Five bucks, thirty bucks, whatever. I had a hankering for some sci-fi and, to put it simply, Mass Effect 3 delivered. As in the franchise's last installment, it's not without its flaws - you may have heard of a bit of a dust-up over the ending - but personally I came away from it very satisfied.

I was worried at first, though. Mass Effect 3 does not put its best foot forward; when the story begins, as the Reapers come to Earth, what should be a both emotional and bombastic scene is instead a hand-holding tutorial. And the next several sequences continue to hold your hand through heavily linear plot points, none of which are particularly interesting or relevant. But in time, ME3 does develop a much more open-ended structure, similar to ME2, where enough optional (yet still meaningful and engaging) side-quests are sprinkled between plot events to keep the galaxy from feeling too claustrophobic.

Gameplay-wise, if there are differences between the ME2 and ME3 experiences, I wasn't able to pick up on them. (So if you hated ME2's departure from the classic-RPG complexities of the first game, you'll find no solace here.) There are new enemies, some of which are really fun to fight, and some of which are the most annoying things in the history of forever; but by and large, it's the same deal as last time, which is pretty good. Personally I've never wanted to play as anything other than the sniper (Infiltrator) class, and headshotting alien dudes from across the map is as awesome now as it's ever been.

And then there's the, uh, Multiplayer. What's surprising about this isn't how it feels relevant to the campaign (it doesn't), or how it respects the player's time and money (it doesn't), but how it isn't terrible. There is actually some fun to be had here, in the same way that any other recent game's Horde Mode can be entertaining for a few minutes at a time. I can't see how anyone would care enough about it to put real money into randomized character bonuses, or even to play it long enough to get the full Galactic Readiness bonus out of it (which deteriorates over time!?). But I played enough matches to get tired of it, and still got a pretty good Readiness boost out of it, so I won't harbor any particularly ill will toward the feature.

One aspect in which ME3 definitely falls short of ME2 is its cast. Given that the second game was all about assembling a rag-tag team of ass-kickers, the third game's crew has relatively few shining stars. There's really only one new crew member I would call "awesome," and it's a bit disappointing that, at least for my tastes, none of my favorite fighters from the last game are even able to join the crew. It's not a bad assembly, especially with classic standbys like Garrus and Tali, but it's just not as good as last time.

I've always criticized Mass Effect for its half-assed choices: dialog options don't sync up with what actually happens (let alone what you wanted to happen), and often the consequences make it feel like you really didn't have much of a choice to begin with. Well, ME3 still isn't perfect in this regard - not to mention the ending (which I'll get to in a bit) - but I felt like this time, my choices had more meaningful consequences than ever before. Choosing between crewmates, and between civilizations, for the ultimate goal of liberating the galaxy; the premises of most of the game's big decision points really built up my sense of the game's stakes, and made me feel like I had a real, significant impact in them. Granted, I looked up the plot points later and found that the potential outcomes were not actually that different, but at the time it really felt like my Commander Shepard was orchestrating the salvation of the galaxy.

Now, about that ending -- there are some really legitimate complaints to lodge against it. In many ways, with its random-ass contrivances and the multiple endings' utter lack of variety, it does feel like something that someone whipped up in ten minutes. Analytically: it's pretty stupid. But holistically, as I felt my dozens of hours of preparation leading up to this one conclusion, it did feel very powerful to me. Hell, maybe it was just the music (which does reach an emotional swell in the game's finale). And, yeah, it's pretty arbitrary and dumb. But I didn't feel as upset about its shortcomings, as I felt happy to see Shepard's three-game story come to a end. I'm pretty curious what that Extended Cut DLC will attempt to do from here.

Fun, engaging, but imperfect. Mass Effect 3 is definitely worth playing, as long as you didn't hate the second game. And for what it's worth, my Origin experience was actually very pleasant. Kudos to BioWare for wrapping up this trilogy on what I would call a good note.

Better than: Mass Effect
Not as good as: Batman: Arkham City, I guess (hard to come up with a good comparison)
Basically as good as: Mass Effect 2

Progress: Finished on Normal

Having dumped even more time into the beta, I have developed even more thoughts regarding it.

