LesmoThoughts - Ace Attorney: Apollo Justice

I'm a pretty big fan of the Ace Attorney series, so to mask my butthurt over the fact that I can't afford that Professor Layton Vs Phoenix Wright game that just came out (and I keep incorrectly referring to Professor Layton Vs Ace Attorney, because Professor Layton is a jerk who insisted that the entire franchise be named after him and Phoenix Wright isn't) I played some of Ace Attorney: Apollo Justice today.

Only Case 2 of the game mind, I've actually beaten it twice beforehand but during the second playthrough I skipped over the second case due to it being boring. Which pretty much makes that case the only one in the entire series that I haven't overplayed to death (I've played Trials and Tribulations FOUR times, and if you judge me for that well you can just get off my turf I guess). Having played it again...yea it's still pretty boring, but playing it again now made it a refreshing kind of boring.

I bought (and reviewed on this very site!) Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies on the day it came out, and although it was mostly good times there was always something missing from it. It suffers from what a lot of long-running franchises eventually catch when their original creators start to get removed from the picture but the series keeps going in the name of brand recognition, and that's when it starts to feel like a fangame. Not necessarily because the creators themselves are Wayforward (oh boy what a slip I meant to say "fanboys" how did this happen I'm so sorry!) but because they're being made to service the fanboys. And that's why Dual Destinies has weird quirks like old characters coming back for no reason, and Phoenix Wright being the main character once again even though the story barely needs him any more.

None of that matters though, the point with Dual Destinies was that it got lost in creating crazy murder scenarios (and they are really clever) whereas the original trilogy of games were grounded in character. Dual Destinies replaces that emphasis on character with dumb anime melodrama and callbacks to the old game, which dorks and fanboys can get into but it left me feeling cold personally. I've always had a huge respect for this series due to being filled with nonsense and convenient plot devices but still making it all work in the end because it grounds the craziness (and occasionally laziness) in the people. So while Dual Destinies was still entertaining, it just didn't grab me the same way the other games did.

And that's the thing with Apollo Justice as a whole, but especially the second case, the murders and scenarios in this game are probably the most boring ones in the entire series. The second case could probably be an episode of CSI if you took the stereotype college student who steals panties out of it, other than that it's a pretty simple murder and a boring story about gangsters. But still, the story still shines in that you see the development in character and the relationship of new leads Apollo Justice and Trucy Wright (who is gosh darn adorable, but the existence of Deviantart makes me uncomfortable saying that on the internet).

Trials and Tribulations is my series favourite because you had the convoluted crazy murders (many will argue they get a little too crazy) mixed with the comedy AND the characters. Apollo Justice just has the characters, Dual Destinies just has the crazy murders, so overall I find both lacking, but the fact that I probably prefer Apollo Justice either says a lot about me as a person or perhaps even storytelling in general.

I dunno, everyone else in the world loved Dual Destinies for the completely illogical melodrama, lazy themes and overblown murders. But then again a lot of people paid to go see Transformers 2...and 3...and eventually 4...so what do I know.

LesmoThoughts - Super Mario 3D Land

So I was thinking; in this post-graduate jobless (and moneyless) period of my life I've been trying to keep myself busy. Part of keeping myself busy has involved doing a lot of writing and relevant reading to whatever future I might be trying to build. I definitely want to be getting paid for work involving writing and/or videogames, and I'm also starting to realise how insignificant my abilities and knowledge currently are in the grand scheme of things (what I'm trying to say is: my work kind of sucks right now, but I have enough potential to be fully aware of that simultaneously).

I also conveniently remembered that I have a blog on the internet that I can do whatever I want on, I also have a lot of thoughts about videogames that never really get translated to screen or paper. Most of the stuff I write (understandably) has some kind of practical purpose; usually to give a full critique or consumer review of a product without resorting to excessively long word counts or to give insight on some kind of story, or worst of all to simply blandly rewrite the story. Sometimes any kind of expectation like that can be a burden, sometimes you just got to let your hair ride the wind mannnn, and just write whatever and see where it takes you.

You see that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about: that last paragraph was utterly pointless, but I won't take it out no matter how angry you get about wasting your time reading it. So here's the premise, I want to create an environment where I just write stuff and it's entirely fine, and it's about videogames so I can actually figure out what it is exactly that I value in the medium (this is far too big of a question to answer in one shot).

