Any Other Hero Would Also be OK

I said once,"I don't buy games that I think I won't enjoy." Now, you may ask of me immediately after seeing this box art, "So why did you buy this one and not the (much better) sequel?" Well, my dear fellows, I bought this one because it was only $12. Amazon "Deal of the Day" has been a bookmark on my browser for quite some time, you see. Still, this game has been sitting on my living room floor for many, many months, and I even beat Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Mass Effect 2 - apparently I have a thing for sequels - before I started this game. I was only mildly interested and this game has been on my back log of "games to play" ever since it came out, so I thought to myself, "Why not now?" The main reason for why not now of course would be that a recommendation declaring "you shouldn't waste your money on this not-even-worth-$12-game" seems unnecessary. But how could I have known that before I started to play?

However, I bitterly feel I must tell people to not buy this game on account of all the lists that mention this as one of the must-have Wii games. I just don't understand why. Sure, I can see this game as a fun beat'em up with classic throwbacks - which are pretty entertaining for a little while - but I refuse to accept this on any must-have list. It may say something about the system that No More Heroes makes it onto such lists, but I believe that would be judging the Wii unfairly. After all, there are several great games for the Wii which I actually would classify as must-have. No More Heroes must have cheated its way onto those lists somehow.

In the opening scenes, Travis Touchdown has just taken down the number 11 ranked assassin, which causes a sexy lady with a sexy French accent to come out and fill you in on the rest of the game's story. Here's how it goes: Travis wants to be number 1 (but maybe only for the sex) and so you have to work your way up through the list. You start the actual gameplay tossed into the middle of a fight, with an optional tutorial, against faceless thugs in the mansion of assassin number 10. If you already know how to fight, which isn't hard to figure out (A -sword, B - punch, Z - lock-on), then you can instantly progress into fighting more faceless thugs through identical corridors. I don't expect every enemy to look like a different person, but I do expect to be able to turn around and know whether or not I've been down that way. For the first time in my life, I got dizzy and disoriented playing a videogame. I played both Super Mario Galax[ies] and never felt like I should take a couple Advil. The camera itself is just terrible, but the lock-on option definitely helps. The soundtrack is appropriate to all the slaughter as well as for Travis himself. Everything about Travis Touchdown makes a strange kind of sense, which adds to the overall enjoyment, but fails to really do anything special.

The gameplay sadly has a more common feel to it. Run through a bunch of bad guys, slicing them all to bits, and then find a boss, who then gets sliced to bits. The main draw of this game I suppose, other than its unique brand of humor, is the bloody way of dispatching an enemy. For a killing blow, directional instructions will pop up and, if these are done correctly, someone gets their head chopped off or cut in half down the middle. I assume Suda51 believes toilet humor and gallons of gore make a good game, despite unresponsive controls and a pitiful job system. To be more specific, every time there was a "down" instruction for the wiimote, I missed it. All other directions worked well (most of the time), but for some reason, the down almost always failed. What's more, is that after each boss, you need to earn enough money to enter the next fight. This is done by driving a motorcycle through Santa Destroy to various jobs. Whether its collecting coconuts or killing as many of those faceless thugs as possible, the jobs are boring and uninspired. The worst parts of this game all involve driving around to collect more money. It's just a time waster to make the game longer without any actual fun provided.

Overall, I may be being too harsh, but I was looking forward to this game because of all the lists telling me to buy it and No More Heroes was a disappointment. The gameplay was regular and unimpressive while the story itself was bland. Get to number 1. The end. Suda51 did what it could to make this game enjoyable and the boss fights were where the originality and creativity really stand out, but those are such a small part of this game that I can't overlook all the traveling around Santa Destroy - about half an hour each time - and the boring battles from the start of the mission to the boss fight - about another thirty minutes. There was nothing that was excessively bad other than the camera and there was nothing exceptionally good other than the boss fights. That means this game falls in the middle area of scoring, but when taking into account all the must-have talk, it drops down another half point.

2.5/5 Slightly Worse Than Average! Almost Mediocre!

