Topic: User Impressions/Reviews Thread

@RogerRoger Yeesh, that must have been a lot of work. I appreciate the help!

I'll adjust the formatting for the early reviews on my end as well, since we lost another member.

@RR529 A little late to the party, but I'm a little concerned that you weren't able to get Stray running at a stable 60 fps on a (albeit mobile) RTX3070.

Presumably this at 1080p?

Did you experiment at all with the settings, or with a lower resolution?

I also use a gaming laptop, but with an RTX2080 Max-Q. Having accepted that it's nowhere near as powerful as my PS5, I regardless expect it to give me a solid 60 fps 1080p for the next couple of years of games, and it is my preferred platform over the PS5 despite the power difference. However if I can't achieve 60fps I suppose I'll go with the PS5 version.

Maybe the game is just poorly optimised for PC?

@Buizel You can run this at 1080p/60 with a GTX 970 if your CPU and mobo are decent, so i wouldn't worry too much.

An RTX 2080 will be absolutely fine for gaming for years to come if you're not going for 4K and/or raytracing.

@Ralizah Hmm okay, perhaps I'll just pick it up one day and see how it runs. Luckily the Steam return policy is fairly reasonable.

@Buizel That's probably your best move.

A lot of people complained about not being able to hit 60fps on Elden Ring as well on their fancy 3060s, but my ancient 970 maintained 50+ fps through the majority of the game at 1080p on high settings.

Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time (Impressions after 4 hours)

It’s about time I talked about Crash Bandicoot 4. I have wanted to play this game since its release in September 2020. So, when it launched as a part of PS Plus Essential’s monthly games for July 2022, I jumped at the opportunity to try it out.

“Only if this f*cking camera!”

This was my first time playing a Crash Bandicoot game and I honestly didn’t know what to expect. I knew the games were renowned for their difficulty — less to do with figuring out the way forward and more to do with landing precise jumps — but not much else. I figured that since I had played and beat Celeste, maybe Crash 4 wouldn’t be so much of a challenge. Boy was I wrong.

Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time is not an easy game. At first glance, the jumps look simple enough to make. Enemies and hazardous objects are clearly visible, leaving it up to the player’s skill to decide whether they can move forward or not. Simple enough right?

Well for veterans of the series it might be, but for someone like me who has never played a Crash Bandicoot game — or any hardcore 3D platformer for that matter — there was one obnoxious obstacle to overcome. The camera.

3D platforming just doesn’t come so easily. Depth is a big issue here, and on many occasions, I was unable to tell how far into the environment I was jumping. Another stumbling block of the behind-the-back is the player’s ability to judge speed. Since Crash is moving “into the screen”, it is hard to tell how fast he is moving. This can lead to the player overshooting or undershooting their target, without being able to do anything about it.

At first, I revelled in this newfound challenge. It was annoying for sure, especially given that I had to restart from the previous checkpoint — and not from the beginning of the room like in Celeste (a game that you will see me referencing many times despite their vast differences). But I found myself persevering, again and again, to clear the single jump that was holding me back.

Unfortunately, for me at least, as I progressed further into the game, my gripes with the camera and my inability to adjust to its unique characteristics meant with each death I was becoming more frustrated with the game. While previously I followed each death by slamming the side of my first into my desk, I now found myself simply saving the game, and playing something instead.

Crash 4’s camera just went from a mildly infuriating nuisance to a serious put-off.

When it works, it works.

I know I just rambled about the annoying camera, but let me go ahead and contradict some of that. When Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time works, then oh boy does it work. Some levels can be played swiftly and fluidly. Spinning into a clump of crates transitions fluidly into a jump over a pool of water. It’s in these moments that Crash 4 shines. The game manages to keep hold of its difficulty and challenge without the camera inhibiting the player from fairly attempting these jumps.

Crash 4’s camera is also not a hindrance during the game’s side-scrolling sections. While these usually consist of simple enough jumps, they are spiced up with level-specific features like vines to swing on and fires to slide under. They may not be as challenging as the normal sections, but they provide a nice change of pace from Crash 4’s more frustrating moments.

I enjoyed the boat driving sections in this game. Crash moves much faster here, and while both interactivity and challenge take a nose dive in these parts, just like the side-scrolling sections, they serve as an oddly serene and slow moment that at times is much appreciated in a game like this.

