Category Archives: Main

1-2-Switch Review

1-2-Switch, by its very nature, lacks depth. A collection of 28 minigames brings with it broad appeal in its variety–activities include shooting cowboys, strumming an air guitar, cradling a baby to sleep, and more–but little in the way of long-lasting fun or replay value. Wii Sports faced the same problem 10 years ago, and solved it by basing its party games on real-world activities that were enjoyable in themselves before distilling them to simple, satisfying mechanics that were approachable for anyone and everyone. In swinging for the same pitch, 1-2-Switch misses as often as it hits, but it is nevertheless huge fun in the right environment.

Like Wii Sports, 1-2-Switch exists to demonstrate the capability of the hardware it launches with. Many of its minigames, such as the Harry Potter-vs-Voldemort-inspired Wizard, the swing fest Sword Fight, or the catwalk simulator Runway, seek to show off the Joy-Cons’ impressive motion tracking by wrapping them in quirky and competitive activities, while also being easy to pick-up-and-play on the move.

While Wizard’s TV-based mirroring of your real-world duel means it works well, many of the other motion-based games–especially Table Tennis and Baseball–suffer due to the lack of a visual aid. Hitting a ball between two players is tricky when there’s no ball–physical or virtual–to hit. These games rely on timing and the ability to hear a fastball coming your way, but the timing often seems random, and in a party setting peace and quiet is rarely the most plentiful commodity–more than a slight problem for a party game. This lack of feedback leads to a frustrating loss or a hollow win. Either way, these minigames are the ones relegated to the bottom of the pile. Far better are those that use the Joy-Cons’ motion as a supplement to the controllers’ HD rumble capacity and the TV screen. Safe Crack and Joy-Con Rotation both use the tiny pads’ accelerometers and vibrations to great effect while simultaneously giving you helpful, and aesthetically attractive, cues on-screen.

1-2-Switch really shines, however, when it has you look away from the TV and into the eyes of your opponent. Quick Draw, which tests who owns the quicker trigger finger, and Samurai Training, in which one player must correctly predict the swing of and then catch their opponent’s sword, are both captivating and hilarious in equal measure. These can still suffer in a noisy environment, but the immediately more social and engaging prospect of staring into your friend’s (read: enemy’s) soul as you whack them on the head with a pretend sword is a joy. Locking eyes with an opponent, spaghetti western soundtrack blaring, hand hovering over your trusty Nintendo-branded ‘revolver,’ ears peeled for the “FIRE” command–you could cut the tension with a Joy-Con, and that makes it even funnier when you unintentionally hurl your controller across the room. Serves me right for ignoring the wrist straps, I guess.

1-2-Switch really shines when it has you look away from the TV and into the eyes of your opponent.

Eye contact is also key to a number of 1-2-Switch’s more suggestive games. In a somewhat surprising move for the usually resolutely family-focused company, Nintendo has produced a title whose high points are often centred around euphemisms of–shall we say–‘lewd acts.’ Milk sees you pull on the teats of a virtual cow, Eating Contest sees you hold a Joy-Con close to your face to eat a footlong sub, and Soda Shake has you shaking an imaginary bottle of pop until it bursts, showering its shakers. These minigames are all dressed up innocently enough, of course, but are quite clearly designed to cultivate thoughts of a rather more X-rated nature. Some may call it a vulgar attempt to please both knowing adults and unsuspecting kids with double entendres, but seeing your friends’ faces as they realize what hand gestures they’re making serves up some of the funniest moments 1-2-Switch has to offer.

Unfortunately, even these highlights wear thin all too soon when playing with the same people. 1-2-Switch’s considerable breadth (there are plenty of activities to try) but lack of depth (those activities are mostly shallow) is reflected in its lasting appeal. Every new person I introduced to the game enjoyed their time with it, and my buzz was vicariously renewed with every initiation. But playing any one minigame more than a handful of times with those same people leads to that buzz fading rapidly. The innuendo-laden games suffer most from this since they’re a one-note joke–a funny one, but one-note nonetheless. The only ones to survive the effect of diminishing returns are those that either have a layer of strategy–Samurai Training and Fake Draw (identical to Quick Draw but the announcer will fool you with red herrings like “FRUIT” or “FILE”)–or have a high score component. Even this is a wasted opportunity; no leaderboards or Wii Sports-style skill level trackers mean you only find out what the record for the quickest shot is when you break it, starving 1-2-Switch of any meaningful meta-competition element.