Super Nintendo Sunday

I know, I know, another Nintendo review, and one that's on an even older system than all the others. But, what you're missing is that there won't be a big name Nintendo release until Metroid: Other M on August 31st, which means, until then, I'll need something to tie over my Nintendo needs. So I've come to this conclusion: review classic titles on what could be the best home console ever - the Super Nintendo Entertainment System - because... well, "Super Nintendo Sunday" has a nice ring to it. Not to mention that many of the games I love are on this system and, at the very least, it will be a source for good ol' nostalgia if not someone's inspiration to go out and try the spotlighted game. The first game to grace our "Super Nintendo Sunday" is an odd little thing that not everyone has played before, but still many people are in love with. If you haven't already guessed by the box art and title above, that game is Earthbound (1995). Now don't get confused, but this game's also known as Mother 2 in Japan and was a sequel to Mother, a released-only-in-Japan game that really has no connection whatsoever to Earthbound.

To start, I have to say that this game is quirky and humorous, which not everyone will appreciate. Some won't even tolerate it. If you're like me, then the silly jokes will be wasted on you. But fret not! The fun gameplay and story more than make up for the odd battles and off-the-wall humor. Earthbound is a turn-based RPG, in which you play as a young boy, Ness, who was born with psychic powers. The game starts off with a meteorite crashing on top of a hill right next to Ness' house. Ness quickly gets lured into helping his neighbor, Pokey, who has lost his little brother (who of course has to be at the meteorite). Once Ness gets to the meteorite and finds the wayward child, another (unusual) character appears and tells Ness he is the "boy of prohecy" and that he, along with three other friends, will save the future from the evil Giygas. This of course starts the grand adventure of travelling across the world, finding and recording "Your Sanctuary" spots, and, like any other RPG, assembling a team.

If you're expecting some run-of-the-mill JRPG experience, you'll be pleasantly surprised by all the little things that make Earthbound stand out among the rest. For one, every battle takes you to a screen with a crazy moving background that has the enemy in the forefront, the battle options on the top, and party member's status on the bottom. You don't see Ness or anyone else except the enemy and weird designs swirling around behind it. Even the attacks are just strange looking designs being aimed at the opponent. At first this is all ridiculous and, personally, I was turned off by it, but I kept playing because I was assured it would get better and boy did it ever. The battle system may be unnerving at first but that's part of this game's charm. Every aspect of the weirdness and little peculiarities are what make Earthbound great. The broad range of enemies are also very distinct when compared to other RPGs. Ness starts by fighting dogs and birds, but moves up through ants, moles, teenage punks, zombies, dinosaurs, mummies, stop signs, robots, aliens, and taxis. Not to mention at one point you even get to fight your own inner demons. Where else can you get all that?

I've already mentioned the quirky sense of humor present throughout this game and I hope people will come to see it as endearing, as I have, instead of annoying. If you really have no sense of humor at all then this probably isn't the game for you since it's pretty much a non-stop thing. This game is funny. Even better than that is this game is fun. The experience you get while playing this game is not one of frustration from too-difficult puzzles or boredom from grinding in order to beat that tough next boss. Rather, you're bombarded with the silly mood of it all. Things happen and you have no idea why sometimes (but you'll find out). Nearly every moment in this game is meant to be seen as a fun, simple, enjoyable time. I use "simple" meaning that the gameplay never gets overly complex, not to refer to the games difficulty level. There are some enemies you will run from and some bosses you'll probably have to play a few times to understand how to beat them, but the gameplay always remains the same. Each character has the same amount of inventory space and only certain items can be used by certain party members. This involves the player more by making space-management (what to keep and where to keep it) a must.

I never worried about where the game was going. I was involved with the characters and the story, which means Earthbound succeeds at being compelling, and I never stopped to question just what the hell is going on. With a game like this, you can't. It's not cerebral, but there are many things happening and many places to keep straight. Do you remember that guy in the very beginning of the game, standing outside of his house? No? Well go find him, he has something to show you children. Down in his underground caves. Apparently 1995 was a much more innocent time. Or maybe you can chalk it up to Japan being Japan. I don't know, but I'm sure I love it. But I love many things about this game.

