controls are responsive, jumps aren't terribly difficult to direct, and the game's gimmick of running along and jumping off of walls is just plain fun. Unfortunately, however, there's little attempt to integrate the platforming into actual combat, besides the introduction of some new dash options.

And combat is where the game takes its biggest missteps, which is unforgivable for an action game. The core boss ideas are quite good, and a few are even well-executed and as such are good fun. But too many are undone simply by a strategy of keeping your distance and firing your guns until the enemy, whose attacks are mostly short range and whose AI is lacking, is dead. There's one embarrassing boss I even perfected on the first try this way, and quite a few more who were pathetic. Even a numbef of mook fights can be destroyed this way, and mook fights aren't exactly threatening (or interesting) to begin with. This last part is a recurring problem for the series, but DMC2 exacerbates it.

The game's plot is silly, poorly-explained, and generally a mess. I'm not sure if I care, but it doesn't score the game any points. The funny, often ridiculous Dante the rest of the series makes famous would have helped my opinion of the game if he had bothered to show up.

It's not as bad a game as I feared it might be, and while I was playing it, I even managed to focus on the things it does well, and as such did not find it a chore to play. It's still the worst new game I have played this year.

The good: Platforming is great for an action game; good boss designs
The bad: Many trivial battles which can be undone by a single, boring strategy
The ugly: The game's serious and poorly-directed scenes, when compared to what DMC3 delivered

[Dark Holy Elf]

14. Mega Man: Maverick Hunter X (PlayStation Portable, Capcom, 2006)

You know I didn't play many bad games in a year when a relatively faithful remake of a game I quite like is second from the bottom.

That said, I'm not going to automatically give a clear re-imaginging of a game (rather than a port, which I wouldn't rate at all) a high score just because the base game they had to work with was pretty good. I already knew I liked Mega Man X, so I'm more interested in what this remake brings to the table. And in general, outside music, I feel that I'd rather play the original.

To be sure, Maverick Hunter X has some polish improvements on the original, as well as obvious aesthetic ones. It looks better, sounds better (both the music and the voice acting), and plays slightly more quickly despite the increased number of cutscenes. There's even an option to play as a second PC, although just like with DMC2, you can only choose one PC per playthrough, which is limiting compared to what was pulled off, by, say, the amazing Mega Man X8. Also, for some baffling reason, this second PC is Vile, rather than a more obvious choice like Zero. I'll freely admit that my opinion of Vile as a serial lamer doesn't exactly make me want to play as him, even though it sounds they actually put some thought into him gameplaywise.

So where does the game go wrong? Well, simply put, it's just easier. This might serve to make the game more accessible to new fans, but I can't view the game that way, and to a seasoned player the changes here just make the game less fun. Many of the game's most fun and challenging bosses in the original - Spark Mandrill, Sting Chameleon, Bospider, and the final battle - were neutered badly in this remake, sometimes to the point of triviality. Outside of bosses, the already overpowered Storm Tornado was upgraded to the point of ludicrousness, leaving no challenge to be had from mooks.

Compared to its contemporary PSP Mega Man remake, Mega Man Powered Up, MHX feels quite lacking. MMPU completely modernised the game it remade while maintaining the challenge, and also provided loads of new content, something like a dozen playable characters, and finally gave the game an amazing tone with its new robot master personalities; MHX feels positively mailed-in by comparison. It was still enjoyable enough to play, however, but unlike MMPU I'm not exactly rushing out to buy it and replay it.