My first exposure to Crash Bandicoot in the form of actually playing it and not watching a video was in Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End, where Nate challenges Elena saying he can beat her high score. You got to play a level of the original Crash Bandicoot game from 1996, and it was one where you were running towards the camera and seemingly out of the screen — a chase sequence if you will.

And while I don’t have any strong memories about that experience, it was forgetful if you will, that is certainly not the case with Crash 4’s very own chase sequences. These sequences require quick reactions and split-second decision-making, much like some of Celeste’s later levels where you don’t know what jump or obstacle is coming up next.

Crash 4 throws almost everything in the book at you here, all the while ensuring Crash moves at a rapid pace. These sequences were one of the most enjoyable and memorable parts of the game, and I wish they took place more often.

Visually stunning environments.

The environments that play host to Crash Bandicoot 4’s levels are simply beautiful. I reached the game’s 4th main level, Tranquility Falls, and I have to say every single level before and this one included has some of the most jaw-dropping environments of any game I have had the honour to play.

Each island is visually distinct and has a charm of its own, from the tropical forests and sandy beaches of N.Sanity Island to the loud mechanical mines of The Hazardous Wastes. But my personal favourite was the pirate-themed Salty Wharf.

Just take a gander yourself:

Isn’t it a sight to behold? The use of colour makes everything POP! out of the background, with the precise path laid out between wonky shapes and crazy designs bringing order to the seeming chaos. Everything just seems so random but works so well in practice.

The Salty Wharf introduces you to this village area by bringing you out of the starting cave on a grind rail that dips and flows through the crests and troughs between rock and house. With nothing but water underneath you, Crash 4 forces you to pay attention and keep your fingers on the buttons, making every glimpse you get of this awe-inspiring sight more worth it than the last. And, if you kept on dying like me, you get to do it all over again.

A twist on boss battles.

Just like every game in existence, Crash 4 features boss battles. Celeste was a game where I did not want there to be boss battles, and the ones that were there certainly weren’t my favourite parts of the game. I felt adding boss battles to a platformer took away from the game’s real appeal — the platforming.

But, in Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time, I goddamn loved the boss battles. At least the two which I played — Dr N. Gin at the end of The Hazardous Wastes island and Louise at the end of the Salty Wharf island. Both were fun because they were more about the platforming aspects of the game than about actually fighting the boss.

My favourite of the two? The Dr N. Gin fight.

This boss battle sees you having to jump, slide, and spin your way through three different waves of enemies, running forward and spinning into the boss after each wave was outlasted. This was fun because you were partaking in fast and fluid platforming, not boring combat in the move-hit-move-hit form.

And just like all other levels in the game, the stage for this elaborate dance was exquisitely crafted and stunning to look at. I seriously cannot understate the creativity and passion the designers at Toys For Bob put into the creation of this game's tens of levels and enemies. They are some of the most visually diverse and interesting I have ever seen.

Odd choice of progression.

Before we wrap up, let me quickly talk about the game’s progression system. Or should I say its lack of one? Well, maybe that’s not entirely true. Crash Bandicoot 4 has a progression system. It’s just that it’s insanely difficult to move through it.

Crash 4’s progression system comes in the form of new skins for Crash and Coco. These can be unlocked by, wait for it, collecting all 6 gems in each level. But it’s not so straightforward because to earn each gem you have to complete each of these challenges. Gameranx has them listed out for us:

• 20% Wumpa Fruit Collected
• 40% Wumpa Fruit Collected
• 80% Wumpa Fruit Collected
• 100% Crates Smashed
• Die No More Than 3 Times
• Find Hidden Gem

That means to unlock a new skin for Crash or Coco, you have to play through the level as them and basically 100% every aspect of it while finding the hidden gem and not dying more than 3 times. For someone playing the game for the first time, this is a steep hill to climb, and one that most players won’t be willing to do.

This meant that 4 levels or 4 hours into the game, I was still playing as Crash and Coco with their default skins. To some extent, I understand why Toys For Bob did this. It rewards the most skilled and dedicated players for thoroughly beating each level. But the vast majority of people who either don’t want to or are unable to pull this off, are left with no form of progression regardless of how far into the game they are.

. . .

Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time seems like great fun. The platforming is fluid, the environments are gorgeous, and the levels engaging. But the iconic marsupial’s latest outing is not without its flaws. A frustrating camera, some steep difficulty curves, and an almost non-existent progression system prevented it from really clicking with me.

I have my gripes with Crash Bandicoot 4, and while I enjoyed most of my arguably limited time with it, it wasn’t enough to stop me from putting down my controller and not returning to it for weeks.

For now, the game is behind me. But I look forward to a point in future when I realise it’s about time I returned to Crash Bandicoot 4.

@DominusPlatypus good review . i wouldn’t recommend the old crash games either to anyone who’s easily frustrated . i beat the n sane trilogy and never wanted to play it again

crash may be having a sonic situation where his games just fit better in the past but i could be wrong

@DominusPlatypus Nice write-up! The camera angle adopted in these games has always seemed like the worst possible one for a 3D platformer, so it's nice to see that frustration echoed in your experience with the game. There are so many aspects of the series I know I'd have to rip apart if I ever actually seriously sat down a completed one of these games.

The progression system does sound extremely weird. I have heard that this game has nightmarish platinum trophy requirements, but I'm surprised to hear that even just the act of playing through the game normally is tedious.

It IS very pretty, though! Games like this and the new Ratchet and Clank titles make me wish Sony and Microsoft would double down on using the grunt of the next-gen hardware to create more truly stunning 3D platformers, as, IMO, stylized art-styles benefit dramatically from the jump in tech when effort is put in to make them look nice.

Finally finished Guardians of the Galaxy today! Won't post a proper review for a bit because writing takes time but right now all i'm gonna say is that it was an utter delight from start to finish. It was emotional, funny, charming and most of all, fun. It utilised odd, cool and obscure marvel comics characters like Fin Fang Foom, Lady Hellbender, Adam Warlock, Ruby Thursday and Cosmo the Space Dog really well and made them feel like characters instead of cameos to check off a box. The writing was tight and the action was fun but the boss fights sucked. Other than that, amazing game!

Didn't think I'd complete this game anytime soon considering I started it up months ago, decided to restart it halfway through by playing the vastly better remastered version and then lost interest since I didn't feel like playing the same missions over again. But I've finally finished Grand Theft Auto: Vice City! I'm really glad that I dropped the original Xbox version which ran poorly and started playing the Series X version which is so much better. I didn't like Vice City that much originally but due to this better version, I actually enjoyed it a lot.

So what did I think about the game? Well for starters, I think it's overall better than GTA 3 in a lot of ways. The story missions were more fun and varied, not to mention less frustrating than GTA 3's. Having a checkpoint system in the Series X version also made the missions less frustrating in general. Moreover, the 80s setting of Miami is absolutely lovely and listening to a soundtrack full of classic tunes was a delight.

What I didn't like about the game is the properties. The fact that you have to buy six properties and finish each one's missions in order to unlock the final story mission was very annoying. I basically had to grind for money after every couple of missions, which bogged down the experience severely. Not to mention that you could potentially miss out on some very cool missions if you don't purchase certain properties. I had to use a guide for the last half of the game in order to find out which properties had these missions. Otherwise I would've just skipped over a few and missed out on several missions.

Granted, it did feel nice to have so much freedom to choose which missions I wanted to do next instead of having to do all of them in a certain order. But I can't help but feel that you could miss out on so much content because of the way the second half of the game is structured.

One thing I want to mention though is that I feel like Vice City is rather overrated. It is a good GTA game but it's nothing more than a reskin of GTA 3. It doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from that game. It's not like the jump from San Andreas to GTA IV, or GTA IV to GTA V. The story wasn't all that captivating either and the missions felt like your bog-standard GTA missions. And because of property missions, half of the story missions felt disjointed. Even the world felt smaller than the one in GTA 3. Simply put, the game didn't blow me away as I expected it to do when going into it.

So all in all, I enjoyed Vice City a lot and I like it more than GTA 3. But to me it's an overrated game as it doesn't do anything special. An 80s setting isn't enough to differentiate a game that shares so many similarities to its predecessor. To sum it up: it's basically more of the same, but better. And that's honestly good enough for me as I love GTA.

@LtSarge Nice write-up.

