Topic: User Impressions/Reviews Thread

@Ralizah While I did really like the story when I first played it on PS4, I was also in the minority in regards to it's gameplay. It's not that I thought it played bad. If I did, I never would have finished it, but I thought Part II's gameplay was on a whole other level compared to it. A big problem I had was I thought the Clickers were way too overpowering, which caused plenty of frustration at times.

Revisiting the game with The Last of Us Part 1 on the PS5 (I got it free via Sony Rewards), I definitely enjoyed it more. The Clickers were still a tad overpowering, but the fact that the game plays smoother now since it's in 60 FPS helped compensate as it allowed me to be better at the combat. Obviously the game and the world look gorgeous now with a lot of small details that Naughty Dog is known for.

As far as the story goes, it is by no means original for the zombie genre. It obviously takes a lot of things from The Walking Dead, but just confining the analysis to video games, I still think it's a pretty good story. It gets ruined a bit near the end now because of events in Part II, at least for me, but I still thought it was a good story overall.

The Uncharted comparisons, while I understand making them since they are both third person cinematic Naughty Dog games, I think is a tad unfair. It can be different in some aspects, especially the stealth parts against the humans. I actually thought the human battles were the best parts in comparison to a lot of the zombie battles. I can't argue too much with the zombie complaints though. To each their own of course.

@KilloWertz The Last of Us: Remastered already had a pretty good performance mode on PS4 that stayed around 60fps, though. All you're really getting from the PS5 version is better graphics.

I don't think the story is bad, it's just not remarkable, which has been the go to claim about the game for a while. Your TWD comparison is apt in this regard. But I don't see people hailing TWD as some immortal, emotional epic of storytelling. The main difference, I imagine, is that an awful lot of people are impressed with ND for turning their video games into ultra-realistic interactive films, and that approach has never resonated with me on its own. I don't see the value in trying to replicate the feel of film/tv in video game form when videos games are already capable of interesting storytelling choices and techniques that are difficult to realize as effectively in other mediums.

I'm of half a mind to play Part II at some point, as I get the sense I'll like it more. Although I've already been spoiled on how most of that sequel plays out, so I'm in no major rush. Also, still not keen on the dog murder in that game.

I'm not saying the combat is identical to Uncharted. It'd actually be way more fun if it was, since, like I pointed out, the combat in Uncharted is much more dynamic. I do think comparing the two properties in terms of their pacing and game design is fair, though, given how similar they are in that respect. My opinion is Naughty Dog's particular brand of cinematic action adventure game design works much better with pulpy action serials than with a horror drama like this.

@Ralizah Silly me for not thinking of that. Then I'm not really sure why I felt like it was playing better. I think the animations are better, but for whatever reason the experience seemed better for me this time around.

TWD got praise earlier on in it's long run. It's not necessarily on purpose, as this isn't the only zombie apocalypse story to do similar things, but running into people that seem good and turn out to be evil and there being groups that formed were two that stuck out the most other than the overall message with Part 1. Even more so with Part II since it's even more of a human story.

As for Naughty Dog, I've loved their games ever since the first Uncharted, so I'm obviously one of those people. A lot of Sony's games are cinematic games actually.

I spoiled myself on purpose with Part II as I was on the fence about getting it after some rumors about the story were out there. I was planning on getting it day 1, but I wasn't sure if I was going to like it anymore or not. I decided I'd still give it a shot so I could form my own opinion even though some of my issues turned out to be true, but my reaction to the second half of the story turned out to be even worse than I expected. While I will always consider it a really good game from a gameplay and technical perspective (a 9/10 solely on those two areas), my problems with the story drag it down at least a notch. At one point late in the game, I almost stopped playing it they had me do something I didn't buy the game to do. It's not the dog killing, as while I obviously don't condone that in real life, I tend not to let stuff like that bother me in games or other media.

I can't say I entirely disagree as Uncharted may be my favorite series of all time, but at least in the second one I would say the gameplay is pretty good in it's own way and definitely better than the first one. I had a better time with the first one this time around for whatever reason, so I'm not on the side that doesn't really care for the gameplay anymore, but again I would say the second one is easily the best in that area. It's actually why I was originally so excited for the remake and then so disappointed with it prior to release as I was hoping for the best of both worlds, which would have put my opinion of Part 1 in line with everybody else. I would agree that the Uncharted series is still their best work even if people will disagree.

Similarities between The Last of Us and Days Gone in a couple of areas turned me off of that more, as the icons for items you pickup and the workbench stuff is all pretty much identical.