The good: It's based on a good game; good music; the existence of a second playable character
The bad: It's too easy; lack of ambition as a re-imagining
The ugly: The plot isn't quite campy enough to be hilarious, and thus is just awful

[Meeplelard]

I wanna say MHX came out before MMPU, and if that's the case, one could argue it was kind of a "test run" remake, in terms of taking an older game and trying to modernize it while being faithful.  I won't argue that it is, however, pretty lacking in new stuff, and it is weird they'd favor Vile over Zero.  One could argue that Zero would play too much like X as to keep CONTINUITY OF MEGAMAN PLOT!!!, the game predates the Z Saber and thus, he'd be another Buster Character (and Zero's buster can actually be used by X in this game, and is distinguished from Dr. Light's, the latter being more in tune with the original in that its the "Snake Shot")

Regardless, whether MHX came out before or after MMPU, it doesn't change the fact that MHX was definitely a less inspired remake.  Then again, if you look at the history of the two games they're based on, MM1 wasn't that successful (it was MM2 that made the series big), while I think MMX1 is the single best selling entry in the series?  So from that perspective, they may have just went "This game needs less work, its better at its base!"  No, that doesn't necessarily excuse anything, just trying to second guess the devs for no discernible reason.  Realistically, I just think this one came out first, and when working on MMPU, somewhere along the way, they figured there was a lot more potential to be had in a remake, so yeah.

Also, I feel like you left a word out of the first sentence in your 2nd paragraph.  I get an idea what you're saying, but "I'm not going to automatically give a clear re-imaginging of a game (parenthetical stuff here) just because"...you can see what I mean.
Yes, this point is entirely nit-pickey, but I tend to notice these things...partially cause I'm guilty of doing them a lot myself!

[Dark Holy Elf]

It came out first by a margin of about two months (Jan 06 vs. March 06, both very quick localisations at that). So it's pretty safe to say MMPU was well into development by the time MHX came out. That said, the rest of your points are quite spot on. (And yes, I did miss a word or two in there, that's fixed now.)

[Luther Lansfeld]

Write more, write more~

[Dark Holy Elf]

13. Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening (PlayStation 2, Capcom, 2005)

Despite the fact that I have them nearly side-by-side, I do feel that the third game in the Devil May Cry series is, as is the popular opinion, quite a bit better than the second. That said, it too makes its fair share of missteps, and in the end, like the second game, I found it a bit disappointing.

The game does some things very well, for certain. Foremost among those is its brilliant comic scenes. The opening with Dante juggling pizza while he shoots a cue ball into other pool balls, knocking out a dozen demons, is pretty classic, and the game delivers a few more from there. The just knows how to be zany in a way few other games manage, and it makes for hilarity. I just wish this hilarity kept up; the longer the game goes on, the more the hilarity gives way to the game's serious plot, which is, like that of other games in the series, terrible.

So the start of the game is hilarious. Unfortunately, gameplaywise, it's a complete bust. The game makes the baffling decision to deprive you of a series staple and one of the more interesting things about its gameplay, the Devil Trigger, for a full third of the game. There's some story explanation for this, but it's baffling from a design standpoint. Toss in a few uninspired boss fights and I actually came quite close to putting the game down early. I'm glad I didn't, in the end, because my concerns here got addressed. However, one concern wasn't addressed, and instead became a game-spanning disappointment.

I should make my biases here perfectly clear: I dislike games that feel like mindless combat, in which you can pretty much just show off by demolishing waves of enemies. DMC3 sadly, is certainly one such game. Very little effort seems like it was put into regular enemies compared to better action games. Enemies are generally easily dispatched and I can rarely if ever recall a particularly interesting fight with them. They always felt like wastes of time between the boss battles. The game even seemed to recognise that its mooks were simple and boring, not even bothering to put in the bestiary with enemy hints that I enjoyed so much in the first game (even the second game had a pathetic nod to it, not that it did much good). You can use different weapons against them or try for the game's immensely arbitrary style rating, but I still can't say I derived any great enjoyment about either of these.

Boss fights remained a lot of fun. Around the middle of the game, in particular, there's a run of bosses midgame that I just generally found a joy and quite varied. While I'd have liked to see the game actually reward you for using different weapons (in NM, it definitely didn't seem to, though it's hard to tell since you could only bring two into each level), the fundamental mechanics of the fights still made for great fun, and are certainly the game's high point of its humour isn't.

While not my favourite entry into the series, DMC3 still managed to deliver some of the fun action game experience that I got out of the first. It's a better sequel than the second game, but after playing both of them, I didn't have a terribly high amount of interest for any subsequent games in the series. Instead, I sought out another action game which you can expect to see much higher on this list!