So there you go, from now on I'm going to try and write random things about random videogames that I happen to play, none of them will be "reviews" in the traditional sense. Maybe I played them all the way through, maybe I played them for 5 minutes, maybe a bus with an advertisement for a game I've never played will drive past my house and I'll just write about it anyway. IT DOESN'T MATTER. And I'm also going to call it "LesmoThoughts" just because it probably needs some kind of name to separate it from any real content that might get put on this site, and "LesmoThoughts" is way too lame and stupid for anyone to think I'm actually proud of it.

NOW TALKING ABOUT THE GAME THAT'S IN THE TITLE OF THIS POST WOO 

The other day I got FIVE STARS on Super Mario 3D Land even though I once joked on social media that I would never do that because that's lame (you need to beat the entirety of the game with Mario AND Luigi, while also hitting the top of every single flagpole at the end of a level, AND get every single Star Coin). Getting five stars unlocks the stupidest, dumbest, most insanely difficult level ever (okay not really but it IS bullshit) that I genuinely think is impossible without the tanooki tail. It's such a weird level too, not because of its difficulty itself but the fact that it's difficult because it exploits some of the game's shortcomings, such as some of the more awkward use of 3D and Mario's slightly slower-feeling than usual momentum. These are rarely notable issues throughout the rest of the game, but I noticed the FUCK out of them in this final stage and it seemed a bizarre choice, it's like the designers wanted the player's last thoughts regarding Super Mario 3D Land to be "man, this game could have seriously SUCKED if it was all like this, I guess they did a pretty good job."

And you know what, they DID do a pretty good job. Actually all things considered, probably a pretty fantastic job.

Super Mario 3D Land is a game that most people claim to like but almost in a sort of "guilty pleasure" "I just like Mario I guess" sort of way, which I think is kind of unfortunate. Probably the reason for this is because it came out after Super Mario Galaxy and its sequel, which knocked the pants off everyone (especially critics) and 3D Land seems like a step down by comparison. But screw those people, let's separate this next sentence from the rest of the paragraph, bold it and put it in slightly bigger text to show I mean business:

SUPER MARIO 3D LAND > SUPER MARIO GALAXY

Okay so that probably didn't actually count as a sentence by most literacy standards, but I can't get over it, I just don't like the Super Mario Galaxy games that much. I will admit right now, that 75% of the reason is because you have to use the Wiimote and nunchunk, complete with motion flails and shooting star bits at the screen yak yak yak, you'd think I would have built up a natural defence to wanker's cramp by now but nope. If it was possible to play the game with a Gamecube controller, I could probably get over a lot of its issues and have a good time with it because it's certainly not a bad game, but it still wouldn't even come close to being my favourite Mario game.

There's just too much dumb stuff in it I hate, especially in what (in my opinion) should be a pretty brainless game (at least on a concious level (oo er even I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that (triple brackets!!))) I hate the excessive tutorial stuff, I hate all the pop up text in levels and pretense to having a "story" that requires dialogue I hate the stupid hub world where you waste time running around Mario's head for no adequately explained reason, and I hate that the platforming isn't as sharp as it should be. I think I've figured out what I broadly hate about it though, in other (mostly 2D) Mario games the core focus was on how Mario moved, complete with obsessively fine-tuned momentum and jumping, and he would slide and skid around a bit too (but not too much). In Super Mario Galaxy the core focus is the level design, where the emphasis was on visuals and creating great places to navigate through but (possibly due to trying to keep it simple for newbs who picked up the Wii) didn't care about Mario's movement nearly as much. I don't want to be too mean to Super Mario Galaxy, it's basically a good game I guess, but I hate the method in which I have to move Mario, I don't particularly care for how he moves in the first place, and there's way too much bullshit getting in the way of the bits where I move him. Bleh.

This is where Super Mario 3D Land shines, the entire game is a celebration of movement. Zero Punctuation is regarded pretty highly around these parts, but in Yahtzee's review of Super Mario Galaxy he said something about the game being good because it was basically like a game made out of the secret super-soaker-less levels in Super Mario Sunshine, and my biggest problem with the game was that it wasn't that at all! 3D Land is a thousand times closer to that dream, the levels are almost just blocks but well placed blocks that you can bounce your way through whatever way you please. Didn't you just feel like GOD when you flew over an entire level in Super Mario Bros. 3 for the first time? Because you can totally do that in a bunch of levels in 3D Land too and I think that's kind of radical. That might just be me to be honest, personally I feel most like God when I scoop foamy bubbles out of bathwater and flush them down the toilet.