@RogerRoger Fantastic review mate. I tend to avoid reading reviews here for games I haven't played yet but I've been split about Gotham Knights due to the mixed reviews and I feel like reading your review helped make me more sure that I'll like the game.

One thing however that I've read about the game that still has me concerned is the traversal. I've seen people say that it takes such a long time to unlock each character's unique ability for traversal (cape, glider etc. that you mentioned) and that feels weird to me because that isn't the case with the Arkham games at all. What are your thoughts on this? Did it take a long time for you as well or were you not bothered by this?

I also have another general question for you. Will you be playing through the game again as the other characters? I don't know if you know the answer to this, but are there even any differences in missions between the characters? Like, are there missions in the game that only certain characters can tackle or can you tackle all missions as any of the characters?

It does feel though that even though the game aims to maintain a steady 30 fps that it doesn't in certain areas and the fact that it was developed by the Arkham Origins developer helps explain why the performance is bad. But like with you, even though I experienced poor performance with Arkham Origins, I still liked the game a lot. WB Games Montréal created a great story in Arkham Origins and I'm sure they did the same in Gotham Knights. I do have to wonder if it's worth waiting for a performance patch before delving into this game. I was planning on buying it at launch but so many great games came out the same week that I had to postpone my purchase of it.

It doesn't help either that I just finished watching season 3 of DC Titans, which starred all these four characters. So I'm definitely in the mood for some more Gotham goodness.

Gets excited to read another @RogerRoger review.... some other time as I'm about to head off to play more Mass Effect 3. It's been a long time since I remembering seeing a review from you.

I did cheat and read the beginning and then go to the end, so I know you highly enjoyed it. Good to see since I do still plan on buying it at some point when it's cheaper. Hopefully by then any technical issues will be better.

@RogerRoger Splendid review; I’m glad you made a return to review writing for this special occasion! Besides being thrilled that the game lived up to the anticipation for you personally, I’m just glad that it’s a good game. Time will tell how it performs and I hope the positive fan buzz gives the game a little boost to make up for the unfortunate misleading first impressions that you mentioned. I think WB/DC shouldn’t have announced the Suicide Squad game and this game at the same time like they did, because not only did it add to the confusion of what each game actually was, it starved this game of some of the oxygen it could have used to build a better pre-release hype. The confusion about this game being a live-service multiplayer game definitely kept me from looking at it closer. Thanks for clarifying that.

We’ll see how the game performs commercially (you’ve sold me on buying it eventually), but I feel echoes of Guardians of the Galaxy — as in, a solid single player superhero game that was just poorly marketed and bombed despite players really liking it. Hopefully Gotham Knights has a better outcome.

And speaking of Marvel comparisons, this game sounds like the game I wish Avengers had been.

Alright. My half of the directory should be updated through the latest review. Sorry for the delay.

@RogerRoger Heh, nice to see the special cameo review. I guess the online reaction to Gotham Knights has really been eating at you, hasn't it?

Probably nothing I'll ever play (like many others, I'm still stuck on wanting a proper next-gen Arkham follow-up), but I do appreciate how you've dispelled some of the popular misconceptions people have about this release, and your passion is evident and appreciated.

The discourse over performance... look, while I fully understand people saying there's no excuse for this game running as poorly as it does on next-gen hardware, I do sometimes wonder how much certain people ACTUALLY enjoy just chilling out and playing games anymore. Like, do these people play a game with performance hitches and throw a fit every time they see a bit of stutter? I do think it deserves to be addressed, but it seems like a shame that the framerate discussion has completely overshadowed the actual content of the game itself.

Those screenshots make this game look WAY better than any of the footage I've seen of it, btw. You still have quite an eye for eye-catching screen grabs.

Triangle Strategy

Platform: Nintendo Switch (now also on PC)

Two playthroughs finished; 82 hours total playtime

Triangle Strategy is a result of a collaboration between developer Artdink and ascendant Square-Enix producer Tomoya Asano, whose creative insignia appears most prominently in the deeply bizarre names his projects carry, also including Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, and Various Daylife (these are all real names, I swear to god). Like Octopath before it, Triangle Strategy makes prominent use of S-E's much vaunted "HD-2D" art-style, which combines pixel art with 3D environments, complex shading, and other modern visual effects to create a unique visual fusion of old and new. The end result is, in the case of this title, something that looks like an evolution of the visual style adopted in many JRPGs on the PS1.