The good: Plenty of awesome boss fights; immense sense of style
The bad: The first third of the game; fights with random enemies
The ugly: Vergil's personality and the fact that the writers seem to like him

[Meeplelard]

For what its worth, despite Vergil seeming to be a "Wesley" of sorts, he has yet to make any sort of re-appearance.  DMC4 alludes to his existence, in a round about way, but its in a way that, if anything, secures he won't be reappearing anytime soon.  He really is a one shot deal for DMC3, unless DmC decides to bring him back (and in this case, for better or worse, I expect him to be completely different since...well...look at Dante.)  Really, the best chance Vergil has of re-appearing would be in some Capcom Crossover game if they felt they need an appropriate rival for Dante.  The fact that Trish ousted him in MvC3 actually shows that the DMC Devs don't like him quite as much as you'd expect.

I think the deal with Vergil wasn't so much "They love him!" as much as they needed to establish that he is just as badass as Dante.  Dante doesn't have a standard "SHONEN RIVAL!" stereotype, and well, Vergil's just perfect for the role, and given DMC's sense of style, I think they felt they needed to display him being at least on a similar level.  So call it a necessary evil to properly display Vergil's character, for all that...DMC Serious plot, its hard to CARE.

Also, it makes sense you'd dislike Vergil.  He is in many ways Dante's opposite, as Dante is totally awesome and likable, so Vergil's suppose to be a massive prick that you just want to stab in the face.

Lastly...why the hell isn't "Jester" Listed on "The Good" part of your review <.<?

[SnowFire]

The game does some things very well, for certain. Foremost among those is its brilliant comic scenes. The opening with Dante juggling pizza while he shoots a cue ball into other pool balls, knocking out a dozen demons, is pretty classic, and the game delivers a few more from there. The just knows how to be zany in a way few other games manage, and it makes for hilarity.

People...  other than Meeple liked this?!  Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with some Dante cheeze ("I should have been the one to fill your dark soul with liiiiiiiight") but the DMC3 open was lame.  Frat boy party dude Dante?!  Yeah, sure bro, I'll be over with a keg for the Raiders game.  Or something.

Honestly this is the one thing DMC2 sorta got right (despite me finishing exactly 0 DMC games myself); they went for a dry Alucard-esque Dante there, which I thought worked better.  (DMC1 Dante is also fine so long as you're willing to laugh at him as often as you laugh with him, and of course the original ridiculous badass scenes a la getting Alastor.)

[VySaika]

DMC3 opening was hilarious man, I dunno what you're talking about.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Also, you -do- realize Dante was a college-aged brat by the time DMC3 rolled in, right?

[Dark Holy Elf]

People...  other than Meeple liked this?!  

Funny, my reaction to your post was pretty much "people... disliked this?" Obviously it is humour, whether the style works for you or not is totally subjective and not worth arguing over, but the scene is certainly well-liked that I've seen!


Meeple: I guess my fundamental problem with Vergil is that I hate the shonen rival trope to begin with, and DMC3 pretty much plays it perfectly straight, with Vergil being portrayed as more talented and "cooler" for a lack of a better word in cutscenes (he instagibs bosses Dante struggles with, beats Dante plotwise in their first battle despite the gameplay, etc.). For a game as silly as DMC3 to play anything so straight is odd, and when it's a trope I actively dislike, well, that's just going to rub me extra wrong. I'm pleased that the devs apparently aren't too attached to him after the fact, but that doesn't really change my gut reaction to how he was portrayed in-game. (Though, do note that the fact that I threw my Vergil comments into "the ugly" section means that I don't actually think that he hurts the game in an especially meaningful way. <.<)

You're right that I did forget to hype Jester, though - he's good stuff.

[Dark Holy Elf]

12. Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon (Nintendo DS, Nintendo/Intelligent Systems, 2009)

By now, I'm sure most people know what a big fan I am of the Fire Emblem series. In short, Shadow Dragon is the least impressive entry in the series I have completed, but as a big fan, I still found quite a lot to like... more than some of the game's other players, from what I've seen.