THAT WHICH WAS CREATED BY WATER SHALL BE DESTROYED BY WATER

Wait what's going on?

Back to Mario, so umm yea, I like how the entire game is just the really good platforming without all the bullshit again, aside from the silly Nintendo "TAKE A BREAK BRO THIS GAME COULD KILL YOU" messages that pop up just enough to be annoying and the Ghost Houses (seriously Nintendo what is with the Ghost Houses? I can't commit to buying a Wii U but if you promise to never put a Ghost House level in a Mario game ever again I promise to buy your next console....okay maybe that's a joke too but STOP WITH THE GHOST HOUSES THEY SUCK) nothing gets in the way of bouncing Mario through near effortlessly designed levels (seriously, they just work it's kind of ridiculous). This is also doubly beneficial to a portable game, it's ideal design for clearing one or two levels on the bus AND having long sessions on the toilet at home (sometimes several hours in my case).

The whole "it's like Mario 3!" nostalgia-bating aspects of the project do gross me out however,  if you're sick of the Mario aesthetic and gimmicks the lack of creativity in these aspects of the game might be a downer for you. More power to the designers for putting all the work into actually making a fun game I guess, but when you make the games audiovisual elements constantly remind the player of Super Mario Bros. 3 (possibly/probably the best videogame of all time) you may end up selling yourself short. What is it with old 80s videogame franchises and constantly calling back to their old soundtracks? Mario does it, Zelda does it, even Mega Man has dabbled in it, and Castlevania just takes the piss (is there a Castlevania release that doesn't have Vampire Killer and/or Bloody Tears on the soundtrack? Bloody Tears isn't even from a good game for gawd's sake (although it is a great song)).

I should point out my love/nostalgia for Super Mario Bros. 3 has nothing to do with why I like 3D Land a lot...it's actually more to do with my love/nostalgia with Crash Bandicoot. I didn't have a Nintendo console until I hit secondary school, which was a Game Boy Advance that I made sure to get all the Super Mario Advance titles (and also failed, I never had Yoshi's Island). In my younger-than-that days it was all Crash, I liked Spyro the Dragon too I guess, but that game never called me back to it consistently the same way the Crash games did. Looking back on them, Naughty Dog were absurdly intelligent with those games, they realised way before most other developers that 3D platforming has inherent design and control issues and made their levels as fixed camera corridors for 3D sections and fleshed them out with extra 2D bits. Regardless of what your opinion of the Crash series is, the original PlayStation 1 titles have aged better than most other games at the time for this reason.

Super Mario 3D Land is like a game entirety made out of good Crash Bandicoot levels, but with way better controls, momentum, movement and way less bullshit...on a handheld! By the way, by less bullshit I mean having to break all the boxes in Crash 1 on one try...including the boxes with checkpoints that would make it impossible to start the level from the beginning, and the cryptic nonsense in the other two. Get the Blue Gem in the first level of Crash 2 by NOT breaking any of the boxes? Even though there's no clues, breaking boxes is part of the point of the game, there's a secret part of the level with extra boxes, boxes contain helpful items and there's literally bits where boxes block your path entirely. WHAT. I have no memory of how I even know how to get that stupid fucking gem, I must have looked it up, and even then I have no idea how to guy who originally put it on the internet found out. I hate to be THAT GUY, but cheats magazines were still a thing in 1997 when Crash 2 came out and this must have been a conspiracy to get you to buy those.

Hey, that's all I have to say on this I think, and I don't even have to think of a clever conclusion or anything! Oh my god I'm so happy right now.

Regarding "Irony"

Since it's basically a running joke now that no-one actually knows what "irony" means and it's probably the most misused word in the English language (with the possible exception of "literally"), let's start off with a dictionary definition of what "irony" actually means:

"The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect"

Alright cool, now let's do it again but using the definition of "irony" in the context that most people on the internet use it in:

"The expression of nothing by making your work generally shit."