1-2-Switch, then, feels a little like a wasted opportunity. Many of its minigames are duds that are too limited to be fun on their first attempt, let alone their 100th, and the remainder mostly don’t have the depth to maintain a consistent enough high to warrant many playthroughs with the same crowd. There’s no doubt 1-2-Switch should have been packed in with the Nintendo Switch, and the decision to sell it separately goes against every fibre of its varied-but-shallow DNA. But 1-2-Switch, at its best, delivers some hilarious moments. Seeing an uninitiated friend milk a cow, looking into your dad’s eyes as you beat him to the trigger in Quick Draw, and making a fool of yourself strutting down Runway’s catwalk is all amazing fun, even if it is short-lived.

Does it live up to Wii Sports? Not a chance. But that doesn’t stop 1-2-Switch being an entertaining minigame collection–just make sure you’ve got enough willing friends to maintain your own fading high.

Ride 2 Review

When it comes to ambition, it’s impossible to fault Ride 2. It seeks to combine the thrill of riding a motorbike–that sense of exhilarating exposure that comes from hurtling across tarmac without the insulation inherent to sitting in a car–with the form and depth of the likes of Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport.

It’s an admirable goal, an attempt to give bike lovers the same kind of exhaustive outing that car nuts have been spoilt with for years. And considering developer Milestone had the original Ride to gain experience and test the design philosophy, it’s more than reasonable to expect this sequel to offer something slick and highly tuned.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Ride 2 stutters at first gear and that awkward first spin off the line plagues the rest of the journey.

One of the great achievements of both Forza and Gran Turismo is that they instil a sense of aspiration among their players. We want to move through the ranks, to earn cash and unlock new vehicles. These games tempt us to learn new skills and put them to the test across new tracks and against more accomplished opponents, online and off. This aspirational drive provides the motivation for self-improvement and when we’re rewarded for achieving as much we feel good about ourselves. The cycle of effort, reward, and satisfaction is in place.

Ride 2 offers only the effort portion of this cycle thanks to a series of mishaps that consistently undermine your time spent with it. A uninteresting presentation results in muted enjoyment at every turn, the in-game financial model forces you to grind through your career in the most restrictive, stilted manner possible, and despite the huge number of available bikes it doesn’t take long for a sense of repetition to rise to the surface.

No Caption Provided

Individually, none of Ride 2’s problems are drastic enough to be game breakers. In unison, however, their collective impact is impossible to overlook.

The in-helmet camera is just one example of an admirable goal being poorly executed. Racing from this perspective is fine when you’re travelling in a straight line, but as soon as you make even the slightest attempt to turn your entire view is warped in such a way as to create an unwelcome and unforgivable disconnect between what your brain expects and what your eyes are telling it.

Your helmet stays static and straight, even as your bike–visible at the bottom of the screen–leans into and out of corners. This has the effect of making it feel as though you, as the rider, exist in a completely separate space to your bike and you soon develop a distrust of the visuals as a means to communicate whether you should be heavier or lighter on the analogue stick. Not ideal for a game with simulation ambitions.

World Tour is where most of the single player content is stored, its combination of events and challenges tied into a system of earning money in order to upgrade and purchase new bikes. It’s a straightforward affair of the kind that has been seen many times before, but it’s the way its finer points work (or don’t) that prevents it from satisfying.

Upon completing the game’s initial tutorial you’re asked to choose your first bike from a small selection of different kinds, from dirt to road bikes. From there you move on to choose which event you’re going to enter as the first of your career, but there’s no indication as to what your selected bike is eligible for until you’re deep into the multitude of menu layers.