Actually, in many respects, Triangle Strategy feels like a PS1 game that had been lost to time until now, and I mean this as both light criticism and heavy praise. New games like this simply aren't made any more. It's not just the visual style, but the writing and game design itself. Fans of Japanese RPGs, if they're old enough, will remember a time when characters weren't primarily high school students, fanservice was rare and tastefully implemented, humor was more subtle, character designs were detailed and avoided adopting a generic 'anime' look, and one didn't have to suffer obnoxious and frequently misogynistic tropes in order to get to the good parts of a game's story. In this respect, Triangle Strategy is a throwback to the 90s in the very best sense, treating its extensive cast of characters with deep respect as it weaves a story dense with twists and political intrigue.

I mentioned that all of Asano's game titles are bizarre, but they all tie back to integral aspects of the games as well. Which brings us to Triangle Strategy. Trios of things (or trianglular relations) actually feature prominently in the game. The most obvious is its setting. The continent of Norzelia is split between three civilizations: The Duchy of Aesfrost, a mountainous, bitterly cold land in the northernmost portion of Norzelia, which trades in iron mined from its mountain caves and prides itself on being a meritocracy where anyone can ascend the social ladder and better their station in life, regardless of race, creed, or sex; The Holy State of Hyzante, located in a sprawling desert to Norzelia's East, a theocracy which thrives on the export of salt harvested from the only know salt lake in existence, said to have been a gift from the Goddess of Salt; and the Kingdom of Glenbrook, located in the Western part of Norzelia, a land of verdant, unspoiled natural beauty and longstanding feudal tradition where the game's protagonist, Serenoa Wolffort, hails from.

When the game begins, only a few decades have passed since the end of the Saltiron War, a vicious conflict over key resources which enveloped the entire continent, and the political balance of Norzelia is only beginning to truly recover. A transcontinental consortium is established to fairly manage the distribution of salt and iron across the land, and, at the beginning of the game, we learn that Serenoa, heir to one of the three high houses of Glenbrook, is to be married to Frederica Aesfrost, which is as explicit a symbol as any of the friendship between the two civilizations. This fragile balance of peace is shattered, however, when, days before the marriage is to happen, Aesfrost launches a brutal and unprovoked invasion on the capital city of Glenbrook. Serenoa and Frederica escape the capital with the crown prince, Roland Glenbrook, in tow, and are left with the rest of House Wolffort to manage a situation that threatens to plunge the continent back into the fires of war once again.

Triangle Strategy is a tactical RPG in the vein of other Square-Enix classics like Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics, although it distinguishes itself from other games in the genre by reducing the degree of customization and character building available to the player. There's almost none, in fact, outside of being able to equip different accessories, which don't really alter how you approach battles. This might be alarming to people who like to spend a lot of time customizing a party of untouchable death machines, but that would conflict with the very hand-crafted nature of the game, which is all about providing balanced battles that force the player to heavily consider which units they're going to deploy and how to command them. You know... tactics. To this end, the characters you'll unlock throughout the game are all effectively their own unique classes, with most of them playing wildly differently from one-another.

This sort of approach is only meaningful if the maps you play on encourage tactical thinking, though, and this, thankfully, represents one of Triangle Strategy's greatest design triumphs. The map design throughout is some of the best I've seen in the genre, with many featuring their own unique gimmicks that change the flow of battle, and almost all of them are designed in such a way as to force the player to reckon with multiple fronts at once, guard chokepoints, and maintain a constant awareness of the capabilities of the enemy. Almost no flat maps with units puked out at random, as is unfortunately common in series like Fire Emblem and Disgaea. This, combined with balanced character builds and tight combat mechanics that emphasize the importance of positioning and resource management, leads to Triangle Strategy being one of the most splendidly satisfying TRPGs I've ever played on a pure gameplay level.

I'm talking up the gameplay, and rightly so, but one of the distinguishing (some would say 'alienating') characteristics of Triangle Strategy is the premium it places on storytelling, worldbuilding, and other generally literary characteristics. This aspect of the game is at its most brazen at the very start, where the game immerses players in the setting and begins detailing its elaborate nest of character relationships and political intrigue. This is done primarily via cutscenes and dialogues. While most of them are quite short (and most of the non-plot relevant ones are actually optional), the game does sort of bury you in words at the beginning.