Don't worry, this piece isn't going to go all "Grammar Nazi" on you, I don't proofread this blog enough (at all) to get away with that. What we are going to talk about however, is the somewhat disturbing trend of defending media and/or comments with of "it's supposed to be IRONIC." It's a pretty arbitrary defence at the best of times, but really it just seems to come off as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the otherwise undefendable.

Let's start off in videogame town, because that's all I really know. Let's talk about games like Bayonetta and Lollipop Chainsaw, two games that were generally well-received but did get some flak for their portrayal of female characters. But WORRY NOT, because the extreme over-sexualisation of both protagonists in these games was IRONIC (and therefore HILARIOUS).

Regarding Bayonetta, and comparing it's sexualisation with the dictionary definition, what part of it exactly is "ironic"? So Bayonetta herself is intentionally fetishised to a ridiculous degree to make a statement on female characters? What statement is that exactly, that there simply are over-fetishised female characters in videogames, so here's another one to point and laugh at? Bayonetta is goofy but it's certainly not a comedy (or at least I hope it's not supposed to be one), if it's not a comedy why would they intentionally make their character design and art style into a big meta joke?

You could definitely argue that Lollipop Chainsaw is supposed to be a joke, but one I've never laughed at. It's not even the character design of Juliet Starling that's the problem here, it's the whole "generic zombie setting" thing as well. Being a Suda51 game, people like to praise the game for being all wacky and creative, to which I naturally respond "why does the game have such a generic setting then?" "BECAUSE IT'S IRONIC" the imaginary Suda fanboys in killer7 T-Shirts that live in my brain retort, and I simply shout back "WELL THEN I DON'T GET IT." Is the fact that Lollipop Chainsaw has god awful combat part of the big ironic joke too? Or can we not stretch the definition that far yet?

It's possible that some of this cynicism comes from me dabbling in writing and other bits and pieces myself, and I know full well from my own experience that there's times where I can't think of a joke in a place where I want one, so I just settle for the whole "ironic bad joke" thing. So if you read/watch/taste anything else I've made where you see me pull something like that, rest assured it's not some grand meta "ironic" artistic statement, if I had a real joke I would have just used it because it's obviously way better to do that. I feel like we all may as well give up when we get to the point where we don't just actively defend, but actually praise games that are trying to be bad for some reason.

There's two huge issues here can I can dig out. First, people seem to consider "satire" as some kind of synonym for "good", and "irony" as a synonym for "clever". Obviously, there's such a thing as god awful satire, and "irony" can be really lame and stupid, haven't you heard the expression "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....besides memes"? Secondly, these forms of "irony" and "satire" have the side effect of being hugely appealing to the kind of assholes you're trying to make fun of in the first place.

The kind of "bad satire" and irony I'm talking about reared its head recently with The Colbert Report, which tweeted this:

(this tweet has since been deleted....and one day people will realise that trying to silently delete tweets without people noticing is a really stupid idea that always gets you in more trouble...)

I'm not a huge fan of Colbert or anything, he was pretty funny as the eyepatch guy in Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law I guess (Ha! Ha!) I do know he's capable of good satire and has done so in the past, and I'm also reasonably sure that he's not a racist. Having said that...what da fudge. 

(EDIT: The Colbert Report has since tweeted a reassurance that the account is not controlled by Colbert himself, regardless we can assume that if this wasn't written by him it would have either been approved by him or written by another writer on the show)

For those who don't know, The Colbert Report is a parody of American right wing news outlets, most notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. This tweet was made in character by Colbert, so it's a joke, but really what exactly is the joke? It's not that hard to understand before anyone starts dealing out the "irony" card from their deck of bullshit, it's an exaggerated example of what a RACIST MIGHT SAY, but since it's said while simultaneously rolling your eyes at it I guess it's okay. 

Here's the thing that ties this back to the problems with "irony", because it's a "joke" and therefore "clever" people will instantly dismiss any offence it might cause (which evidently, based on the Twitter feedback, was a lot). Even worse though, is that for every person who laughs at this because of "HA! He's making fun of racists! Those silly racists!" there's a person actually laughing at it because they are just racists and find this kind of thing funny. It's not pictured but originally the first tweet responding to this one was a guy asking him to "do Mexican Americans next!" so in other words: "Say what a racist would say about Mexicans because I would find that soooooo funny!" 