The bad is pretty obvious. In a stark contrast to the #14 game on this list, Shadow Dragon is a remake of a game that, while it may be somewhat important historically, gives every appearance of being terrible. And most of the DS title's greatest flaws can be traced directly to being a remake of this bad game. The game pretends to have a story because that's what games in the RPG genre do, but its story is completely laughable. The game sets out to have a large cast (even by the series' standards), but fails to offer even minimal characterisation to most of them, making it difficult to care about the sea of units you get besides as a set of numbers. Even as someone who places gameplay above all else in video games, I found this difficult to swallow.

The game's gameplay is also depressingly simple. Features of the later games which add a fair bit of depth to the gameplay - rescue, shove, evasion as an effective defensive build, support conversations - are either barely present or entirely lacking from this entry, creating a game which feels far more primitive. The music largely feels mailed in, probably a consequence of replicating simple NES tunes, and the graphics are also simple, and generally less impressive than the game's GBA predecessors.

But, as I mentioned, I'm a Fire Emblem fan. Even a vanilla game of the series is one I can find appealing. This wouldn't have been enough to get this game above Devil May Cry 3, except that it isn't entirely mailed in. The game has a lot of subtle, neat features which I enjoyed and look forward to seeing in another Fire Emblem game which is, y'know, actually outright good.

First of all, there's forging: a neat idea that previous games came up with that lets you customise weapons. FESD takes it to the next level by allowing you to improve existing weapons, creating an interesting set of decisions with how best to spend your money. There's reclassing, which allows you to change the classes of your characters so they can perform different roles on each map. The system of weapon levels, present in previous games in the series, is refined here, such that weapon levels directly affect your stats, and the game's trademark weapon triangle system becomes more important because having advantage on this triangle will now negate the weapon levels of your opponent... and this combines nicely to put a balance on reclassing, since different classes frequently use different weapons. There's a minor but significant polish improvement in that you no longer randomly lose a character's inventory forever when they fall in battle, which makes the whole, contraversial aspect of permanent death in the games much easier to swallow. Finally, mid-animation skip (that still shows HP changes) and enemy phase animation skip are both great ideas for streamlining the gameplay experience.

The game also has some pretty nice map designs in there - favourites include the swarm of enemy ballisticians and the one where the evil invincible enemy wizard chases you across a desert. But aside from that, it's just more of the same. And despite the game's flaws, this isn't a bad thing.

The good: A few subtle improvements to a formula which is one of the best in RPG gaming
The bad: Plot and writing are hilariously worthless, gameplay is in other ways primitive for the series
The ugly: The graphics of the game this one is a remake of. Seriously.

[Dark Holy Elf]

11. The Wizard of Oz: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road (Nintendo DS, Media Vision, 2009)

Wizard of Oz is a pretty fine example of an unambitious game that succeeds in what it sets out to do. Unlike many games, it clearly does not set out to be the best at anything or redefine anything. Its production values are obviously low. But it's still quite charming.

It captures quite effectively the fantastic setting of the Frank L. Baum novel, although it decides to eschew much of the particulars beyond the four playable characters, and the presence of witches and the Wizard, and the seasonal themes. In fact, it tosses out many things that could have added to the game's story out of a clear to desire to have very little story in the first place. What little story there is is simple and told charmingly through excerpts from a storybook. It's never a game you'd play just for this, but it's a cute nod to the source material as you play through the game and focus on the game itself.

Gameplay is the core of any game, of course, and Wizard of Oz keeps you squarely focussed on that. Unfortunately, too many RPGs hurl shiny distractions at you in the form of meaningless party banter, sidequests, and minigames. Wizard of Oz does none of this and generally feels like one of the best-paced games in the genre I've played, up there with Mega Man X: Command Mission and Media Vision's own Wild Arms 4. I'll freely admit that this is something that plays to my biases; I know a lot of people like those distractions I just described. For me, though, I'll take the way Oz does things any day.