Thankfully, this narrative-heavy approach at the start pays dividends as the game progresses, as mid and especially late game chapters can focus entirely on the gripping moral dilemmas the game faces the player with. Early promotion of the game focused especially heavily on the branching nature of the game's storyline, which forces the player to make what at times feel like impossible decisions in order to survive the predations of more powerful forces within Norzelia. This becomes evident early on when an invading force led by Aesfrost's intimidating General Avlora surrounds House Wolffort's demense and demands the surrender of Prince Roland into their custody. Turning him over to Aesfrost seems like an obviously bad idea at first, but it quickly becomes evident that defending your demense from the invading army will be nigh impossible without activating fire traps that'll destroy much of the land Wolffort's peasants rely on for housing and basic survival. Later dilemmas will face players with sometimes far crueler options, testing how far they will overstep basic moral boundaries in order to survive and rebuild in order to take back Glenbrook. Triangle Strategy is at its very best when the player is lost in the painful calculus imposed by these narrative turning points.

How the game handles its branching narrative will be a bit disappointing to some, unfortunately. While choices do make concrete changes to how the story progresses, and the game itself features multiple endings, your choices generally only factor into unlocking alternate chapters that lead to unique battles and story beats. But these always tend to collapse back into the game's primary narrative thread, making them feel less crucial on subsequent playthroughs.

There is actually an exception to this: while most of the endings in this game are determined by a choice made prior to the game's final major divergence point, all of which are various degrees of bittersweet, there is actually a true ending that leads to the game's best and most complete ending, and the player will have to make very specific choices throughout the story in order to unlock it. Unfortunately, while the conditions to unlock it make sense in retrospect, I have no idea how someone would figure out how to access the true ending without any sort of reference to an online guide.

I do want to speak briefly about how the player actually goes about making choices in this game, since the system the game utilizes seems utterly unique compared to anything else I've previously played. Players don't actually technically make any choices themselves on how to progress the story. Instead, different main characters will all initially adopt certain viewpoints about what choices should be made in a situation, and the player will need to have discussions with people of dissenting viewpoints to sway them to their viewpoint. This is generally accomplished by sharing information gleaned from discussions with NPCs that can help to shed new light on specific situations. Once you feel like you've swayed the right characters to your preferred choice, a sequence will play out where the characters actually cast votes for which choice to adopt by dropping tokens into the Scales of Conviction.

While I could see some people becoming annoyed with this method of directing the flow of the narrative, I really enjoyed the layers it added to the game, and how it emphasizes the folly of making decisions unilaterally in a game filled with competing ideologies and personalities.

Triangle Strategy also features a Shin Megami Tensei-esque alignment system. As your character has discussions and makes moral choices throughout, points will be added to invisible meters that influence their emergent philosophy. The ideological axis of this game is Utility, Morality, and Liberty. These meters both influence how much sway you have in conversations during story branching events and affect the order in which the game's wide swath of unlockable characters will join your army. In theory, this will lead to players having often very different experiences on their first playthrough.

Thankfully, one of the many nice quality of life features the player can enjoy in New Game Plus runs is seeing how many points they have in each ideological category, and how many points they need in order to unlock other new characters. The game will also tell the player which conversation choices add points to which category, allowing them to effectively unlock content that eluded them on their first run.

Actually, this game's implementation of its NG+ mode is impressive and thoughtful overall. Setting aside the many new characters the player will unlock as they continue to build up alignment points, new optional battles will also unlock, and making different choices will lead to new battles and story sequences throughout. In many respects, much of my NG+ run felt as 'new' as my initial playthrough of the game.

The focus on replayability is also helped by the reasonable length of the game. In an era of 100+ hour JRPG epics, a single run of Triangle Strategy can be completed in 30 - 40 hours. Potentially less if the player focuses mainly on main story cutscenes and doesn't spend a lot of time messing around with optional battles in order to grind for material to upgrade character skill trees. This makes it much more attractive to play through the game multiple times in order to discover new story content.

Triangle Strategy's visual presentation is ostensibly its biggest draw, but it's one of the few aspects of the release I haven't found myself to be fully enamored with. Triangle Strategy's low-ish resolution and reliance on modern visual effects (such as an aggressive depth-of-field effect) lead to the image often feeling a bit... soft. On my Switch OLED, this gives the game a bit of a painterly look, and the slightly higher pixel density almost allows the game to look sharp on the Switch Lite, but overall it often just looks a bit messy. This isn't helped by the chunky sprite work for the characters, which borders on being blurry on the big screen.