Ultimately, although this whole thing is a joke, it's a ridiculously lazy joke by a performer who is better than this, and it panders to bigots whether it intends to or not.

Jokes, (good) satire and comedy are really important in fighting oppression and changing hearts and minds in my opinion. Comedy takes reality and exposes it for how ridiculous it truly is, and there's nothing more ridiculous that discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, sexuality and so on and so forth. But what -good- comedy should be doing is blowing up stereotypes and exposing them for the stupidity that they are. In order to get someone to consider new ideas you have to challenge their old ones and comedy is a great outlet to do that. People set in their ways WILL reject new ideas almost instantaneously, you have to challenge their way of thinking intellectually first, and it takes smarter "satire" than this.

What this particular brand of "joke" boils down to is simply copying and pasting something a racist might say and then putting "LOL" after it in the script...which even if it wasn't offensive wouldn't be funny or clever. It doesn't challenge anyone's ideas, it doesn't stand up for anyone, it just takes real hatred that exists and gives it more exposure. That might in itself be the point, let more people see it to realise the insanity of it, but that's normally where the REAL ACTUAL SATIRE SHOULD FILL IN THE GAPS...maybe. In the end it's just a gutless, dickless little joke that panders to two different brands of idiots and achieves nothing other than upsetting a lot of people.

Having said that, there is one part I'm not on board with in this whole thing and that's the whole #CancelColbert movement on Twitter. Now admittedly, "Cancel Colbert" might just have been the words of choice due to the funky almost-alliteration for "this sucks we don't like this", but with these things there's always an aura of "this is bad so it needs to be removed/censored etc." to them that bothers me. As important as racism is as a social issue (and it's SUPER important) I don't class it as more important than free speech as a whole. The largest reason for this is because free speech is not only the biggest weapon in the arsenal of people fighting against racial issues, it's important for ALL oppressed people. I would hate to see a precedent put in place where something can be forced off the air for a couple of bad jokes.

As I said above, I think comedy is a really powerful tool when it comes to these issues when it's good. When it sucks...well things like this Colbert thing happen and that's unfortunate. Speaking for ALL comedy here, it's important not to put comedians in an environment where they can get 999 jokes right and 1 wrong and be freaking pulverised for the one that they got wrong (Note: this sentence doesn't apply to comedians that are ALWAYS tasteless and shit). All that attitude will do is cut the nuts off all comedy and put everyone working in it in places where they can't take risks, and sure that would wipe out most of the bad tasteless sort of stuff but it would also take away a lot of the really good and important stuff. Censorship is something that will encase all of us in our grasp if we give it leverage.

This is a situation where it must suck to be a minority, and I accept that as a white straight dude there are things I can't fully understand (unfortunately being fat, poor and British don't count as minorities). On the one hand, you could ignore this sort of stuff and roll your eyes at it, letting it go to the "free speech" argument, and continue to let it slide in our culture. On the other hand you can stand up and speak out against it, which is the most tiring option and also has the side effect of potentially giving the content even more exposure. Or you can hope this sort of thing gets banned, which again can have horrible consequences. So basically, you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, and you're also damned if someone else does. Eugh.

I was also going to have a bit in this rambling where I ragged on Mrs. Brown's Boys for being tasteless, offensive and generally awful. But this is has already gone on longer than expected and it doesn't really tie into the whole "irony" thing, so I'd like to use this space to briefly say Mrs. Brown's Boys can go straight to hell.

So in summary, don't use "satire" or "irony" as a defence for something horrible or stupid. "Satire" can be awful and offensive, "irony" can be stupid and pointless, they aren't "heal all wounds" buzzwords that make everything immediately okay. Perverts get off to Bayonetta, and racists like racist jokes and stereotypes. "Irony" does not change what these things truly are at their core.

Also, just as a shorter and louder summary: LEARN WHAT THE FUCK IRONY MEANS.

The Most Laid Back Videogame Review Ever

VIdeogames. Like, woah, man. Do you ever stop and think about how much they've achieved over the past 30 years? We sure have come a long way since holding B to run and tapping A to jump in Super Mario Bros., but then again that was basically freaking perfect, so maybe they've only gone backwards. I dunno, but that's the thing with videogames, it's all about perspective and the way you see them depends on you. Maybe videogames are branching out and taking on new challenges, morphing into something that can directly compete with literature and movies. Or perhaps they're devolving from their once perfect little bubble and compromising with the rest of culture for the sake of acceptance. 