The soundtrack even. Being on the SNES doesn't allow for an orchestra like today's Nintendo games, but that doesn't make the effects any less memorable. I've sat on the couch watching a movie, heard my friend load this up on his computer, and rushed over to watch him play instead. Even to watch, it's a fantastic game. The visuals are dated and there are likely a few who won't be able to stand the low quality, but to those few I say, "stop it." The Super Nintendo looked great and still does. If you want a game to look totally realistic, then Nintendo games on the whole aren't for you. Besides, Earthbound is proud of it's unrealistic temperament. The story progresses naturally but does get a little out of hand by the time you meet up with your last team member. The genius of this game is that it never makes you stop and think, "this is stupid nonsense" - it's just too much fun.

4.5/5 Near Perfect Score! Classic Dope!

Mario's Galaxy is Still Pretty Super

I've been playing Super Mario Galaxy 2 for a few weeks now, and I've tried to hold off on reviewing it until I actually completed the game. I don't think it would have been fair to judge a game before I know how it ends. That being said, I guess I knew that *Spoiler Alert* Mario would save Princess Peach from Bowser and it would all be very happy. What I mean when I say "before it ends," is that, even though I played this game for many, many hours, I would not feel as if I was doing the game justice if I only earned 50, 70, or even 110 stars. I could have loved every star but hated getting the final stars after you beat Bowser for the last time - unlike the previous Galaxy, this one actually has something worth doing after the final Bowser fight. So now that I've completed the game, I feel it's appropriate to write my long-awaited review.

Sequels are difficult to look at and review fairly. One always wants to judge a game based on it's own merits, but cannot help but to compare it to the first iteration. After all, a sequel is supposed to be a bigger, better version of the original. What makes Galaxy 2 specifically difficult is that it's not really a sequel, but can still qualify as one, despite the fact that this game is a bunch of ideas that weren't put in the first one. Miyamoto himself I believe referred to Galaxy 2 as "Galaxy 1.5." That being said, I can't just overlook the original in order to review the "sequel". Super Mario Galaxy was a fantastic game; the first real successor to Super Mario 64 (which came out in 1996). The flaws of the first Galaxy were few and far between and every level was a crazy new implementation of a wacky idea. Why would a Queen Bee exist if all she does is ask you to scratch her back? Why would the fire and ice worlds be in one galaxy? Why did Luigi even try to get stars at all? All of these combined just makes for a truly fun and enjoyable experience that, I'm sad to say, the second Galaxy does not match.

What's new in Super Mario Galaxy 2? Yoshi, who was always fun to ride, is the obvious one, which includes the 3 power-ups Yoshi can eat, and the various things his tongue can do. Then we get Cloud Mario, Rock Mario, and Drill Mario, each with worlds designed to fit these new suits. Are these suits used often enough to make a unique experience that separates it from the first game? Not to me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed climbing onto clouds and bowling over enemies; though I must be honest, I didn't really enjoy the drill, it just made me impatient. Are the previous suits used often enough to make them worth keeping around? Not really. Bee Mario seemed to get much more screen time than the Fire, spring, or Ghost outfits (I think each was used only once or twice?) and the Ice flower isn't even in the game. Which is a shame since that was one of my favorites from the first Galaxy. Hell, even Yoshi's power-ups aren't used as much as I would like. The light bulb is only present in two levels and the other two are used a few more times, and I would have liked to see more Yoshi in general, which I don't think is unreasonable since he now shares the cover of the game with Mario. The best "new" implementation was the way the comets were done. I thought making the purple coins show up less was a great idea and I loved the new short-time speed runs, where you have to keep getting clocks to add ten seconds to the time limit. I also really enjoyed the new way to move between galaxies and universes since it made the game feel much more streamlined, but also much more like a classic Mario game (all of which I love, but I have been getting a little bored with the same old routine). I appreciated the slightly improved two-player mode, which still falls flat but is an improvement nonetheless.

In comparative difficulty, Galaxy 2 is harder, which is a good thing, since there were only a couple levels in the first that killed me so many times that I lost count. For this one, there were easily ten or so levels that I had to do over and over again. Let me just say, Thank God the ray surfing didn't make it back, but damn you Mario creators for adding Fluzzard; there is nothing worse than having to depend on the wiimote tilting in order to navigate through small tunnels or under thwomps, especially when it's a race. Bosses, I found, were also much more difficult. That snake/worm guy who tunnels through the planet was pretty hard at first and the Bowser fights were all harder than any of the Bowser battles in the first Galaxy. And even though, like the first one, every brawl with Bowser was the same, I was happy with them on the whole. What I have the most disdain for in this game, however, is Baby Bowser, who comes off as an annoying kid rather than a formidable foe. Although, his boss fights were much more creative than anything with Bowser, so I guess it's give/take.