I feel like one reason Vice City caught on so much is that Rockstar injected it with a sense of personality that was just missing from GTA 3. Same with San Andreas, actually, although that was also different in a number of ways from its predecessors. Both sequels had much funnier dialogue, more interesting characters, and made better use of color than GTA 3, which felt very... drab, IMO.

And yeah. the 80s theme was popular. Granted, you see a ton of nostalgia for 80s American culture now, but back when this came out, there wasn't necessarily this deluge of such content.

@Ralizah I wouldn’t say that GTA 3 was missing personality per se, it just wasn’t as in your face. The humour’s a bit darker, like the Kyle McLachlan missions where it slowly insinuates he’s a cannibal. There’s still plenty personality, it just takes a different form, which is mostly Mafia caricatures and that also applies to the dull colours and abundance of skyscrapers in a clear effort to reflect the style of those movies around that time. It still has some of the goofy stuff obviously like basically everything Maria gets up to or the radio talk shows though.

@LtSarge There is a very good reason why Vice City feels like a reskin of the third game, as it was only released in 2002, the year after. Development starting just as 3 was finished in late 2001.

Personally, I think it is an outstanding achievement all things considered! I am a bit biased towards towards the games though, as I can remember being totally blown away by them at the time.

Thanks for the review! I do plan in eventually getting round to the remasters eventually as I hear that most of the bugs and glitches have been fixed by now.

@Ralizah Thank you!

I have to agree with @nessisonett, the personality was certainly there in GTA 3 but it just wasn't as explicit. It didn't help either that the world of GTA 3 wasn't as aesthetically pleasing as Vice City. Although Tommy Vercetti is a much more interesting protagonist than the one from GTA 3 (obviously).

@JohnnyShoulder Yeah that's what I thought and I don't mind that. I think Vice City helped popularise the franchise even more after GTA 3, which is great. I would've probably liked the game even more if I had grown up with it, but alas I missed out on that time.

Your welcome! That's actually one thing I didn't mention in my post but considering I didn't mention it, you could probably figure out that I wasn't bothered enough by bugs/glitches to bring it up. Which is true! I only experienced some visual bugs here and there but nothing that impacted the gameplay. So I think it's safe to say that Vice City works great now, at least on current-gen systems.

2001. Officially The Future™. While there unfortunately was no actual space odyssey in that year, we did get to see the first movies in the Harry Potter, Fast & Furious, and Lord of the Rings franchises. The year also gave us Kylie’s Can’t Get You Out Of My Head and Shaggy’s It Wasn’t Me (yes it was Shaggy, you cad). More than anything, 2001 delivered crimes against humanity such as 9/11, The War on Terror and DJ Ötzi’s Hey Baby.

FIFA 2002 smacks you over the face with Noughties nostalgia as soon as it boots, with Gorillaz’ 19-2000 accompanying a seizure-inducing cacophony of footballing scenes. This culminates in a strange slow-mo pan around Thierry Henry, the cover star. The menu’s a rather drab affair in comparison, with barely any fluff. You’ve got season mode, kick-off, and various cups, all set to generic techno. No EA Trax here, folks!

Gameplay is a lot better than FIFA 2001 although still a bit odd. The best change is obviously the inclusion of a power bar, although it has basically three modes depending on where in the bar it lands – tickling the ball with your toes, a regular shot, or blasting the ball at 400MPH into the stratosphere. The power bar is also used for passes, which are completely manual and allow for creativity such as long through balls. Deadball situations are mostly unchanged from FIFA 2001 however. The bicycle kick exploit is also patched out, meaning no records are being broken by Larsson this season!

On the defence front, tackling is either ‘bash them off the ball’ or ‘send them to the mortuary’. As was customary in these early titles, you can also absolutely annihilate goalkeepers for no reason other than watching the red card cutscene. To be honest, you’ll spend most of your time mashing Triangle to sprint after the ball, with the occasional Circle to boot the other player in the shins. With the basics covered, let’s see how Celtic’s 2001/02 season went.

In real life, Martin O’Neill’s Celtic squad were coming off a treble-winning season, just like we achieved in FIFA 2001. During the summer, they did lose players like Berkovic to Man City, and Alan Stubbs to Everton, but they also had a brilliant crop of players coming in. Steve Guppy rejoined O’Neill for about the millionth time like a budget stalker, fan favourite big ol’ bloke Bobo Balde arrived from Toulouse and John Hartson, everybody’s least favourite pundit, signed for £6 million. So with this new squad, did results go our way? Well, to start with… no.