Here's something you need to know about me before we can talk about a videogame for a minute; I'm the sort of person who rates Monsters Inc. a gosh darn 7 out of 10, because that is what it deserves. And simply for the sake of annoying people who really like Monsters Inc. to a slightly disturbing degree, I'll say that I'd rate the movie Cars a gosh darn 5 out of 10. Some will express confusion, possibly even outrage, that I would dare to only consider Cars two points out of 10 less good than Monsters Inc. Also, I absolutely have no issue with the little girl in Monsters Inc., she was adorable and her relationship with Sully was one of the genuine highlights and it confuses, and possibly even outrages, me that people can claim to love Monsters Inc. way more than I do and not like that part of the movie. 

Who knows, I haven't seen either Cars 2 or Monsters University at time of writing. Word on the street is that Cars 2 is really super bad, maybe I should just watch that and rate it, and without ever actually watching it simply give Monsters University 2 more points out of 10 than Cars 2. No-one would have any right to get mad, after all I would be simultaneously acknowledging that Cars 2 is bad while also saying that Monsters is the superior Pixar franchise. But what if I DO end up watching both movies and I really like Cars 2 and hate Monsters University? (which to be honest, I strongly suspect I might on the latter) Then I have to tell people I consider Cars and Monsters to be on an equal wavelength as franchises, and saying stuff like that is the reason I get beat up! (Disclaimer: I'm 6'5 and never get beat up)

Maybe I'm slightly biased towards Cars because seeing that movie was the first time I went to a cinema with a girl, not that we made out or anything. I went to the same cinema with the same girl less than a year later, and by this point was stuck firmly in the friendzone, but we went to go see Spider-Man 3 so fuck her I guess. My grand plan (probably would have been) to take her to see Marley and Me the year after that which (almost) definitely would have led to make-outs but with me being me we weren't really on speaking terms by that point. The bottom fell out completely the year after that where I went to go see Transformers 2 with two guy friends and was so traumatized I swore to never return to the cinema (and I genuinely haven't to this date!) We also didn't make out though. 

Thing is, as much as I really really despise Transformers 2 (there's only one movie I've seen that I consider to be a worse viewing experience and it's Sucker Punch) I distinctly remember talking about the movie with my friends on the way out of the cinema and what we thought about it. The words "oh, I'd give it a 5 out of 10 I guess" definitely came out of my mouth at some point. I was startled and mostly confused, I initially believed that the movie's climax confused me simply because I had somehow missed key elements of the plot, and this was also probably my fault. Later that week, dwelling on my own opinion and seeing plot summaries and other people's reviews, and even later on than that seeing actual bits of the movie again, I realised my instincts weren't wrong and I really did just see the worst piece of shite ever plastered across a cinema screen (Sucker Punch hadn't been made yet). "5 out of 10" had drooled its way out of my mouth in a clumsy attempt to sound balanced, to meet the expectations of the movie's core audience, marketing and its starving-children-mockingly excessive budget. 

And that's what it all comes down to, rating things out of 10 is bullshit. I give Cars a casual 5 out of 10 because I don't care about it as a piece of film, it just exists and it's kind of dumb but mostly fine. Monsters Inc. gets a 7 for being "mostly pretty good I guess", the 7 can be the summary of a larger opinion if you're smart and on the same wavelength as who you're talking to, but it can't be the justification or even worse: the explanation of your opinion. "I think this movie is good because my brain has filtered it between the arbitrary parameters of what a '7 out of 10' movie is". This is unacceptable, and it's almost everywhere within mainstream videogame criticism.

So what you need to know about me is; right now I am just doing this. It is nearly 9am in the gosh darn morning and I have not been to sleep yet, and everything you see above this was written in around 25 minutes with literally no planning whatsoever, the imaginary starting pistol went off in my brain and off I went. You know what I really like about writing? It helps me figure out what -I- think about things, and I don't need a deadline or obligation forces me to figure out what I think so I can put it into words, I literally mean when I put pen-to-paper or skin-to-plastic eventually I figure out what I want to say. 