To add insult to injury, this very thoroughly retro-looking game chugs big time whenever a lot of visual effects are popping off at once and the screen is filled with units. So smaller levels perform well, but some of the bigger, grander battles will often look quite choppy at points. That Square-Enix couldn't wring better performance out of a device that is able to play Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Monster Hunter Rise without skipping a beat is... disappointing, to say the least.

The game is also almost fully voice-acted, but the quality of the voice acting itself is mixed. Some of the voice actors turn in incredibly good work, whereas others can sound a bit wooden overall.

All that being said, these complaints mostly stick out to me in retrospect.

I'm far less mixed on the game's amazing soundtrack. Seasoned composer Akira Senju, whose work anime fans might recognize from Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood, brings this war epic to life with a powerful score that really helps to heighten the level of drama throughout. I'll just go ahead and post a few tracks to highlight some of the standout pieces in this game.

Triangle Strategy was a massive surprise for me. What looked like a B-tier budget game for the Switch in a genre I have mixed feelings about turned out to be one of the best games I've played this year, or any year. Despite a small army of nitpicks I've managed to amass, I can't deny that this game utterly gripped me throughout with its story and fantastic gameplay. I'm quite picky about my tactics games, but Triangle Strategy frequently managed to meet or exceed my expectations on a variety of fronts. This was an experience I didn't know I needed, but I appreciate what it added to my life, especially in the wake of Nintendo's frustrating decision to indefinitely delay their release of the upcoming Advance Wars 1 & 2 remakes.

I think I might just stick with the user reviews here as the official ones on this site are now becoming satire. @Ralizah Great review!

@TowaHerschel7 Give John a break, a lot of us enjoy his reviews and the games he plays are never exactly GOTY contenders. For any of us who grew up reading magazines, these are exactly the kind of the reviews that you’d see printed. The core concepts of the game are covered but writing these articles are an art form, you have to make it engaging otherwise you end up with a review that’s incredibly dry and looks like it’s been paid for as an advert gushing about how good the game is. Humour is subjective but you have to recognise that it’s one of the most effective way to engage readers. If you liked the game then congratulations, you liked it. John thought it was OK and gave it a 6. That’s it.

@nessisonett Look buddy let's just agree to disagree. You seem pretty cool, and I don't hate John or anything, it just kind of sounded unprofessional which struck a chord with me, but maybe that's just because American reviews take themselves too seriously?

Sorry about that.

@TowaHerschel7 You’re perhaps onto something in terms of American reviews being less tongue-in-cheek. Our review scene has grown out of the magazines, which often employed satire, cultural references, exaggerated harshness for comedic effect etc. A few of the reviewers on NintendoLife are recognisable from Offical Nintendo Magazine for starters, Chris Scullion worked there for years and is probably responsible for the fact I’m such a big fan of games media. I think Kate Grey worked there towards the end as well, with Matthew Castle who edited ONM occasionally popping onto NL to do a review too. American reviews make me think more of serious newspaper movie reviews like Ebert and Siskel. Nintendo Power always struck me as a far more ‘professional’ magazine than our fan-operated ones for home computers like the ZX Spectrum as well.

@RogerRoger No problem. I still plan on going back and reading more of it at some point as I am still interested in Gotham Knights despite the performance controversy and the very mixed reviews.

Mass Effect 3 is still going pretty well. Some of the side missions are as epic as a Priority mission would be, although I suppose some of them aren't really considered side missions even though I lump anything not labeled Priority in there. Overall, there have been several memorable missions so far (I think I'm around 12 hours in or so). The mission with Grunt and the Rachni queen, since I saved her in Mass Effect 1, was as good as any of the other missions so far.

@RogerRoger More or less. I only have time to have extended gaming sessions on the weekends. During the week, it's about an hour and a half to two hours a day with work and such. Still, I plan on doing all of the missions that I unlock. Ideally I would finish it in time to start God of War Ragnarok in 9 days, but I'm not going to rush. If I can't play it on release day, oh well. The Mass Effect series matters more to me.

@TowaHerschel7 Thanks!

@RogerRoger You're not penning professional pieces for publication (presumably, that'll be the novel you're working on), so I don't see any reason why you'd need to separate your own emotional framework from the review itself!

"Love" is a strong word, but I did enjoy Rocksteady's Arkham games. I'll always prefer Asylum's dense Metroid-style game design, but Knight made some really bold narrative choices and did a great job of realizing a fully open world Gotham to explore. Also, I kinda liked the Batmobile segments. I know City is the popular choice, but I was never fully sold on that game's approach to open world game design.