While it’s easy to blame my lack of skills and attempting to get to grips with the new systems for the 6-3 defeat to Rangers in the first Old Firm of the season, I blamed my defence and goalkeeper like a good manager does. Something had to change other than taking a rusty machete to 5-goal scoring Claudio Caniggia’s knees. It was time to explore the transfer market.

As I quickly learned, the market is not sophisticated. At all. Like a dodgy pawnbroker, if you have the money then you can buy anything you want. No such thing as club reputation or player loyalty. So Celtic were now the proud owners of Oliver Kahn in goals and Roberto Carlos in defence/on free kicks. The results quickly came pouring in, aided in no small part by the giant German wall between the posts. Larsson (42 goals) and Sutton (36 goals) proved just as lethal at the other end, along with a surprisingly prolific Neil Lennon (22 goals), complete with bleached blonde hair that was scrubbed from my memory.

This stellar form meant Celtic overtook Rangers in the league in March, along with knocking them out of the cup in the semi-finals. The Scottish Cup final against Hibs (shortened to Hiber annoyingly) was a tense affair, with the score being 2-2 going into extra time. Stilyan Petrov secured the trophy for the second year in a row with a screamer that… ended the match. Apparently Golden Goal was still a thing in 2001. With the league and cup secured, all that remained was the Champions League. Unfortunately, the season ended in tragedy with a semi-final against Juventus decided on away goals. 2-2 away and 3-3 at home ensured Celtic went home empty-handed. David Trezeguet scored all 5 goals for Juventus, meaning he is now on my kill list. Heartbreaking.

All in all, it was a successful season for Celtic, having won the league and Scottish Cup despite early jitters. Martin O’Neill’s job is safe for now. The game is honestly pretty decent as well, with the manual passing adding an element of user skill missing from other similar games. We’ll just have to wait and see how Celtic fare in the next season. First, however… there was another game released that summer by EA. Looks like Scotland are going to World Cup 2002!

@RogerRoger Cheers, I’ve been working on it off and on and the World Cup 2002 review should be up soon! It takes longer than I thought to play a whole season 😂

@nessisonett Well-written piece! Granted, most of it is wasted on me, since I know as much about soccer as I do about Martian square dancing rituals, but it was an enjoyable read nonetheless, since you infused it with your own personality and voice.

It's heart-warming to see someone play these ancient sports games, btw, which seem so disposable and unloved.

@Ralizah Hahaha, I know that it’s a bit of a niche topic on a site like this but it’s been fun taking a look back at these games. Thanks for reading and there’s more to come!

Bonus review time! With the 2002 World Cup on the horizon, EA Canada, of SSX fame, led a team of two other studios to develop a game based on the forthcoming tournament. The first of these was Software Creations, known for the many cult classics developed by the Follin brothers such as Silver Surfer, Ken Griffey Jr’s MLB, and Spider-Man & Venom: Maximum Carnage. The second studio was Intelligent Games, known for rather less classic titles like Lego Stunt Rally and Tweenies: Game Time. So does this game justify this trio of eclectic developers? It’s hard to say.

Presentation-wise, the game opens with a fittingly epic intro full of pomp and bombast. This, and the whole game in fact, is accompanied by the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, which gives it more of a Quidditch World Cup vibe than the real World Cup. Not enough drunk English fans slurring their way through Sweet Caroline. The graphics are largely unchanged from FIFA 2002, although the World Cup stylings throughout the menu and match intros bump it up a notch.

In terms of gameplay… well it’s odd. While controls are identical to FIFA 2002, the faster pace and steep learning curve feel more like the later FIFA 2003. The power bar’s issues remain as well, with the same miniscule difference between the ball trickling across the grass and the ball flying directly into some poor sop in Row G’s nachos. I’m not convinced that you can ever really get to grips with the gameplay on higher difficulties (I played on Professional difficulty, the second highest).