Although it's impossible for a game review to not be a self-indulgent, borderline autistic, inane ramble like this currently is, videogames are art (GOD DAMN IT) and a concept for a review should start with a personal gut feeling about the overall product and then a portrayal of the writers own workings of figuring out where that gut feeling came from. What it should NOT (underlined, bolded, capped and put in italics just to show I mean business right now) be is a bureaucratic box ticking exercise of the game's mechanics and content. 

People can't be removed from game reviews because games will be (duh) played by people, so it's all the more perplexing the amount of reviewers who insist on critiquing them like they're dishwashers or something. Like they automatically get two stars simply for being "functional" these days. Not that I'm saying all reviews need to be written in first person and use "I" a lot, I mean I usually don't but today's game is a real special topic with me so I really wanted to come out of my shell a bit for it, but you can still inject a review with personality and I think it's important to do so. Getting REAL, like actual genuine people to talk about videogames and why they suck/are radical is

Well I have forgotten what game I'm reviewing right now, but isn't that the review of the game right there for you? Whatever it was it made no emotional or mental impact on me and therefore can't possibly be worth your time. So know that this game isn't recommended, honestly it's probably not even worth the bandwidth to get it through Bittorrent. You know, if everyone did just download their games through Bittorrent maybe that would finally eliminate all discussion of "lasting value" in reviews and the world might be a happier place. 

I think I just saved the fucking world. 

The Legend of Zelda - A Link Between Worlds Review

I had to resist some kind of inner urge to start off this review with some kind of clarification that I don't really like Zelda, but just making such a statement is giving in to the legions of drooling fanboys who are content to isolate the franchise from all other videogames as a passive-aggressive attempt to deflect any and all criticism. Zelda is not a genre, it is a registered trademark that happens to belong to Nintendo, and it often lends its name to action-adventure based videogames, so let's review a gosh darn action-adventure videogame.

It's hard to think of any other videogame franchise that quite matches up to the level of polish that Zelda instalments have. A lot of people like to scoff at videogame franchises that release updates every year, but in all honesty there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't do the same thing with Zelda.Okay, sure they which up the art style and get a new idea every now and then, but the basic formula for these things has basically gone untouched for around 20 years. There's no reason why they couldn't churn out a new Zelda game every year, but they spend months if not years polishing and perfecting and tweaking every aspect of every dungeon, fine tuning the experience and grinding it into a fine powder easily consumable to the masses. 

A lot of people confuse this layer of polish for perfection. However, this is exactly the kind of thing that has kept me away from most Zelda games. The worlds are a bit too perfect, and not perfect in the sense that they're wonderful player experiences, perfect in the sense that everything just naturally fits together, it's a constant subliminal message that you're not exploring a world at all but playing a videogame. That would be fine, but most modern Zelda games hold this pretense that they're "adventure" games and fill themselves with a lot of boring fetch quests and dumb puzzles and general "lock and key" game design (short explanation: collecting a bomb to use for a clearly defined explosion vulnerable rock is as exciting and interesting as finding a key for a door, it just pretends to be something different so you don't notice that. and Zelda games rely on a lot of pseudo-complexity (suplexity) by having a lot of different "keys").

In short, A Link Between Worlds is the best Zelda game that has come out in years because it is not an "adventurey-puzzly-suplexity" kind of game, it's a straight up action-adventure game, with emphasis on the action part. Truth be told, a lot of the things that the series gets flak for are still present, the story is completely pointless and an afterthought, and Princess Zelda probably breaks her own record for uselessness by spending the majority of the game stuck in a wall. The world map and a lot of the enemies are obviously all throwbacks to A Link to the Past, so the game isn't bursting with originality or bold attempts at storytelling, but we're going to go ahead and wrap this paragraph up quickly because none of this matters.

I say this with absolutely no authority as someone who hasn't beaten (but played about half of) any Zelda games, but A Link Between Worlds has the best Zelda dungeons I've ever played. They are perfectly designed almost to a fault, as discussed earlier, all the dungeons unravel so wondrously that you can basically feel the level designers breathing down the back of your neck making sure you don't stop advancing or having fun for a second. That Nintendo polish is present as ever, if you use up a bunch of your magic metre walking along the side of a wall to get a dungeon critical item and need to backtrack you can bet your boomerang that there will be an item sitting there to fill your magic metre up again so you don't have to wait the extra couple of seconds for it to recharge. Completely unnecessary, but the game would be 0.00004% more boring if it wasn't there and this was clearly deemed unacceptable.