Still never played Origin(s?). Not out of any snobbish preference for Rocksteady, but, like with many people, I just never got around to it. Maybe some day. I've heard the Wii U port is pretty good, but the downside to that is that I'd have to play it on the Wii U.

In an age of Youtube channels dedicated to technical breakdowns of how video games run on various platforms, the amount of work needed to be an intolerable performance snob has gone down dramatically. Some people genuinely like to use it as trolling fodder, but many more, I think, just enjoy jumping onto outrage bandwagons. It makes people feel good to be angry en masse over stuff. We also saw that recently with the drummed-up controversy over Bayonetta 3.

Not that I'd ever tell someone they need to accept certain performance metrics, either. If you can only play games at 8k120 on an ultrawide HDR monitor, then be free! But throwing tantrums over games not running at peak optimization seems somewhat childish. ESPECIALLY when it's already running up against the edges of what a platform can support in the first place (which, in fairness, shouldn't be the case with Arkham Knights).

Definitely tag me if you post more caps of this game.

As for posting a review, it's a funny coincidence that my own was so close to yours. This year has been... let's call it a lot... so I haven't had the time to do as much writing as I'd like in general. Even my Japanese study has suffered as of late.

Triangle Strategy is a hard game to write about, since so much of what makes it great is wound up in the game's numerous and complex plotlines. For instance, there was no place at all to mention a subplot that runs through the entire game concerning Hyzante's subjugation of a small ancestral ethnic group known as the Roselle, who they work to death in the salt lake as "atonement" for sins apparently committed by their ancestors. Your main character's betrothed, Frederica, is actually a Roselle who is descended from an escaped slave that led a rebellion against their oppression, and she is always quick to remind people not to treat the Roselle like pawns as they strategize about how best to survive. At one point in the game, you're able to successfully lobby Hyzante to aid you in a bid to re-take the capital city, but in return, they expect you to turn over a small community of Roselle who sought asylum within your family's demense decades before. Turning them over means their community will be torn apart, and most of them will die working in the salt lake, but you also risk angering a powerful potential ally in your struggle to wrest your kingdom from Aesfrost if you refuse.

Despite the adorable pixel art characters and diorama-like environments, there's a lot of grounded Game of Thrones-esque drama to be had here.

Anyway, I know the review itself was probably a little technical and on the dry side of things, but I did want to also communicate the design accomplishments of the game. Especially since many are likely to dismiss it as a 'budget' game that'll be inferior to blockbusters like Final Fantasy XVI. And especially since that sort of assessment is actually fairly accurate regarding many of Square-Enix's smaller offerings. This one more than passes muster, though, to the point where it's easily one of the best tactical RPGs I've ever played.

With Euro 2004 on the horizon, EA Sports once again developed a spin-off title based on the international competition. The strange menage-a-trois from the World Cup 2002 game doesn’t return however, with EA Canada being the sole developers. Before we look at this game adaptation of Euro 2004, first a little info about the tournament in real life.

Portugal hosted the Euros for the first time in 2004, with the tournament going down in history for being full of big upsets. At least this time, the upsets weren’t caused by heroin-smuggling referees! Germany, Spain, and Italy all fell during the group stages, with Spain missing out despite being on the exact same points and goal difference as Greece. This was instead decided in Greece’s favour by goals scored, which would prove crucial later on.

For English fans, it was yet another loss on penalties, this time to the hosts, Portugal in the quarter-finals. Elsewhere in the quarter-finals, Greece upset France, the heavy favourites, with a 1-0 victory. This meant that the two semi-finals were Portugal v Netherlands, and Greece v Czech Republic. While the hosts went through to the final with a solid win over the Netherlands, helped by a goal from Cristiano Ronaldo, the Greece v Czech Republic match was a lot more controversial. You see, this was the first tournament to use the silver goal rule. This is a form of extra-time in which if a team holds a lead after the first half of extra-time, then they automatically win. This was seen as fairer than golden goal, in which the game instantly ends if a team scores. So given that the Czech team had won through late goals in two matches during the group stage, when Greece scored in stoppage time of the first extra-time period and won almost instantly, this didn’t give the Czech team an opportunity to possibly recover like they had done in previous matches. Considering that silver goal did not survive past this tournament… it’s safe to say it was a failure. Greece beating the hosts 1-0 in the final was the upsetti spaghetti on top of the scandal cake, although the Greeks did nothing wrong and were deserved winners through both their performances and, well, sheer dumb luck.

