Recent reviews by ZeroSbr

Unplayable. Not because the games are bad, but because Capcom sucks at making PC ports.

I'll tell you right off the bat: If you're looking for a Metroidvania fix, go play the Castlevanias and Metroids if you haven't already. I'm assuming most people buying this game have, though.

This isn't a bad game. That's not why I'm giving it a thumbs down. I'm giving it a thumbs down because it's not a good game. Keep in mind, the vast majority of my playtime has been spent in hard mode.

Now for the reasons it's not good:

-Unnecessary crafting systems. In other Metroidvanias, and even in ye olde Castlevanias post Rondo of Blood, crafting systems were never necessary. In fact, I'm pretty sure Dawn of Sorrow was the first 2D sidescrolling CV game with a crafting system. Symphony of the Night worked fine without one, and so did Aria of Sorrow, and heck even Portrait of Ruin which was made *after* Dawn of Sorrow managed to get away without having a crafting system for either food or weapons. The point is, crafting systems have no place in Metroidvanias. All they do is add tedium to the game. I'd rather not be forced to farm enemies just so I can craft a certain piece of equipment. That's boring. What isn't boring is finding a good piece of equipment in a well-hidden room, or beyond a particularly challenging boss, or in a room unlocked by completing a puzzle/challenge. Dawn of Sorrow had a crafting system with souls, and that was bad enough. That's one of the reasons why Aria of Sorrow, its predecessor, is better. Did I mention that RotN has like 3 crafting systems? One for food, one for equipment, and one for improving shards (basically souls from the Sorrow CV games). That's 3 too many.

-The characters and enemies look awful. I attribute this mostly to the awful shader that they all use. If I remember right, the excuse was that IGA/his team wanted to make the visuals age better by making them cel-shaded. This would've been a good idea back in the GameCube days, but these days it causes the game (or at least part of it) to look awful right off the bat. These visuals will not age well. Period.

-Also on the topic of visuals, the various paintings in the game look very much out of place, and gives the game an amateurish feel. Why? Because for some reason IGA thought it would be a good idea to have the faces of backers of a certain tier be put into the game. I'm not saying that the faces themselves look ugly or anything, but they just don't look like they belong inside a cursed castle, especially when the characters are cel-shaded and cartoony and the paintings aren't.

-Animations aren't that great either. Miriam's idle animation is ridiculously cringey; as if she's getting ready to dance rather than fight. The mouth flaps sometimes don't even happen during voiced conversation. The whip attack animation is particularly awful. What was wrong with the whip animation from basically every CV game ever? Why not use that again? Did Konami copyright it or something? Instead of a straight forward arc that somewhat covers behind and above the player, we get a whip arc that doesn't go very far horizontally and also has a blind spot right in front of Miriam. The Belmonts are rolling in their graves.

-I don't see why seemingly every Metroidvania these days has a large hub area(s). In SotN and Aria of Sorrow, the hub area is literally one room where the only vendor in the game resides. That's all you need. Here in Bloodstained, the hub area is like four rooms, and some are large rooms. Part of the reason SotN was awesome is because it was just Alucard storming the castle, not Alucard and his merry band of schmucks.

-The bosses are mostly forgettable, minus Zangetsu and the Twin Dragon boss fight.

-This game's idea of "difficulty" is throwing ~9 enemies at the player in one room. Maybe that's just a hard mode thing, but I wasn't impressed. IGA's other games don't flood the player with enemies that will only give you a hard time because of how many there are. Instead, they give you one or a few enemies that can ruin your day. This is, of course, barring the Medusa Head rooms.

Maybe all of my complaints are nitpicks. Maybe I'm just jaded. However, I can promise you that I did want to like this game going into it. I'm a Castlevania fanboy, and I was an IGA fanboy by extension, to the point where I backed this game at the $175 tier until they decided to can the Vita port. I am no longer an IGA fanboy.

Now for the good points:

-The environments look nice. The shaders used look great, and the design is wonderful. It's a stark contrast to the characters in terms of visual appeal.

-The OST is pretty good. Not SotN good, not even Dawn of Sorrow good, but still good. My complaints are so small that I didn't even bother to include them in the above complaints section.

-The game is in fact large. I don't know if it's larger than SotN's two castles combined, but it's probably close. IGA did deliver on his promise to make his biggest singular castle yet.

-The enemy designs themselves are pretty good, even if the shader makes them look worse than they should.

-The sheer number of things to customize on the player character is impressive. I also like the fact that equipment actually shows up on the character model too. Very nice.

That's about all I've got. Your mileage may vary of course, and obviously this review is somewhat biased considering I've got 7 lengthy negative points and only 5 short good points to list, but I was reaching for stuff to praise as is. Buy it on sale if you must buy it.

Resident Evil Remake at HD resolutions and higher than 30fps. That's really what it is, plus some extra options with the control scheme and aspect ratio. There's also costumes that were not in the original. My only complaint is that my mouse cursor still shows up on screen even while using a controller, but this is easily fixed by moving the cursor to the right/bottom edge of the screen.