Gameplaywise, the game only brings one new thing to the table: its ratio system, in which different characters (and enemies) spend differing numbers of "ratio points" per turn and you get to choose how to spend them each round. You can have Dorothy, Lion, and Strawman all attack once, or you can have Dorothy attack four times... and bear the full brunt of enemy attack. It's an interesting idea that makes for neat new strategies, and the game plays it to the hilt with generally enjoyable random encounters and a quintet of fun boss fights. There's little -else- about the gameplay that's particularly interesting, but this system was enough to keep me interested for the relatively short playtime Oz offered.

The game certainly isn't perfect, even apart from its lack of ambition and relatively small number of things it claims as successes, though. In particular, the game is annoyingly unpolished in a few areas. Shopping and item management feels like something out of an early SNES title, not a 2009 game. The lack of in-battle animations for attacks borders on criminal, as it would be frowned on even in said early SNES titles. And the trackball-based movement, while entertaining in its own way, wasn't especially kind on my DS' screen.

But overall, it was still a fun little romp, and if not one I'm dying to replay, one I think back on quite fondly.

The good: Ratio system; good pacing with heavy gameplay focus; charm
The bad: Lack of ambition; inexcusable polish at points
The ugly: Those scratches on my DS' touchscreen

[Dhyerwolf]

The lack of in-battle animations for attacks borders on criminal, as it would be frowned on even in said early SNES titles.

Hmm, someone else mentioned this recently (or at least the SNES battle interface, with feels linked to the lack of in-battle animations), but I myself couldn't have less of a problem with this.  The game went so basic on so many other areas that I would honestly find it to be a waste if they bothered to pump in all that extra money for battle animations. This felt perfect with the generalized streamlining of the game.

[SnowFire]

Unfortunately, too many RPGs hurl shiny distractions at you in the form of meaningless party banter, sidequests, and minigames. Wizard of Oz does none of this and generally feels like one of the best-paced games in the genre I've played, up there with Mega Man X: Command Mission and Media Vision's own Wild Arms 4.

Huh.  I like a ton of party banter myself, and thus like Wild Arms 4 for...  including a ton of party banter.  (Along with, say, Tales of the Abyss.)  The WA4 party pretty much chatted every dungeon, in plot scenes, and in boss fights.  Unless you meant disliking only "bad" party banter, and thought WA4's dialogue was better than average?  (Can't speak to how MMXCM or WAoO worked it, of course.)

[Cmdr_King]

I would assume he means stopping, having a cut scene to talk, then moving on, instead of having conversations throughout you can quickly get through.

[Dark Holy Elf]

WA4's tend towards short and are also, by my standards for such things, very well-written, actually developing the world rather than just filling space that doesn't need to be filled. I actually enjoyed them, certainly (typically. There's some bad mixed in there)... but there are many more games where I didn't, to the point where I sorta view them as a general negative. Much like I will hype Dragon Quest 8's world map while cheering every time we get a game that doesn't have them.

Dhyer, I can see not being bugged by it, but I'd still like to see -something-, I guess. I'd be fine with quite mailed-in graphics here, just I'd like -something- to evoke a bit more memorability out of all those special attacks bosses use.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Time for the third consecutive RPG! Don't get too used to this.


10. Pokemon Soul Silver (Nintendo DS, Nintendo/GameFreak, 2010)

This is the last of the three remakes present on this list. Of the three original games these remakes are based on, Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal falls in the middle in terms of my estimation of its quality, and likely in the middle of how much its remake improved it. On the balance of this, though, Pokemon Soul Silver (and by proxy, its opposite number, Heart Gold) ranks as the most enjoyable of these three remakes to play overall.

It's a Pokemon game, with all the good and the bad that comes with that. The good is that the formula is a successful one for a reason; the world of brilliantly-designed critters remains a fun one to romp through, and the tougher trainers remain fun to test oneself against. Soul Silver is no different in this regard, and even carries over one of the most fun features of the original second generation, that being the extended aftergame with its extra eight gym leaders and final superboss battle against Red, the main character of the original game. On the other hand, the bad of Pokemon is also present; the game stays a bit too true to the formula, offering little that is truly unique... and most aspects of the game not connected to the gameplay or the world (i.e. plot, music, etc.) remain quite unimpressive.