You might have noticed that Scotland have not actually been mentioned once. As was the case my entire life until very recently, they failed to qualify for Euro 2004. Scotland actually got to the play-offs through solid performances in their group and took a 1-0 lead into the second leg of their tie with the Netherlands. Unfortunately, they lost the second leg 6-0 because of course they bloody well did. So it was up to my rather blurry and angular Scotland side in the video game adaptation to do our nation proud!

First things first, let’s cover what this game actually brings to the table. There are your usual modes such as playing a single match and the main Euro mode. In a separate menu, there are other modes new to the series such as ‘Home and Away’ in which you play two legs, ‘Fantasy’ in which you draft a team from every player in the game, and ‘Situation’ in which you can choose options such as the current minute, score, number of cards etc in order to create specific situations to play. This mode can be used to recreate real matches for example, which is a pretty cool addition.

Gameplay-wise, this game is a bit like a slightly inferior version of FIFA 2004. The engine is recognisably similar, but it just doesn’t feel as tight. Movement feels a little delayed and sluggish, with tackles returning to be quite inconsistent. Through balls now automatically target players and adjust their power accordingly, which sounds great in theory, but is again inconsistent and actually removes a lot of creativity from the game. The power bar is also closer to modern day, with the player having to adjust their power according to how far from goal they are, instead of just having to avoid the red section which resulted in an overhit ball in FIFA 2004. This sounds like a positive change but is more annoying than anything. Free kicks are badly hit by this change, with them now being incredibly hard to score despite still having the great ball spin system. So a mixed bag.

At least this game is graphically impressive, with an effort made to recreate the climate of Portugal. The lighting is genuinely beautiful, with sunsets looking gorgeous. Unfortunately, I only actually played one match that wasn’t at night and so didn’t see much of this lighting. The game also includes stadiums from around Europe such as Old Trafford and the San Siro that are used during qualifying and in friendlies, with generic stadiums used for other countries. Teams are mostly licensed too, with the teams that qualified having their real kits, except the Netherlands whose players don’t even have names, just numbers. One irritation I did have is that while attempting to grab screenshots through an emulator, it did not like this game at all. Graphical glitches were aplenty, meaning that the definitive way to play was with an original console, albeit only in 50Hz.

In order for Scotland to stake their claim to the Henri Delaunay Trophy, we first had to actually qualify for the tournament. This game actually includes the real qualifying groups rather than randomizing it, meaning that we were in a group with Germany, Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Lithuania. Bizarrely enough, the qualifying stage went incredibly smoothly, with the only loss coming in the away leg against Germany. These qualifying matches were interspersed with friendlies, which were a good way to build up my familiarity with the game before the actual tournament. These matches also served as an introduction to the morale system, which affects players’ stats based on their performance at club level, whether they had been selected in previous matches and those matches’ results, or just ‘personal reasons’ AKA RNG.

With our place in the Euros secured, it was time to pick the squad coming to Portugal. While I did leave out Kenny Miller and Craig Gordon, who will definitely come into play in the 2006 World Cup, the usual suspects were all there such as Rab Douglas and Barry Ferguson, the Ham Man. There was a bit of crossover with the Celtic squad from the previous season but also quite a few players from other Scottish clubs like Rangers and Hearts. With the draw placing us in a group with Bulgaria, Sweden, and Turkey, our chances were looking fairly decent!

It was interesting being in a group with Bulgaria and Sweden as this meant that I was facing Stilyan Petrov and Henrik Larsson, respectively. These two players were invaluable in my success with Celtic and so I knew exactly what they were capable of. Thankfully, the results came thick and fast, with comfortable wins over all three teams ensuring that we finished top of the group and meaning that we would have a more favourable draw in the quarter-finals. Incidentally enough, England made an early exit in the group stage, so we’ll have to wait once again for a meeting with the Auld Enemy!

Slovenia were our opponents in the quarter-finals, a country that I know basically nothing about. I guess Melania Trump is from there? Unfortunately, she wasn’t on the pitch though. This match was a closely fought affair, with the score being 0-0 after 90 minutes. In the 103rd minute, close to the end of the first period of extra time, we were awarded a free kick just outside the box. With a sensational strike from Paul Lambert, we just had to defend our 1-0 lead for the brief few minutes left in the half. The silver goal rule actually worked in our favour here and we booked our place in the semi-finals.