I can't think of any other faults. Galaxy 2 was orchestrated beautifully, both of them were, the controls are exactly like the first (smooth and easy), and the game itself looks bright, colorful, and really just amazing for any console. If I were to have played this game before the first Galaxy, then I probably would have enjoyed this version much more, on account of Yoshi, the new way of doing the purple coins, and post-final-Bowser reward. But that's not how it is and I can't ignore that what's in this game is largely more of the same - not just of Galaxy but perhaps of all Mario games. Galaxy 2 of course still stands out among Wii games and deserves to be played by any Mario/Nintendo fan, but if you've already completed the first one, then just rent it for a couple weeks and go at it because it won't seem like a different game, but rather more like an expansion of the first. That means the game is a lot of fun, excels with what it was trying to do, and holds up among the best Wii titles, but doesn't make as much of an impact as the original, which I would have given a 4.5/5, but only because of low difficulty and the purple coins.

4/5 Near Perfect Score! Super Good!

God of War 3... or 2 or 1

I didn't play the 2nd God of War, but I did have the same experience with the first God of War, for the Playstation 2, that I had with this most recent one. In fact, almost the exact same experience. Being a Classics major, I could view this game as a horrible disfiguration of everything I've learned in my college career. I could even write several pages of the gross misrepresentation of the numerous Greek Gods. But of course, that would be silly. To ever judge a game based on its closeness to history, or even reality in general, is a mistake. And, really, aren't games supposed to be an escape from reality?

God of War 3 is the conclusion to Kratos' (ancient Greek for strength... you know, just fyi.) story. From Ares' tool, to a man seeking revenge, to a God, and then back to a mortal, seeking revenge. Kratos has taken out countless monsters and undead, plus one God, but now he's out to kill the rest of the Olympians. The game begins where the last one left off, climbing Olympus on the back of Gaia, the Titan. Soon, because this game can be punishing, you're thrown off her back and into a brawl with the Sea God, Poseidon, just to get you used to the way the game works. Poseidon, of course, doesn't fight you with his fists, but rather becomes a type of crab-horse. Because he can, I guess. Directly after this battle, you're thrown into Hades and spend the rest of the game climbing up to Olympus... with a little sidetracking to a labyrinth and back once more again to Cronus (where Kratos found Pandora's Box in the first game). Of course, all along the way, you kill the Olympians, one by one, while the mortals of the Earth suffer the consequences of the lack of Gods. This doesn't matter to our "hero" since he's just out for the revenge part. I can't help but wonder, though, what was Kratos' plan after killing Zues? Surely he can't go back down to Earth and live in the middle of the giant mess he made. Would he just stay alone in Olympus?

The gameplay is exactly like the two previous God of War games, whether or not you enjoy that you should know by now. It's not a surprise that there isn't any real change in the style or mechanics of the game (why fix it if it's not broken?), but a little something new would have been nice, just to add some spice to the mix. Still, for those in love with the series from the get-go, there's nothing to complain about here. Sure, the story can use a little work; Kratos has his blades of chaos/hades/power or whatever else the variations are called and he rips everyone to shreds with them. The end. The point behind all this is not that Kratos needs his revenge, but rather, it's fun to watch people and monsters get dismembered in some of the most gruesome ways. If this were a film, it'd fit nicely into the pulp genre. I'm A-OK with that. I don't mind a game that succeeds in what it was trying to do and I'm certainly not going to judge a game based on what it wasn't trying to do. What I do mind, is how the game gets repetitive; like so many other "beat'em ups," I grow tiresome of defeating the same enemies, but with minor changes like armor or color. How many of those statue men and minotaurs were killed by Kratos? I honestly lost count. Perhaps even more of a slight was that one of the main draws of the game, the cinematic kills, never changed. Every statue was killed by Kratos smashing them with their own hammer and every minotaur by getting impaled through the throat. If you don't care about the little things like story or repetitive nature, then the last sentence is all you need to read. If you do, then feel happy that the bosses are frequent enough, as well as difficult enough, to keep the game from getting too routine.

Other than that, I'm at a loss for words. There isn't much more to make this a stand out game from the other two. If I didn't know the story and saw clips from each game, I would not be able to tell you which is first or last (except for the noticeable graphic improvement in the PS3). For what it's worth, this game still works. Kratos is not an admirable hero, his quest for revenge is not noble, and he certainly doesn't take the high road... at any point. Which means the player can just sit back and feel good about being so bad. Any actor can tell you it's more fun playing the villain, and any gamer can tell you it's more fun playing as a villain. I've heard the creators of God of War say their game is mainly about "is this fun?" and "how can we make this more fun?" I would have preferred more enemies with more special kills, but I'll take what I got. After all, this game only tries to be fun and does a good job at it. For instance, one can't help but be satisfied at what happens to Hera. She had it coming.

3.5/5 Better Than Average! Almost Dope!

Little King, Long Game

Oh, Little King, I was so excited for you. Months before you came out, I was ready to hand over my cash in exchange for your kingdom. Then on the long-awaited day of your commencement, I truly understood what it was to be lord and master of a realm, and it was tedious. That may be unfair. I mean, it was tedious, but of course it was going to be. As a king, you oversee everything in the kingdom. As it turns out, that's a long list.

Little King's Story is a real time strategy game, in which you play a young boy named Corobo who found a magic crown that gives him control of the kingdom, Alpoko. At first, everyone is a "lazy citizen" but, with Corobo's excellent leadership skills, soon most of the townspeople have jobs. To start, you'll make people farmers or diggers and you'll explore a small area, finding a variety of items which are automatically exchanged for money. You can then use the money to build new buildings, expand your kingdom, and, soon, upgrade your ever-growing population to become soldiers, archers, chefs, lumberjacks, and the list goes on. After you defeat the King of the close-neighboring Oni monsters, you can expand your realm to a much larger area. Then the game marvelously opens up to a gigantic world, in which you'll encounter many more monsters and lands, all for the purpose of conquering them and completely ruling the world. An idea which is always encouraged by your Lieutenant, Howser.

This all sounds well and good, but there are too many things that can be improved. For instance, each upgrade or new building requires a tremendous amount of money, which can only be earned by continuously going over explored land and gathering every little thing you can. Sure, each king gives you a large bonus after they're defeated, but it's nowhere near as much as you'll need if you want to fill your city. This means, of course, that you don't have to fill your kingdom with everything possible, but can pick and choose the things which are necessary for your current undertaking. Like spending money to make chefs, if you're up against giant chickens, or holding back on upgrading how many people can follow you into the world, if you easily overcome each monster. So, depending on your personal tastes, this can also be seen as a positive because it makes the game more strategy based. You'll need to choose what kind of upgrade to get for the best outcome.

Other than that small gripe, there are two major problems with this game. First is the way the game controls. If you're not already selecting the kind of citizen you want, you'll need to cycle through every different type of person with you until you find the one that fits. This isn't a problem when you want to dig a hold for a spring or chop a piece of wood, but if you're getting attacked then you're going to need to send out those soldiers and archers. To do that, you just may need to go through the farmers, builders, miners, chefs, and lumberjacks before you find them, and then all over again if you'll cycling too rapidly. And even then, there is no Wii pointer to make this an easy task. You have to send your followers out along a short, blue, dotted line, which is supposed to be an accurate way of accomplishing goals, but is almost entirely unhelpful when trying to decide where your people go.

It would be nice if it was possible to assign certain groups to the D-pad and then use the Wii remote to send them at something specific, much like the play style of Overlord: Dark Legend, which has the same minion-based gameplay, but does it in a much more streamlined way. It got to the point that I would just bring out one type, the archers or soldiers, when I went up against a boss, which is fine, but most of the game is exploring the land, for which you'll need a multitude of followers. And even later, when doing anything, I would just send out everyone who was with me to get the job done since most people can do any job at least a little. The ones that can't do the assigned task would run back to Corobo's side, so all my warriors would come back when told to build a bridge and all my farmers would return when ordered to fight. But the point remains, failing to utilize the Wii and it's motion controls was a big mistake.