Couple this with an excessive number of loading screens and you’re left with an initial user experience that does everything to convince you to stop playing before you’ve even started to compete. The dreadful voiceover that plays over the World Tour intro video offers little in the way of charm, either, as does the soulless shop housing new bikes.

Individually, none of Ride 2’s problems are drastic enough to be game breakers. In unison, however, their collective impact is impossible to overlook.

Acquiring new bikes is essential to progression and engaging in the potential for diversity that such a broad range of vehicles allows. The problem here is that new bikes are not cheap in comparison to earnings for winning races, and your initial hardware doesn’t keep up with the competition for long. As such, you soon find yourself racing like a menace in order to give yourself a chance at a podium finish and lining your bank account with enough coin to give yourself a sporting chance.

Simply, the fact that you can race so angrily and aggressively works to undermine the core structure of Ride 2 and its attempts at being the real riding simulator. Cutting off opponents to slow them down, purposefully hitting into them when entering corners and using them as a tool to improve braking all works once you’ve grasped the physics model. Of course, you don’t have to engage in any of this but its mere existence is enough to break your suspension of disbelief and cause you to question whether you’re playing an arcade game in simulator clothing.

When you’re out in front and given free track to race through things do feel energetic in a realistic, interesting way, and you’re motivated to improve your skills. As soon as you’re surrounded by competitors, though, the experience devolves into something closer to stock car racing.

You can earn greater financial rewards by increasing the difficulty, but ramping up the AI to its most challenging setting equates to only a five per cent boost in earnings. It’s tempting to simply compete against opponents on ‘Very Easy’ in order to quickly gain enough financial power to buy the kinds of equipment suitable for the tasks levelled at you. Thereafter you can stop worrying about money and race on the difficulty that’s right for you.

But this turns Ride 2 into an exercise of grinding through the easiest and least interesting of races until you reach that tipping point whereby you can begin to play as you always intended. The financial formulas underpinning World Tour need serious attention in order to work properly and allow for the kind of personalised approach that other games using this sort of career progression allow for.

No Caption Provided

Multiplayer is more engaging in that you can bypass those elements that force you to grind your way to a healthy bank account and lock you into a repetitive structure. Here Ride 2 shines slightly brighter, but proceedings only ever reach mediocre entertainment thanks to a physics engine that is not realistic enough to pass for a simulation and not filled with enough simple joy to be an arcade experience. As such you never feel totally convinced that you should dedicate yourself to racing as you would in reality or whether you should be pushing to achieve crazy, impossible feats. This lack of definition is not welcome in the competitive world of online racing.

Just as you try to focus yourself online to one playstyle or the other, you’re either thrown off your bike due to being knocked into during a corner turn or you finish last thanks to being too diligent and professional by making sure you avoid contact altogether. At every corner you’re reminded that this is a game that doesn’t really know how to refine the details of the avalanche of content it offers in the form of tracks and bikes.

Simply, Ride 2 doesn’t make a convincing case for more motorcycle games to be produced. Yes, it is a genre that is underrepresented in comparison to its car-based siblings, but the level of expected quality across racing games as a whole is so high that anything other than an outstanding release is impossible to recommend.

On paper, then, Ride 2 is an exciting proposition that bundles the promises of aspirational game design with the raw power and fun associated with motorbikes. Unfortunately, those promises are broken and the resulting game falls flat. Unless you’re so enamoured with two-wheeled machines that you simply can’t help but pick yourself up a copy, you should wait for a new contender to try its hand at delivering a biking game of this scope.

Star Wars Rebels: “Legacy of Mandalore” Review

Warning: Full spoilers for the episode below.

Considering it was a pretty direct follow-up to the last episode, it’s too bad there was several weeks between the airing of “Trial of the Darksaber” and “Legacy of Mandalore.” Then again, “Trial” was such a heavy, emotional episode perhaps it was for the best to give us a bit of a breather.

Ultimately, if viewed as a two-parter, “Legacy” was the weaker installment, though to be fair, it’s being measured against one of the best episodes the series has ever done. But there was still a lot to enjoy here, as we delved into “modern” Mandalorian society (modern as measured against its portrayal in The Clone Wars) a bit more directly, having only seen certain warrior factions in previous installments.

Continue reading…

For Honor Review

Melee-focused action games have spent years enacting the fantasy of engaging in armed combat, fortunately sparing us the hours of rigorous training and resolve it takes to actually do so in real life. But For Honor, Ubisoft’s third-person weapon-based arena combat game, is different from other melee-focused action games, like Dark Souls or Dynasty Warriors. Its combat system is simple on the surface, but executing its more advanced tactics requires a patient mind, as well as an understanding of its deliberate pacing. There are not many games quite like For Honor; it’s an incredibly entertaining fighter that’s satisfying both in single and multiplayer, even despite the narrative flaws of its story mode.

Its fantasy medieval world is populated by three of history’s most iconic warrior classes: knights, vikings, and samurai. Regardless of which faction you choose to play as, For Honor challenges you to restrain yourself and uphold self-control in the face of strenuous conflict. The elegance of its combat is at times awe-inspiring, easily pulling you into the euphoric highs of a well-deserved victory, where your patience was maintained and your reflexes were on point.

For Honor focuses primarily on one-on-one duels, though fights against multiple foes are common. There are 12 heroes to choose from, each brandishing their own unique weapon and fighting style. While the game’s combat is simple enough to be accessible to beginners, its deep mechanics allow frequent fighters to noticeably develop their skills. It’s only then that each Hero’s strengths and weaknesses are fully revealed. For example, the spear-wielding Nobushi offers a wealth of slow, long-range poke attacks, which when put up against Orochi’s swift sword swipes, transform the battle into a calculated struggle of space management and precision striking. Every moment you spend in combat is rife with strategic possibilities: should you keep baiting an opponent with an attack or dodge? Should you get in close and knock them into a nearby pit? Or should you disorient them by being overtly offensive? For Honor’s combat encourages adaptive thinking, providing substantial depth and balance in its moment-to-moment action and myriad matchups.

At times, putting what you learn into practice is a test of patience, whether you’re playing against human opponents or AI. Fights are slow and measured, demanding you diligently carve out openings through subtle, calculated movements rather than through brute force or button mashing. As a result, you spend as much time–if not more–trying to read your opponent than attacking them. The pace of combat in its initial stages seems clunky and disorienting–especially if you’re used to faster-paced fighting games–but once you grow accustomed to its tempo, it’s For Honor’s most fulfilling and enjoyable quality. Its slow-pace is much like learning a dance; you aren’t adjusted to the choreography’s complexity and speed, but after repeated practice, it becomes a gratifying exercise of muscle memory.

For Honor's combat encourages adaptive thinking, patience, and quick reflexes.
For Honor’s combat encourages adaptive thinking, patience, and quick reflexes.

Aside from a few informational videos and practice sessions, For Honor’s most useful training tool is its single-player story mode–at least for a time. It more or less functions as a long-form tutorial, putting you into various story-driven scenarios that teach you the fundamentals of combat. For example, some stages offer you insight on how certain characters are played and how their special abilities (called Feats) are used, while others familiarize you with some of the multiplayer modes.

Unfortunately, the narrative that links these scenarios together is a nonsensical mess. A warlord named Apollyon, whose intention is to ensure an eternal age of all-out war, instigates the conflict gripping its world. But her motivation is so unclear and muddled that she rarely makes for an entertaining presence. Meanwhile, the battle-hungry ensemble cast tasked with either standing up to or supporting her are marred by lackluster characterization. They provide little in the way of relatability, coming across more as tools to move the story forward than actual living, breathing people. It also doesn’t help that their character models are lifted straight from multiplayer, with recycled, faceless designs that make it difficult to distinguish them from the multitude of other characters.

The story mode's ensemble cast provide little in the way of relatability, coming across more as tools to move the story forward than actual living, breathing people.
The story mode’s ensemble cast provide little in the way of relatability, coming across more as tools to move the story forward than actual living, breathing people.
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

While the story mode is content to act as a multiplayer tutorial, there are moments when it attempts to be more ambitious. For instance, you sometimes encounter set pieces, like a desperate siege against a heavily fortified Japanese castle or a fast-paced chase on horseback. But these moments end up more monotonous than exciting, as they typically consist of repetitive fights against dozens of AI opponents with the occasional objective involving interacting with an object in the environment. The attempt to string together For Honor’s unique take on melee combat with a narrative leaves much to be desired. Its roughly six-hour length effectively teaches you its base mechanics, but it overstays its welcome well before the first half with a haphazard narrative. And due to the simplistic AI of many of the foes you encounter, it’s easy to become more aggressive and complacent in duels, which is a bad habit to bring into multiplayer.

When you tackle For Honor’s multiplayer, there are plenty of modes to dive into. However, the most varied and entertaining of the bunch is Dominion, a 4v4 mode where you and your team cooperate to capture and hold three zones in a battlefield filled with AI minions. Rushing from point to point, defending a zone, or working with your teammates to obtain others is exhilarating. And in the midst of all this, there is always a multitude of emergent moments to experience, like heroically sprinting into the middle zone and slaughtering swarms of AI minions in order to capture a point and turn the tide of battle, or finding yourself cornered on a bridge alone, up against three members of the opposing team. Unfortunately, combat in this mode can become too chaotic when no respawns occur at the tail end of the match; this often causes you and your teammates to mindlessly button mash your way to victory against the last standing hero. Despite this, Dominion encapsulates the sensation of a large-scale medieval battle on a smaller scale, distilling the desperation of a relentless charge and the ruthless sword fights that ensue in its wake.

Elimination mode, meanwhile, emphasizes and amplifies the complexity of For Honor’s team-based duels. It’s uncomplicated in premise: a 4v4 face-off to the death with no respawns. Combat is thrilling and challenging in this mode, especially when it’s solely up to you and a teammate to secure a victory against a full enemy squad. You come to understand not only how to fight against multiple foes, but also how to judge when and where it’s appropriate to do so. Learning this is at times punishing or unfair, as poor environmental awareness in a battle against multiple foes often spells certain death. But when your reflexes and ability to manipulate these factors work in your favor, it’s difficult not to feel an overwhelming satisfaction in how the game makes it possible to win against all odds.

If Dominion demonstrates For Honor’s capacity to create varied and exciting moments, and Elimination embodies the thrill and depth of its team-based fights, then Duel showcases combat at its most tense and absolute. This strictly one-on-one battle mode removes your ability to use Feats, forcing you to rely on the strength of your Hero’s base moveset. The grace of its simplicity heightens the tension of combat, taking the base of its complexities and forming it into something more akin to a traditional fighting game. Duel’s stripped down nature showcases the brilliance of For Honor’s one-on-one combat, elevating its other modes in the process by how it condenses what a duel is into a raw and brief competitive instance.

The sense of community and promise of rewards in Faction War gives you a higher sense of purpose.
The sense of community and promise of rewards in Faction War gives you a higher sense of purpose.

It helps that many of For Honor’s various multiplayer modes are each entertaining in their own right, as playing through them feeds into a cross-platform territory acquisition system called Faction War. As you play matches, you earn War Assets based on your personal performance, which can be distributed to further your chosen faction’s influence. While it doesn’t seem like much, the sense of community and promise of rewards it provides gives you higher sense of purpose.

In terms of performance, For Honor runs smoothly on both PS4 and Xbox One versions with little issues in online stability. The PC version runs well too, even on low to mid range hardware setups. You’re given a slew of options to find the best balance between visual quality and frames per second. This is paramount since the game requires you to consistently run at a bare minimum of 30 fps in multiplayer.

After slaying countless foes, it’s clear the impact For Honor’s combat has had; its fundamental tenets of discipline and restraint are bestowed upon you permanently, forever changing the way you perceive a melee-combat encounter in a game. In its highest moments, For Honor is difficult to put down. Its slow combat pace and narrative shortcomings might turn off those unwilling to take the time to dive deep into what it has to offer. However, make no mistake–those who do will be rewarded with some of the most satisfying multiplayer melee fighting conceived in recent years.

A United Kingdom Review

There’s a difficult tonal tightrope being walked on at the heart of A United Kingdom, the new film from Amma Asante, based on the real life relationship between Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo) and Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike). Beginning in London in 1947, we meet Khama while he’s studying law in Oxford, listening to jazz in classy social clubs and preparing to take over the throne of Bechuanaland from his uncle (Vusi Kunene), who’s been serving as regent over the kingdom in Seretse’s absence. Everything is going according to plan until he meets Ruth one night, connecting with her over their shared love of jazz and undeniable chemistry.

Falling in love is the last thing either of them need, but still they spend their nights walking through London into the hours of the early morning until Seretse finally proposes to Ruth, asking her to go back to Bechuanaland with him as his wife. She instantly agrees as the two begin making preparations for their wedding, but there’s only one problem: he’s black and she’s white. Both of their families disapprove, with Ruth’s father threatening to completely disown her at the news, and Seretse’s uncle trying to force him to abdicate the throne should he move forward with his marriage to Ruth.

Continue reading…

Powerless: “Wayne Dream Team” Review

Warning: Full spoilers for the episode below.

There’s a point in tonight’s episode of Powerless where Vanessa Hudgens’ Emily takes one for the team and spends 24 hours watching the world’s worst, most soul-sucking anti-bullying video. It’s tempting to draw comparisons between that and the experience of actually watching Powerless. That’s a little overly harsh, as the sophomore episode is at least marginally better than the first. But the fact remains that this series is much less entertaining than a comedy set in the DC Universe has any right to be.

Two weeks in, probably the biggest knock against Powerless is that the DC elements still feel so superfluous. One could very easily rewrite the script to remove any mention of the superhero fantasy draft or the “Rumbrella” and have a very generic workplace comedy on hand. If anything, the DC elements are even less prominent than in the pilot. Other than another brief appearance by Jack O’Lantern (a one-note gag of a character who’s quickly wearing out his welcome), this episode didn’t even feature a single hero or villain in the flesh. An occasional name-drop for characters like Batman and Flash doesn’t cut it. If Powerless wants to bill itself as a DC Comics-based show, it needs to make more than the absolute bare minimum effort to be one.

Continue reading…

Fifty Shades Darker Review

At the start of Fifty Shades Darker, the sequel to 2015’s Fifty Shades of Grey, we find our heroine, Anastasia Steele, (Dakota Johnson), working as an assistant at a publishing company for the seemingly great Jack (Eric Johnson). Well, to Anastasia he’s seemingly great, everyone in the audience will know that there’s a villain lurking underneath that nice exterior. There has to be – Jack’s last name is Hyde (as in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.) and Fifty Shades Darker is not a subtle movie.

Directed by James Foley with a screenplay from Niall Leonard and based on the E L James novel, Fifty Shades Darker is the perfect companion to the original movie. Not only is it not a subtle film, there is little to no chemistry between Johnson and co-star Jamie Dornan, who plays Christian Grey, and that’s unfortunate because this is supposed to be some sort of love story.

Continue reading…

Justice League/Power Rangers #2 Review

When you put two uniquely entertaining properties like the Justice League and the Power Rangers together, the sheer fun of the idea allows for a certain level of leeway when it comes to execution. Unfortunately, that forgiving nature all but evaporates in Tom Taylor and Stephen Byrne’s follow-up installment, the book’s limited gains hampered by its disappointingly flat characters.

Given the nature of the read, the book’s familiar case of mistaken-identity-turned-inevitable-team-up is none too surprising. And to writer Taylor’s credit, he makes good use of the initial confusion, the various instances reading mostly true to character. It’s surprising then just how dull these initial interactions are, as despite the many physical clashes we’re treated to there’s never any real sense of drama or escalation. Much of that blasé feel comes from the characters themselves. While true in tone, there are no real sparks to this clash of cultures, or at least nothing that makes their union memorable. Superman and the Justice League treat the Rangers as more intriguing interlopers than true threats, whereas the dialogue for the Rangers, aside from Kimberly and maybe Billy, is more or less interchangeable from character to character. There are a few choice Batman bits involving how scary he is, but even that is offset somewhat by artist Byrne’s bright color palette.

Continue reading…

The Expanse: “Static” Review

Warning: Full spoilers for the episode below.

A dejected, and rejected, Miller hatched a clever new scheme this week in “Static” – a good episode that was engaging and informative, but also somewhat motionless.

A frustrated Naomi blew off steam (thanks to Cara Gee’s “whatshername” character), a guilt-ridden Alex locked himself inside a simulator, and Amos managed to find a way to connect with a captured Protogen scientist in a chapter that felt a lot like a comedown from the massive conflict waged back in the season premiere.

But let’s stick with Miller here. Right when it looked like he’d found a new home with the crew of the Roci, Miller got bounced for shooting Dr. Dresden. An action that we’d find out, later on, was done because the madman was actually making a bit of sense. You know, in a cold and calculating “greater good” way. Anyhow, Miller now found himself undone, from an arc standpoint. Where would he go? Meaning, both literally and figuratively.

Continue reading…

Double Dragon 4 Review

In Arc System Works’ revival of the classic Double Dragon series, we have evidence that some video game throwbacks can be too authentic for their own good. Double Dragon IV is a direct sequel to the NES version of Double Dragon II (oddly not Double Dragon III)–and when we say “direct,” we mean it. This is an odd game that, quite literally, could’ve appeared on the 30-year-old system and felt right at home.

While this might sound great in theory if you have nostalgia for the 8-bit era, reality tells a different story. The original Double Dragon games still hold a special place in many an older gamer’s heart, but they are products of their time. Later side-scrolling brawlers would vastly surpass the primitive action of the series’ Lee brothers. Capcom’s Final Fight and especially Sega’s Streets of Rage would go on to take the mantle of top brawlers in the 1990s, so seeing a sequel to the NES version in 2017 is a bit strange.

Double Dragon IV staunchly replicates the NES games’ graphics and mechanics, complete with incredibly annoying screen tearing and flickering. Characters are crudely drawn, hit detection is sketchy, and the gameplay itself wavers between mindless and unfair. Some enemies stand around senselessly or rush blindly at you, and others start attacking with projectiles before they even appear onscreen. Compared to a modern brawler, the moveset–though slightly enhanced since the early ’90s–is limited. You have a punch, kick, jump kick, and a couple of minor “special” moves like an uppercut. Regardless, you can get through most levels by spamming basic attacks.

Repetition has always been a problem with brawlers, but Double Dragon IV really doesn’t overstay its welcome. Like the originals, it takes around 35 to 45 minutes to complete. Levels are short, transition story panels are slight, and while the scenery changes, there’s not a lot of variety in the level design.

No Caption Provided
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

In light of a few sections that require pixel-perfect accuracy on your part, Double Dragon IV’s stiff controls add an unnecessary layer of frustration to seemingly simple platforming. At one point, there’s an odd level inside a freight ship that includes spiked ceilings and traps, that lead to a lot of annoying instant deaths. Tricky level design isn’t unusual for Double Dragon, but unfortunately, it serves to highlight how sluggish the controls are.

So, Double Dragon IV isn’t a good game in a modern sense, but it certainly is an honest trip back in time that will, if nothing else, offer a heavy dose of nostalgia for anyone with a fondness for the Lee Brothers’ 8-bit adventures. Frankly, it mimics its source material perfectly. It’s a worthwhile historical artifact if nothing else, but absolutely cannot match the vast improvements in gaming since those early days.