What's especially neat is the game has a sort of artsy sort of game mechanic thing going on by giving Link (or Les if you're cool) the ability to transform as a wall painting a slide along it. It seem gimmicky at first, but this has the side effect of making you think about rooms within dungeons in both a more circular and more vertical manner. You can't move up or down just left to right while in a wall, so being aware of your vertical positioning is vital and makes A Link Between Worlds more of a 3D game than some of the actual 3D Zelda games. Most dungeons are basically linear paths (or multiple sets of linear paths that can be done in a different order) but the fact that the walls themselves are part of that path mask the fact that your route is essentially a straight line. Keeping the player on a straight line is great for structuring the action and pace, but forcing the player to be constantly spatially aware in both the horizontal and vertical makes for an engaging experience that forces you to think as often as it forces you to react. 

Boss battles are surprisingly great too, I say surprisingly in reference to most videogames having rubbish boss battles and not specifically Zelda. They get down the great formula for boss battles which is to give them a tiny puzzle element and also make them kind of sort of an actual fight. For example, most bosses allow you to hit them basically whenever, and it's a case of ducking and moving and picking your spots as opposed to waiting for the boss to just randomly fall over or something and just wail on them. Don't be mistaken, some of them are still totally like that but the ones that aren't are among the games highlights.

Unfortunately, two dungeons do let the side down. There's a pretty rubbish dungeon that gives off warning signs by forcing you to do a stealth section just to get to it (a disturbingly short one, which I take as an acknowledgement that the designers knew it was rubbish). Inside the dungeon it's a mixture of puzzles that have to done in the dark and using bombs, this is a pain because this is the only dungeon where you regularly have to swap between two items. There is a quick select option, but it is neither quick or selecty enough to make this not feel like work. All the other dungeons are based around one item, giving them all distinct and unique puzzles and vibes, this particular dungeon falls back on the whole "lock and key" principle of more rubbish Zeldas. Some rooms will need you to press a button to use the lantern, some rooms will need you to press a button to throw a bomb, some will need a bit of both. It's always immediately obvious which is which and it's just boring and rubbish.

Oh, and the other one is just a boring ice dungeon where you slip around a lot and have to do a lot of awkward running on narrow platforms which the 3DS analog nub doesn't respond well to. It's not as bad, it just wasn't any fun either. These two dungeons are the only two points in the game where I was failing to have any fun whatsoever.

The overworlds are pretty fun to explore I guess, it doesn't help that it's pretty gosh darn similar/exactly the same to A Link to the Past though. There's a free fast travel system that's basically in place from the start (although you can only fast travel to places you've already been) but I didn't find myself using it that often apart from when I needed to hop back to Links house and straight back to a dungeon. Which is a good sign because I was enjoying all the casual adventuring in between dungeons too, gathering up rupees and looking for little bonuses to find and simply skipping this part out entirely seemed a shame.

There's little niggles I have with it, I don't like how just like A Link to the Past there's a scrolling screen transition between areas. This could possibly be due to some sort of 3DS limitations but since its Nintendo I'm going to just assume the much more likely option that they just did it because that was a thing in A Link to the Past and nostalgia baiting is just part of the routine for them now. It just breaks the map up into tiny areas and makes this "world" feel like it's laid out in a grid. It's fine inside dungeons because you want the separates areas to feel like separate areas, I don't understand doing that on the overworld at all though. Also, when you enter an area that has different music the current music just stops and the new music starts playing, no channel fading, no transition, no nothing. It's a tiny issue but with buckets of Mr Sheen on standby that Nintendo slosh over all their games it's surprising something like that fell through the cracks.

A Link Between Worlds is possibly the best Zelda game that's come out in recent memory, possibly also not-so-recent memory, but I don't care about this franchise enough to commit to that. Basically, it filters out a lot of the boring rubbish parts of Zelda to focus on sweet sweet action which made the series so engaging during its earlier days. It uses compelling action to make the player want to explore its world, and doesn't apologise for it by overcompensation with lots and lots of open fields or "puzzles" or whatever. I had a good time with it and I don't like Zelda, if you like Zelda you probably already have the game and I'm not sure why you're reading this, if you don't like Zelda I'm equally unsure why you're reading this but there's something for you to think about.