The second mistake this game makes is assuming people always want to go out collecting every little thing. I cannot tell you how many pieces of wood I've chopped or holes I've dug. It's just ridiculously boring. There were times when starting up this game that I would dread it because I knew had to spend a couple hours just gathering little things before I could buy that new land or building. No game should ever make you dread playing it - unless it's out of fear for some incredible boss which is just too epic to even conceive of defeating. It honestly felt more to me like a chore to play this game than it did a fun experience. It's like a poor man's childish Monster Hunter Tri. But then, with Monster Hunter, at least you know that you're in for a long and arduous journey.

3/5 Average Score! Not Too Bad! Not Too Good!

I Went On A Rampage While Playing This Game

Despite how three of my reviews have been games from the Nintendo 64, I have been trying to review a wide range of videogames. I've started with my favorite, moved to a fun racing game, then to a recent shooter RPG and my previous post was a game for the iphone/ipod touch. Now it seems I've moved backwards while trying to move forward by reviewing another Nintendo classic. There is one stark difference between this game and all the others I've reviewed. That is to say, this game is terrible.

I don't buy games I think will be terrible. I read several reviews from many sites and if there seems to be a consensus on the poor quality of the game, I avoid it. I'm not going to buy a $50 to $60 game just to review it and I can usually foresee whether or not I'll enjoy the experience. When I traded in a game I loved, after having beat it, and decided to see what this game was like, I must have been about 13 years old - too young to realize the horrible mistake I was making. It's hard to believe that such a game as this was on the same console as Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and countless other classics. There isn't much about this game that's enjoyable and nothing that's enjoyable for very long.

For those that do not know, Rampage: World Tour was originally an arcade game, costing a quarter per 20 minutes or so of play time. Much more reasonable than actually buying the game and playing it for hours. You can choose one of three characters (giant monsters): Lizzy the lizard, George the ape, and Ralph the wolf. Each have their own special ability which causes only slightly more destruction that their normal attacks. The point of this game is simple. Destroy. All. Buildings. That's it. No real story exists. Who are these humans-turned-monsters? Why are they destroying things? Why go around the globe instead of having a scorched-earth policy and just annihilate everything they come across? How do they even travel the globe? Should we even care? Sure, you go from city to city, getting some slight variation in background views and types of buildings, but each area is just a recycled version of the one before it. And, of course, there are some enemies who attack you, like helicopters and tanks, but they're few and easy to dispatch.

In order to make this "smash'em up" more interesting, there are items in the several buildings like dynamite, used to blow stuff up real good, and people to eat, which I think give you health, or maybe just points. It doesn't really matter. Points don't do anything and there is no sense of accomplishment after demolishing each town. The threat of death is little and the drive to go on is even smaller. Of course, this is not just a straight port to the home console; there is an new monster, once you reach a certain level in the game and are able to break him out of jail you see, added for diversity reasons, appealing to the handicapped. This new creation has only one eye and is able to take it out to roll on the ground to then detonate a little later. So in essence, you can sometimes play a blind monster. Congratulations, purple thing. You are handi-capable.

I don't remember the last time I played this game for more than an hour. Hell, I don't remember the last time I played this game and didn't feel disgusted or wish that I was actually in an arcade so I can move on to House of the Dead or... well, anything else, really.

I can't give this game a zero because I did have some fun with it for a short period of time. It is nice to not have to think about anything and just break stuff with no serious consequence and hardly any threat. I can also see many people enjoy this game because they think it's funny or perhaps they just enjoy breaking down buildings and eating people, I don't know. But, for my own time spent playing this game, I can say I understand why this was made and that it was not made for me.

1/5 Near Lowest Score! Terrible!

Angry Birds Makes Me Happy

I do not own an iphone, but I do own an 8-gig ipod touch. I don't have a camera, a lot of space, or long battery life, and I have to rely on Wifi if I want access to the internet. All of these things can be pretty annoying from time to time, and sure, I've never bought an Apple product before and even this one was a gift, but I love my ipod. I have played several games on this thing, many for hours at a time; of these games, I choose to review Angry Birds since that's the one I've recently spent so much time playing. A Few months ago, it would have been Plants vs. Zombies, after that, the (now) 35-in-1 game app. I could also review many other apps that aren't videogames, such as the Opera browser, Google Earth, or NPR news, but why do that?