The first semi-final between France and Italy ended in a victory for France, so we were fighting with our fellow group-member Turkey for a place in the final with them. This match again went the entire 90 minutes without a goal for either side, plus both periods of extra time. The only event of consequence was poor Hammy Ferguson being brutally injured. I can only imagine that the Turkish team did not approve of him being made out of a pork product. Unfortunately, this meant we had to face the dreaded penalty shootout. Well, it turns out that I didn’t actually know how to make my goalkeeper dive for the ball and so this came down to sheer luck. When Turkey fired a shot directly down the middle and into Rab Douglas’ mitts, I knew we had a chance. Shaun Maloney’s perfectly placed penalty sent the Scottish fans into a frenzy, we were into the final!

As can be seen from the France team versus our own Scottish team, there wasn’t so much of a gulf in quality, but instead a vast chasm between the two teams. We would need luck, grit, and perhaps laxatives being smuggled into French water bottles to even have a chance. Luck is exactly what we received, with a deflected ball just sneaking past Fabien Barthez and giving Scotland a narrow lead heading into the second half. Theirry Henry and Zinedine Zidane tested Rab Douglas several times with somewhat terrifyingly powerful shots, but he stood firm. When Shaun Maloney balanced a lofted pass on his chest and fired a volley past Barthez in the 88th minute, our victory was certain. He moved past James McFadden to become the highest-scoring player of the tournament and became my new favourite person in the world!

With a nifty photo shoot and trophy ceremony, the curtain drew on an incredible tournament for Scotland. While this may not be the best FIFA game I’ve played, I’ll remember this hard-won trophy for a while yet.

@nessisonett He Ness, just out of curiosity, why do you write up two decade old fifa reviews? Is it a nostalgia trip down memory lane, or are you practicing your review skills? Or, and I’m just putting it out there, is it an act of pure performance art?

@Mr_B021 A mixture of all of the above! These yearly games are often thrown to the side as soon as the next one releases, so I’m finding it interesting to really see how much improves across entries, or if any games feel like a step back. It does help that the games are from a period of time where I could name practically every player in the league, and so nostalgia does come into play. At the end of the day, you can find about a million reviews for God of War, The Last of Us, Horizon etc on sites like these but FIFA games are consistently the highest selling games on PlayStation, so you’d assume that there’d be at least somebody interested!

@RogerRoger Thanks for reading! I’ve still not faced England yet, but surely we’re bound to at some point? Perhaps at the 2006 World Cup! I’ve also realised that there were more FIFA spin-offs than I ever knew about during the mid 00s, so I’m looking forward to covering some genuinely obscure games over the next month. Unfortunately, FIFA 2005’s career mode does a Football Manager and you have to start off at a rubbish team before being hired by a bigger team, so I may have to play a season with Hibs before I can actually get the Celtic job!

Just finished A Plague Tale: Requiem on Series X after 21 hours of playtime. Absolutely fantastic game! Definitely enjoyed it more than the first one thanks to the more captivating plot, varied gameplay and great pacing. It's a very well-crafted game, you could tell that the developers put a lot of thought into each section of the game. When there's been a lot of action, there's usually a break afterwards where you just walk around and enjoy yourself. When you have played for a certain amount of time, a new mechanic is introduced. When you're halfway through the game, an open world is introduced in order to break up the linear structure. The game design is simply top-notch.

My only gripe with the game is that I didn't like how the characters would constantly remind me that it's bad to kill people. I get it, it's definitely the easier path to take so the devs wanted to include some form of punishment for the player if they continuously killed people. But at the same time, they're giving me the option to choose how I want to play and after 15 hours into game, hearing that it's bad to kill started to really annoy me. Not to mention that you get upgrades later on that makes combat easier (as the game is primarily a stealth game) so to discourage you to play in a more aggressive way isn't the best approach in my opinion.

One thing I really liked about the game compared to the previous one is how much more it felt like an Uncharted/Tomb Raider game. More chase scenes, action set-pieces and just overall absurd moments that made you go "WTF IS GOING ON". I feel like I'll remember more moments from this game than from the first one just because of these parts. Really good stuff!

So is A Plague Tale: Requiem GOTY material? I certainly think it is. This is one of the best narrative-driven games I've ever played. Beautiful story, exceptional soundtrack, fantastic voice acting, memorable characters, fun and varied gameplay, lots of awesome (but also sad) moments. Asobo Studio has truly outdone themselves this time. I'd even say that they are better at creating narrative-driven games than most of Sony's own first-party studios. They're that good. This is one series you shouldn't miss out on.

To end off, I'd like to leave you guys with the menu and ending theme for the game: