Conduit 2 Preview: "...even those burned by The Conduit should watch this one closely"

Donkey Kong Country 2 Preview: "...seems positively milquetoast. The 'returns' is a more honest addition to the title than 'new'..."

Vanquish: "...book a few days off, Vanquish could be a keeper..."

Feature on Harvest Moon, well worth reading.

Feature on Rare after 25 years with comments from surviving staff on each of their games over that time.  More of an obituary than a celebration.

Feature on EA and how they are re-inventing themselves, all while experiencing 11 quarters of downturn.

Feature on Vanquish, including a visit to Platinum Studios.

Scores:

Metroid Other M: 8 "...strength is in the foundations: it builds an enveloping 3D world from straight lines and right angles and ups the gears of its rewarding basics constantly..." (Uhhh.. Whut?)

Valkyria Chronicles 2: 6 "... compromised rather than optimised..."

Mafia 2: 6 (includes massive spoiler including picture) "...cheap thrills..."

Kane Lynch 2: 6 "...underdeveloped..."

Puzzle Quest: 6 "...fossil record of the 16-bit era..."

Ruse: 8 "...expands upon the genre in a way that goes beyond gimmick..."

Lara Croft: 6 "...gets the job done..."

Hawx 2: 5 "...tiresome..."

Ace Combat Joint: 6 "... satisfying combat..."

Scott Pilgrim: 6

Guwange: 8 "...enthralling..."

Shank: 6 "...more style than substance..."

They actually made an original point about Pilgrim which was the cynicism of the project.  They said, "Too calculated to be a truly sympathetic adaption, what SP is missing in inpiration it makes up for -- inappropriately -- with sheer professionalism.  It may be quietly lacking when it comes to ad-libbed charm of the source material, but this is still a detailed and intelligent fraud: a slice of cool, corporate entertainment for an audience that probably sees no contradiction with that notion.

I have not played the game, so I can't agree or disagree with them, but that's some nice writing, and like I said a refreshing perspective.

Well, I get what they are saying, it's actually a damn good point.  The best way I can sum it up is that the concept of the game is like buying a pre-faded Atari t-shirt from Target or Wal*mart.

But I agree with you on the pretention -- in this case they are scoring the game based on the concept of the game and it's presentation rather than how it plays (at least it seems that way).

There are no fancy words in the EDGE review.

I was quite encouraged by their coverage of the Conduit 2, since I was among those who wre burnt by the first one.  It was so good and so boring at the same time.

"brighter graphics" "more interesting locations" "spiritual sequel to Prefect Dark" "more interesting range of gadgets and weapons we've seen for a while" "alternate routes available through each level"

Sounds pretty good.  I'm sure they'll give it a 6

ASK_Story said:

I understood what the reviewer is saying, it's just the way he says it comes off as cheeky, like he's on a high horse showing off how prowess he is.

And to me, you're coming off as insecure.  Perhaps we shouldn't be reading so much into it.

Aspro, that ain't Iga!

It's a big review (2 pages).  But I'll pull some more quotes:

"There's nothing stopping you manoevering a sniper into an advantageous position and using all your command points on taking out an entire platoon..."

"Combat is fundamentally unchanged from the first game."

Okay, here is their main gripe:

"The shift to PSP has necessitated the breaking up of Gallia's battlefields into much smaller chunks, connected by encampments -- which can be captured by either side -- wrest conttol of an enemy base in one rea and you'll be able to start deploying troops in the next.  While this does allow for some dramatic reversals in the tide of battle, as you suddenly find yourself able to drop troops behind enemy lines, it also means that VC2's battle feel cramped and bitty when compared to the scope and scale of the original game.

This is a problem compounded by VC2's stricter cap on unitnumbers.  Once you've divided the maximum number of six units across three different parts of a level, your tactical options in any one area become increasingly constrained.  The result is a game which doesn't feel like it's been streamlined for handheld as much as chopped up to fit inside one.  To make matters worse, the game demands you play on the same maps time and time again -- with little else but variations in enemy placement and slightly reworked objectives to mark missions apart.

While level design has been the major loser in the format switch, it's not the only one.  The original VC' visuals perfectly captured its fantastical, alternate '30's setting, with pencil outlines overlaying a world colored in gentle pastel shades, VC2 keeps the color scheme, but without the hand-drawn aesthetic those soft hues look bland."

That's dumb tbh, instead of treating the separate battle maps as opportunities for more tactical options they feel restricted? Nothing forces the player to divide the units across so many anyway (unless it's some kind of "defend all the bases" scenario, where feeling spread thin is the whole point) they can just fully take over the areas one by one, the enemy can't repopulate if you've captured all the flags and then defend the other side. You can also spend CP to remove units and add new ones to reinforce areas that need it more, if you make one bad choice of units that doesn't mean you have to stick with it and you can also just end each unit's move with it exiting the map via the flag, which means for the same CP as always you can use more units per turn than the limit of 6 allows...

The variety of the maps is understated as well, you often find yourself back to the same battlefield (say, a town called Yuell or whatever) but sometimes the battle takes place only in two areas of it, other times it's a struggle across 4 or 5, and the routes in each can also vary with different obstacles you may or may not be able to overcome depending on your gear (like if the tank is equipped with ice or rock breaker parts, or a repair arm that can fix bridges) or even the enemy installations as things like turrets, bunkers and bosses will cause big changes...

Objectives can also completely change the pace of the battles. It's one thing to need to take over 5 flags or 1 particular base in any way and order you wish, mixing and matching your units deployed, and a completely different thing if it's an escort mission where an APC has to reach a given destination safely without the ability to redeploy it at any flag you wish meaning you have to conventionally traverse all the fields in your way while keeping it safe. I've been playing for 40 hours and I don't feel like I've done the same mission twice, saying they're so samey because they're in the same vague area is like saying that going to gather mushrooms or other materials in Monster Hunter Tri's Flooded Forest area is the same as going in there to hunt a Royal Ludroth instead...

And yeah, PSP game doesn't look as good as PS3 game, no shit... The game looks nice.

Well I can't comment on specifics since I have never played any VC game outside of an awesome demo but I think argument made in EDGE is clear, for those that played the original, this new one feels like a lesser version of VC. It seems like the game is still great but when compared directy to the original its not as good. Which is the main problem, a sequel should be better. I am not saying they should have never made a PSP game, they could have made VC Portable, and make it the same game you have. BUT also make VC2 on the PS3 and make it a bigger and better game as sequels are supposed to be.

Clearly this was a buisness decision and that is a different manner entirely.