But what does Soul Silver bring to the table that's new? Well, honestly, what it does is improve on two previous games: the second (which it remakes) and the fourth (which it borrows mechanics from). The fourth generation of Pokemon games had some good ideas (splitting physical and special attacks from being chained to their element type was an interesting idea) but the original entries, Diamond/Pearl, were marred by some serious polish issues with respect to the general speed of the gameplay and pokemon availability. Soul Silver cleans all these up, allowing the new mechanics to shine in a much more polished package. Similarly, the original Gold/Silver/Crystal (especially the former two) had some polish issues, particularly concerned with the uneven level of challenge of the games; again, Soul Silver cleans this up, resulting in a game which isn't exactly terribly challenging, but nor does it completely embarrass itself. Soul Silver is a good study of how to fix the mistakes of predecessors, and I have to give the game designers props for creating a much more overall fun experience than what the game obviously draws on.

Finally, there's my favourite little addiction which Soul Silver brings to the table: Voltorb Flip. Born out of Nintendo's concern that gambling games would be a bad influence on kids, the game designers scrapped the boring, luck-based slot machines which had been a series staple, replacing it with Voltorb Flip, a terrifically fun probability-based game akin to Minesweeper. Impossible to abuse, but also impossible to lose money on, Voltorb Flips meant no more resets, just pure addictive fun, as you build up coins to afford the luxury TMs which you can use to round out your pokemon's skillsets. I actually had to drag myself away from this and back to the maingame more than once. The game's other new minigame collective, the Pokeathlon, is also a hit, if not as addictive; certainly, minigames are one area in which Soul Silver far surpassed all its predecessors in the series.

It could stand to be more ambitious, and it could stand to match the tightly-wound gameplay and great boss battles present in Emerald, which I consider the series' high point, but overall this was still another fun game in the series to play and certainly one I am happy I purchased.

The good: Improves upon the games it draws on; Voltorb Flip
The bad: Yet another entry in a series that tends towards repetition
The ugly: How badly underlevelled the trainers are in the Mahogany arc

[Captain K.]

The problem with Voltorb Flip, like Minesweeper, is that you often have to just blindly guess.  And if you guess incorrectly, you get set back a level (or several, if you lose fast enough).  While the slot machines were just luck with little semblance of skill, they were far more profitable overall.  And you don't gnash your teeth when you lose a round of slots - you just pull the handle again and keep going.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I suppose. I like having my skill tested more than that though. <.< Never liked pokemon slots (or any game's, really, though DQ8's deserve a shout for being ridiculously profitable). Kinda for the same reason I don't like them in real life. They may well be more profitable on average (though my experience says this isn't the case without save abusing, something which is ten kinds of lame) but fun > profitable unless you're building a competitive team or something (in which case, getting some TMs through Voltorb Flip is the least of your worries when it comes to tedium!).

[Grefter]

I would say the basic design flaw there is having the mini games need to be so profitable in the first place.  The mini game should be fun and challenging and not take hours of grinding to get the stuff.

[Meeplelard]

In fairness, the alternative is the slot machine, which is the same deal, except its entirely luck based, and costs lots of money, and takes just as long (if not longer) to get what you want.  The slot machines do imply that you can just buy Coins outright, in fairness, a feature that became reasonable in later games when "Buy 500" became an option (buying 50 at a time for prizes in the upper 4 digits = HATE.  I still don't know how I had the patience for that in Blue Version to get Porygon)

Interestingly,  we just discussed minigames some due to that Gamefaqs list of "Top 10 RPGs to not have Minigames!" or whatever (ignoring the quality of that list) in chat today.  My general conclusion on thoughts about Minigames in RPGs?

-Minigames should be optional for the most part, and offer rewards for doing so, NOT penalties for failing.  They're meant to add fun after all.
-If required, there should be no genuine penalty for failing.  At worst, the "penalty" should be "You don't get this shiny object you would have gotten if you succeeded!"  FF9's one instance of Tetra-master, for example, did that, where fail the tournament, game goes on no problems, you just miss out on an early Rebirth Ring.
-Additionally, they should not just be stupid stall points but actually serve a genuine purpose.  Junon stuff was silly and stylish; a nice way to break the lighten the tone.  The CPR Shit just before it was a completely useless waste of time, meanwhile.

[Dark Holy Elf]

9. Mega Man 10 (Wii, Capcom/Inti Creates, 2010)

Fun fact: just shy of half of the games on this list are published by Capcom. Capcom has quietly taken over as my favourite developer in the past half-decade, with good games in almost every genre I care about. And you just don't get more quintessentially Capcom than classic Mega Man, something the nostalgia-fueled Mega Man 10 is quite happy to deliver in spades.

Capcom really hit it big with Mega Man 9, which returned the series to its roots and emulated (perhaps a little too much) what is still commonly regarded as the best game in the franchise, MM2. They caught lightning in a bottle with the effort and it was awesome. Unfortunately, MM10 doesn't manage to be as awesome, but it's still pretty darn good.

It can be difficult to quantify sometimes what makes a Mega Man title work well, as they do tend towards formula. Certainly, to Mega Man 10's credit, it has a crazy number of things that go outside the core gameplay of the series: two distinct playable characters (with a third as DLC), three difficulty settings, and several dozen small "challenges" for the player to attempt which includes old standbys like bustering bosses without taking damage as well as navigating short but tricky platforming environments. There's a lot to hold a player's attention here, certainly more than in any previous game.

The core game itself, though, disappoints in a few places. Stage design, a staple of the series' better games, is not especially memorable here, with perhaps the biggest plusses scored on style rather than pure design, such as Strike Man's cute sports-themed stage and Nitro Man's stage in which the Blue Bomber must dodge cars driving along a highway. These are good, but there's much less in the way of cute platforming tricks and memorable stage gimmicks that the best games in the series delivered. The game's bosses aren't bad, certainly, with the nostalgia-fueled Weapons Archives fights as a particular highlight, but again, fail to realy deliver anything special, and the final boss fight in particular is pure disappointment.

Perhaps the biggest reason, though, that the game doesn't match 9 and the other strong games in the series are its weapons. The MM design team seems to go back and forth with whether it wants to make the weapons, a series staple, very powerful or not. MM10 definitely tends towards the "not" side, to the game's detriment. This may be well-intended to stop you from dominating enemies, but as 9 proved, you can have powerful weapons and still have a soulcrushingly challenging Mega Man experience. On the other hand, weaker weapons means fewer effective opportunities to play around with and come up with creative uses for them, which is so much of the fun of the game.

That said, it'd be foolish to miss what the game does well just because it's not as good as its predecessor. Apart from the game's own obvious contributions to the series, in terms of all its extra content, there's the fact that it's simply a well-executed, fun to play game. Mega Man really captures the essence of the sidescroller genre and just how fun they can be to play, the joy of good platforming and the tension of a good boss fight, with the options (weapons and stage order) needed to keep things interesting for replays. And while MM10 certainly isn't the best-designed game in the series, it remains a solid entry, and never feels mailed in. It's hard to ask for too much more without sounding greedy.

The good: Lots of extra content; a solid entry to an excellent series
The bad: Weaker-than-average weapons; unremarkable stage design
The ugly: The game passes up an obvious chance to have BOSS ROLL and makes her as useless as ever

[metroid composite]

The problem with Voltorb Flip, like Minesweeper, is that you often have to just blindly guess.

I feel like it's pretty rare that you have to blindly guess in Mindsweeper.  Provided you don't care about getting your time low, you can logic your way out of some seemingly dead-end situations.  This logic is like...the entire appeal of Minesweeper to me.

(Though sure: you often have to guess for the first couple clicks, and corners of the map occasionally end in 50% guesses).