Before we get into Scotland’s shot at glory, a quick aside about the tournament in question. The 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup was one of the most controversial in history. Refereeing in particular was questionable at best, utterly corrupt at worst. Take the Ecuadorian referee Byron Moreno for example, who officiated the South Korea v Italy match. He completely ignored several violent actions from South Korean players while sending off Francesco Totti for a dive despite being about 40 yards away. This is the same man who was caught and jailed after smuggling 6 kilograms of heroin through JFK Airport in his underwear. To say it was one hell of a strange tournament is an understatement. However, this game was released before the tournament and so doesn’t actually resemble the tournament in the slightest. No dodgy referees and a sense of optimism make the video game a more palatable way to relive this World Cup!

Seeing as Scotland didn’t actually qualify for the World Cup in 2002, it’s a stroke of good luck that they’re even in this game. In fact, they’re one of only nine teams featured that didn’t qualify. This does mean that another team must have missed out when Scotland were drawn into a group though. The other three teams in Group G were Japan, Russia and Tunisia. Luck was clearly on my side. It’s important to note that Scotland’s team in this game is utterly dire however, with the highest rated player being Barry Ferguson, a man seemingly made up of 95% cured ham. Our chances were slim even in one of the worst groups in World Cup history.

The first match of the group stage was against Japan. Attempting to get to grips with the engine changes from FIFA 2002 meant this match was a drab affair involving Scottish players passing the ball to nowhere and shots flying towards the corner flag. Luckily, the Japanese AI also apparently didn’t understand the rules of football. Thanks to a lucky strike from Hammy Ferguson, Scotland went top of the group with 3 points.

Next up was Tunisia. The less said about the 0-0 draw, the better. Embarassing. This meant that the final match with Russia would have to be a victory to ensure a place in the round of 16. Thankfully, the stars aligned and 2 incredibly scrappy goals were all it took to make sure Scotland went into the knockout stages after topping their group.

In the round of 16, Scotland’s opponents were China. Yes, China. Authenticity is not a selling point for this game. Needless to say, the goalkeeper was not challenged. One goal was all it took to see them off. Unfortunately, the draw for the quarter-finals landed us with France. The France team that included Henry, Zidane, Thuram, Trezeguet, amidst many, many others. Trezeguet was still on my kill list from FIFA 2002 and so this was a must-win game for multiple reasons. While Henry came incredibly close to ending Scotland’s dream early on, half-time approached with the score level. It would take a miracle to edge out the France squad. The messiah came in the form of Mark Burchill, who my mum actually knew growing up as she made her First Communion alongside his older brother, funnily enough. His slightly unrealistic volley in the 74th minute meant we just had to hold on. When the final whistle blew to signal our advancement to the semi-finals, I scratched Trezeguet’s name off my kill list. He will forever have to live with the shame of being beaten by a team which resembled Madame Tussaud’s after a chemical fire.

Lo and behold, our semi-final opponents were Brazil. The real-life winners of the tournament and the one dry patch in a wet fart of a World Cup. It first looked as if dreams would come true after the Ham Man himself, Barry Ferguson, scored a stunning strike from outside the box. Alas, the clearly much better Rivaldo ended that dream with two clinical finishes. The journey was over. Until the third-place play-off!

Our one shot at any sort of glory in the World Cup pitted us against a fantastic Croatian side. The fans held their collective breath. The mascots covered their eyes. The odd noodle shaped wobbly things you get at petrol stations stood still. 90 minutes later, Scotland collected their third-place medals thanks to good old Mark Burchill scoring two admittedly horrible goals. To be fair, this was a supremely terrible side finishing in third place in the most prestigious tournament in the world. You wouldn’t see this in real life. So who played in the third-place match in 2002? South Korea and Turkey. Perhaps this game is more realistic than first thought.

So could you recommend this game in 2022? Honestly, not really. While the World Cup 98 game is a classic thanks to Blur's Song 2 and being able to play as all 172 FIFA-registered teams, this game restricts you to a select few unqualified teams and omits the qualification process entirely. It certainly doesn't justify the 'dream team' of developers working on it. I expect we'll see improvements being made in FIFA 2003 however, as we move onto a new and refined gameplay style!

@nessisonett Just commenting to express my enjoyment of your reviews. The FIFA games hold minuscule interest to me, yet I read because you have an entertaining way of describing them. Also, like others have said, I am fascinated that you would go back to these old annualized games and actual play them with a critical eye.