I feel that the games designed for the iphone/ipod touch do not deserve a full review like I have given previous games. This in part is because they aren't meant to be games like the ones on consoles. Well, most of them aren't. I was this close to buying Final Fantasy II. Anyway, the main reason I don't feel they earn my full review is that they're, for the most part, only $1. Even if you don't like it, you can spend a buck for a couple hours of play time and it'll be worth it just as a time waster when you need it. So, with a different type of review comes a different type of score system. Instead of rating it from 1 to 5 stars (Awful to Super Dope), it will simply be a recommendation on whether or not to buy the game. A "yes" or "no" at the end of a, most likely, shorter review.

To start, Angry Birds has a kind of story. Some, seemingly inflatable, pig-heads have taken the eggs of a flock of varying birds and that of course makes them (are you ready for this?) angry. This game is really just a puzzle game and each level is a little stand alone thing, in which you slingshot birds, willing to sacrifice their physical safety again and again in order to get those few eggs back. I think only three are ever shown being taken, while many more birds than that are left broken with black eyes and probably fractured skulls. I think they could have come up with a better idea than ramming glass, wood, and stone head-on to pop the pigs in heated revenge, but the game doesn't bother with such technicalities, so why should I?

Each bird, a total of more than five, has a different characteristic, activated by tapping the screen: the first is normal, another splits into three, and one even explodes (my personal favorite). With these tools, you'll topple the pig defenses and blow up the crowned pig-king. In the game there are three episodes and in each episode there are at least 45 levels, 15 to 21 on each screen, and in each of those levels there are certain types of birds attacking certain types of pigs. Once you pop every pig, you beat the level and can move on to the next one. Similarly, If you complete an entire episode, you continue to another set of levels. To keep you coming back for more, there is a rating from 1 to 3 stars in each level, which is earned through having enough points. You always want to try to destroy as much stuff with as few as possible birds in order to get three stars. More than that, there are actually secret, golden eggs strewn through random levels (and other places) that open up a crazier set of levels, designed to be more fun and silly than tough to beat.

As for how much fun it is to play, well, take my advice when I say it's best not to play it at work. Most of the levels are easy enough to beat and move on, but passing each level with one star (the lowest score) and rushing through the game was not for me. I wanted as many stars as I could get, and on account of this, many of the levels were incredibly frustrating. Still, with every victory comes a comparable wave of self-satisfaction that only the most masochistic of us can realize.

Easy to play, several birds to keep things interesting, and varying levels of varying difficulty makes Angry Birds well worth the money. In my most, apparently condescending, positive review, I recommend this game to anyone who has the time to waste. And, really, who doesn't?

Yes, Buy It! It's Worth Only One Dollar! Dope!

More Recent, But Still Not New

Not being one with a lot of love for shooters of any kind, I was hesitant to play Mass Effect 2. Even more so on account of my not playing the original Mass effect. I have to say, though, this game made me seclude myself away in my room for about two weeks... all the way to the point that my girlfriend started a new game just in order to spend time with me. Depressing? Yes. Enthralling? Obviously. Did I enjoy my time playing through it to the point where I would play it again? Oh, Yea.

Mass Effect 2 is a third person shooter RPG. That's the best way I can describe it's genre-twisting play style. You gain levels by completing missions and earning experience, and you can make "humanity favoring" choices, for which you receive Renegade (evil) points, or I guess "equality" choices, for which you receive Paragon (good) points. You can also choose from a variety of classes, ranging from brawler, infiltrator (sniper), biotic, or engineer. There are a couple others, but I played through as sniper and then took over my girlfriend's engineer character, so I can't remember all of them or really comment on them. What I can say, is that playing as the sniping infiltrator could have been more fun and that if I were to play through it yet again, biotic (a kind of magic wielder, focusing on special abilities more than weapons) would have to be my choice. As for infiltrator and engineer, they both have many fine qualities that allow the player to stay back and let others do the fighting. I usually like to throw myself into the mess, so these were both a little unusual for me, but nowhere near difficult to get the hang of.