As I crept down the eerily lit corridor, I couldn't help but shudder from the feeling in my bones. I passed a few portcullises which led to small, claustrophobic rooms, presumably prison cells, and immediately ground to a halt when I saw just what was ahead. It was a figure: tall, robed, and wielding a glowing circular brand. As it passed the archway, I gulped and tightened my grip on my weathered sword as I felt a knot in my stomach begin to form. I knew that I stood no chance against this adversary. Once I mustered enough courage, I sprinted headlong out of the corridor and in the direction that the figure came from, my heart convulsing and cold sweat pouring down my brow.

The robed figure noticed me, and began pursuing immediately as it laughed its otherworldly laugh. As I ran for my life, I vaguely noticed a sort of decrepit stone bridge to my left, but I kept running nonetheless to find a refuge from my foe. After I turned a corner and hid, it gave up its chase, and I caught my breath. A few moments later, I remembered the craggy bridge beyond an archway I had seen briefly while being pursued, and decided to cross it. However, I knew that my robed adversary would be waiting for me. Once again, I took a moment to gather what little courage I could, my right hand gripping my sword so fiercely that the knuckles turned pale. I inhaled deeply and calmly as I could, and sprinted as fast as my legs could carry me, back around the corner and to the bridge. When I arrived, I stopped suddenly, my face turning as white as an Irithyllian's.

There, in the middle of the stone bridge, were two robed figures identical to the one I was hunted by just moments ago. And as I turned around to leave, that very same figure was waiting behind me.

It raised its glowing brand, and my world went dark.

This game was made by FromSoft's B team, and it shows. The developers looked at Dark Souls 1, and evidently what they took from it is that people expect a Souls game to be difficult due to how unfair and flawed the game is rather than presenting actual well-designed challenges. The developers clearly designed the game to be difficult for the sake of it, rather than trying to make a good game that happens to be difficult like DS1 and DS3. The difference between Dark Souls 2 and the other two games in the Dark Souls trilogy is that DS2 tries to kill the player at all costs while the other two games try to challenge the player.

Evidence that the developers have no idea what made DS1 so popular is as follows:

-The achievement "This is Dark Souls" which is obtained after the player's first death. This heavily implies that the developers literally think that dying over and over is what makes a Souls game.

-The death counter at Majula, the hub area. It's almost as if the developers are saying, "Look at how many people have died! This proves we did a great job making this game, right? Because Dark Souls is all about dying over and over to stupid things, right?!"

-The dialogue with the Old Ladies who welcome the player to Drangleic at the start of the game, which consists of them telling you it's hopeless, and you'll die over and over.

For some odd reason, the devs thought it would be a good idea to start the player off with 1 estus as opposed to 3 like in DS3 or 5 like in DS1. Rather than making the estus the primary recovery method, they made these things called lifegems which are your real recovery method, and can even be used to anticipate damage, since they gradually restore hp. The devs also thought it would be a good idea to make the player lose their max health bit by bit until they reach half every time they die. If a certain amount of hp wasn't enough (otherwise I wouldn't have died), why would less hp suddenly become enough? This is counter-intuitive design.

The game wouldn't even be all that hard if it didn't handle like garbage. The camera seems to hate moving diagonally, player movement is wonky compared to even DS1 due to the noticeable delay whenever you make a 180 turn, and half the time plunging strikes and backstabs don't even work (and when backstabs do work, you don't even realize it until the middle of the animation). Also, hitboxes are terribly made in this game. A boss dude has a move where he tries to run you through? Better be nowhere near him when he does that move, otherwise you will be teleported to the end of his sword. Locking onto an enemy doesn't guarantee that you will hit it, even if it's right in front of you, if it's too short to be hit by your weapon.

Then there's the gank squads. You run into one, you realize quickly that maybe you want to run past them and funnel them through a corridor so you can take them out without being overwhelmed. Instead of your plan being successful, you run to the end of the corridor and into the next room only to run into another gank squad which takes you by surprise, and will likely result in your death. Fun, right?

There's also the issue with ADP or adaptability. What it does, among other things, is increase your invincibility frames for rolling. This makes ADP an essential stat for literally every build. It is a required stat, and if you're new to DS2 and don't put levels into it, good luck. This is just plain bad game design.

Liking DS2 and saying that it's better than DS1 and/or 3 seems to be the "cool" thing to do these days, but I'm not going to be a contrarian/hipster just to be edgy. DS2 has a bad rep, and for good reason. If you have the time or interest, watch Mauler's response video to hbomberguy's poorly made "In defense of Dark Souls II" video on YouTube. It covers most everything I mentioned here and more, and it provides loads of evidence to support the fact that this is a badly made game. It's a good thing Dark Souls III exists, because this would be a terrible way to end the franchise.

Buy this if and only if you're a Dark Souls fan who has played and completed all the other games and are just curious to try this one out. Maybe you'll truly like it somehow. After all, just because it's a bad game doesn't mean people won't like it anyways.

It's a well-made game, but it's nothing special. Everything this game does other games do better. Dragon's Dogma, Dark Souls, Fable, and even other EA published games like Dragon Age Origins are just better. This isn't a bad game (I can't stress this enough), but it's a mediocre one, which means it's a 5/10 game. Combat is generic, story is bland, characters are uninteresting...if you're looking for an okay game to satisfy your action RPG itch, and you've already played all those other games/franchises I've listed, maybe this will be for you. Otherwise, go play those games/franchises I listed.

I get that I've only played for a little over an hour, but if a game doesn't grip me within an hour or so or after I experience the game beyond the tutorial, that's a good indicator of what my thoughts on the rest of the game will be like. Also, I can't play for very long without being unable to refund.

Lastly, I didn't know that this was an EA game when I bought it. If I did, I probably wouldn't have bought it, even though I only spent $5 on it. EA can burn.

I pre-ordered this game back in the day expecting a worthy sequel. That's not what I got. They changed SW from its classic arcade roots to Borderlands shoot and loot. Bad move. It looks pretty, but it's dumbed down. If this is what SW3 will be like, I hope it never happens. I'd rather have SW die again than go the shoot and loot route.

It's a good game if you're into 90's shooters where you don't have a sprint mechanic or perks. Lots of secrets to find, and plenty of mindless fun to be had! Just mind the Kleers. You'll know what I'm talking about after one kills you.

I couldn't believe this even existed at first. A game based on Lord of the Rings that's actually *good*? This was unheard of, at least for me. This game was so good that it made up for the failure that was Assassin's Creed: Unity, which released the same year. It has an eagle vision equivalent, awesome Batman Arkham-based combat, a fleshed-out stealth mechanic, great visuals, and the nemesis system, where each uruk you fight has a chance to build a personal vendetta against you (and get unique strengths and weaknesses), is pretty innovative and does a lot to keep the game fresh.

The OST isn't award-winning, but it's not going to make your ears bleed. It's just something that's there in the background that you tune out after a while, but would probably notice if it went missing. A bit disappointing, considering how praised the OST from the LotR movies is.

The visuals, as I've mentioned, are great. You can make them even better (slightly) by downloading the ultra textures, which are really just the uncompressed high textures. They claim it needs 6GB of VRAM, but my card (GTX 770) has 4GB of VRAM and does just fine.

Gameplay is modeled after the Batman Arkham games, which is a good thing. The combat isn't particularly hard when against 3 or less enemies, but when they come at you in droves, like 20 (and have an uruk captain or two in their midst), things can get pretty hairy if you're a new player. Stealth is well-developed: you're given a crouch button which must be held, and it does wonders to hide you. The various methods of stealth-killing almost never gets old. You can even poison the enemy's grog, and they will drink it if they don't see you do the deed. Shortly after, one of them will die, and they will start accusing each other and in-fighting. Another thing I liked about the gameplay is the branding system. You can brand uruk and force them to be your allies in battle, which can help even the odds in a skirmish.

However, even with all this, the game still becomes stale after a while. I've beaten the entire storyline, done all the missions to improve your weapons, but I just can't bring myself to do the rest of the tasks needed for 100% completion. All I have left to do is the herb gathering and animal hunting missions, which just aren't fun if that's all you have to do. Usually, I'm inclined to finish great games and that's what makes them great. However, the very fact that I'm not inclined to finish this game makes it just "good". I'd recommend getting it on sale. Even so, this is not a game you should pass up!

I do recommend this, but only by a slight margin. This game is multiplayer only, and it's all about PvP combat. However, even if that's what you're into, you may not want this game in particular. There are a lot of...interesting/unrealistic techniques that people past Rank 15 use to win. For example, the backwards overhead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHu7WlXnj9w

It looks dumb, and it honestly is dumb. It should be removed from the game, yet it still hasn't been. Then there are other dumb things people do like swinging their weapons 360 degrees. When people do it, it also looks dumb and is dumb, and should be taken out.

It should be mentioned then when you use the feint (act like you're going to attack then cancel), which is an actual realistic combat technique, people get really upset with you. That's right, people get mad at you for using a legitimate mechanic, but it's A-okay if you use some convoluted dorky technique. Overall, I'd say the community is slightly better than the TF2 community, but there's still plenty of cancer. One guy got upset at me over something as trivial as saying that Oblivion had better combat than Skyrim, and hurled insults over it. Also, if you like being an archer, prepare to be picked on. There are people in the community who will kill archers and only archers, not to mention verbally abuse anyone who happens to be an archer (especially a skilled one).

Despite all this, it's still fun to play. Think of it as Monty Python: The Game, and you'll enjoy it. The gore is goofy (you can punch a guy's head till it explodes), the battle cries can be funny, and it's really just silly action. If you're looking for a realistic medieval combat game, this isn't it. However, it's still a good game. I got it on sale, and I suggest you do too.