The hardest thing for me to catch on to was what was going on with the plot. This series is so heavily story based that I didn't know what was going on in the beginning of the game and I didn't know who I was supposed to be rooting for. I at first tried to take the stance, "I'm on my own, suck it, everyone else!" But that, for some odd reason, sometimes gave me Paragon points when all I wanted was to be the evil bastard I love being (there will never be a game where going down the righteous path will be more fun than the cruel, heartless, greedy bastard who can do anything he wants). Of course, my straying from the straight path of evil cost me a couple actions that I didn't have enough Renegade points for later in the game, about which I was considerably disappointed. So the second iteration of the game loses some accessibility for those who haven't played the first. Other than that, things come together very nicely.

You play as Commander Shepard (male or female), but you also die in the first five minutes. Cerberus and their leader, the Illusive Man, bring you back to life. Throughout the rest of the game you go on missions for Cerberus: acquiring a team, investigating disappearances, rescuing colonists, killing bad guys. All this, and for some reason Cerberus is still the bad guy. I don't know what they did in the first game, but it must have been bad enough to counteract everything good they do in this one (Reviving the main character, for starters). Even after Miranda, a possible love (or sex) interest and the biggest proponent of Cerberus, makes a solid case for the work they do, siding with Cerberus puts you on the wrong side of the law. Going through the game mission by mission will rush you through it but you'll lose a lot of the extra effects, things of the sort that are provided in most RPGs. Like mining, for instance. There are so many planets in so many solar systems, many of which you don't ever need to go, that it feels overwhelming. The main point to going to any of these extra planets is to find minerals, for which you have to slowly scan the entire planet and shoot probes to, hopefully, collect enough for that next weapon upgrade. I spent a large amount of my time mining because I wanted things that I thought were totally unnecessary (ship upgrades), just because I wanted them and I had excess resources for a little while. I never upgraded any weapon that I did not personally use and this worked out superbly. The team helps, but as an infiltrator, most of the enemies are taken down with one quick shot to the head, so I didn't allow my team to reach their full potential. I did, however, collect everyone I could and made them all loyal to me, which unlocks a special ability for that team member (and something more after the game's completed). And a new outfit. Spiffy.

Most of the missions don't take too long, but there are a lot of them, which keep the game going for a good amount of time. It took me about 28 hours to get through the whole thing, which I think is a perfect amount of time for an RPG. Mass Effect 2 doesn't delve into the excessive time-wasters like so many Final Fantasies. Hell, you don't even need to spend as much time doing the things I did. This game could probably be beaten in 10 to 15 hours in a speed run, which is still a good amount of time. Any game that goes less than ten hours is kinda pushing it. More importantly is that the game stands without the extra missions or grinding-ish mining. Some games tend to rely more on what should be bonus material and fail with the main storyline (Fable II comes to mind).

There are a total of 9 characters to collect to help in the main mission and you can learn about their personal lives or lure a couple into having sex with you, if you're so inclined. This adds a certain amount of depth to the world and, sometimes, makes you actually care what happens to your team. Especially on the loyalty missions do you get a special, inside look at your team members. Now that I think about it, that's really the best thing about them. I think they helped a few times, but I was never in need of their help and I always seemed to have full health packs. They do provide a good source of extra story and many of the missions revolve around your team (at least 2 for each member). And many of them can be seen as a badass accessory for Commander Shepard.

For the most part, this game plays well and almost always has an interesting story. All the choices effect the outcome of Shepard, the ones close to him/her, or even the storyline of Mass Effect 3 if you import the character. Overall, this game was a lot of fun to play, with more than enough things to prolong the experience, and contained both great visuals and excellent storyline choices. The voice acting, I feel I should at least mention, was also great. Never did I cringe at an expression of worry or remorse - I did laugh a few times at some of Jack's rebellious, almost silly and mundane, spouting attitude of "I'm a killer, I don't care about anything". Still, the game was solid every time I picked up the controller. For that, I can overlook a few of the hours I spent mining and the overwhelming feel of the universe.

4/5 Near Perfect Score! Super Good!