Story: it's voiced and written well, and I can already tell that it's got that heartwarming Diablo feel to it, with ancient Hell lore ravaging the already-quite-ravaged lands of Sanctuary. I'm curious to see what trouble Deckard Cain and his cute little adoptive niece Leah will get up to. What really felt missing from the beta were some of Blizzard's classically-epic cutscenes, but I assume that's just because of, you know, beta.

Classes: I tried out each of the game's five classes through the beta quests, and the Monk was my favorite by a mile, although this could easily be an accident of the limited number of skills available at lower levels. The game's three physical classes (Barbarian, Demon Hunter, and Monk) all have a cool seesaw dynamic with their ability meters, but I felt like the Monk had the best balance of left- and right-clicking. I also got a Rune upgrade that made my punch move teleport to the enemy, which was awesome. Anyway, I'm super interested in how later-game abilities will mix up the classes even more.

Mechanics: I was a little disappointed to see the complete disappearance of stat points and talent trees, and the streamlining of the ability hotbar - no longer a freeform amalgam of your favorite abilities, but now one ability and Rune combination choice from each of six categories - took some getting used to. It's definitely a step down from Diablo II in terms of customization and complexity; on the other hand, you can change your loadout whenever you want (even in the middle of a battle), which is way better than never. And the abilities in general are fun enough to make up for the relative inflexibility.

Online: online activation DRM, for better or worse, is a fact of modern PC gaming. But I find it pretty disturbing that there's no offline mode at all, and the beta weekend was a perfect demonstration of why: server instability. Maybe you can get over the client-side connection requirement -- but what happens during the game's launch week, when server stability and capacity issues make it difficult for you to sign in to what is, very likely, a single-player game session? And what about when servers have to be restarted for regular maintenance, making it impossible to play? This isn't an MMO, and having the stringent connection requirements of one just seems wildly inappropriate.

Like I said, most of this bile is from the access issues during the beta weekend, which is honestly somewhat expected. Blizzard has built up a fairly good stability record with StarCraft II's backend, as far as I know, so it's not necessarily going to be a thing. But if it is a thing, it's going to be a pretty goddamn frustrating one.

Open beta! Yeahhhh!

I'd long ago come to accept that I would buy, and play the hell out of, Diablo III regardless of what crazy mechanical or business concerns Activision-Blizzard threw at me. Fortunately, having now actually played it, I'm really pleased with what I'll be inevitably wasting my weekends on.

Not unlike StarCraft II, Diablo III impressively channels its predecessor - rolling through Tristram's ruins, taking apart zombies and picking up loot, the legacy of hack-and-slashing immediately rushing back - while updating and enhancing the experience for modern sensibilities. No, it isn't brand new, and yes, there is a slight sense of (for lack of a better term) "streamlining" in the UI's familiarity with World of Warcraft. But at its core, this is a game about exploring a map, destroying enemies, and tricking out your paper-doll with magic equipment, all in the name of tracking down evil demon lords.

It's good to be back.

Here's a blast from the past: I remember playing the Mac version of this guy, what, almost a decade ago? At the time I got bored with how much of the game was point-and-click rather than keyboard-based. Now that I've got a shiny new copy from some past Humble Bundle (and now that I've got a beer in hand), I decided to give it another go -- and unfortunately stumbled into a basic design flaw that really ruins the whole experience.

The basic element of suspense in this style of game is the trace, where the target of your intrusion attempt will try to detect you. And although Uplink offers a wide array of purchaseable upgrades - faster processors and modems, more memory, cracking software with more features and power - there are no upgrades to reduce the speed or effectiveness of these traces. Instead, the only way to foil trace attempts is to connect through a large number of intermediate gateways, which makes the map crowded and useless, and even when you overcome the tediousness of clicking on dozens of relays, this feels like it dilutes what is otherwise the major challenge of the game.

I would also accuse the game's general balance and pacing of being really off: the credit rewards for individual missions are never enough to make significant progress, missions can only be done simultaneously in very rare instances, and to start, your reputation is so low that there are barely any missions available at all.

I am as interested as ever in the idea of a hacking game, but Uplink is just too unpolished to deliver what I would call an adequate experience.

Progress: Gave Up -- Became "Notorious"

I picked this up from the latest Humble Bundle, and while I can't speak for its console and PC versions - which frankly, I'm concerned might be a bit too simple - the Android iteration feels like a pretty good fit. Not unlike Majesty, Swords & Soldiers succeeds on an input-challenged platform by automating much of the micromanagement traditionally associated with RTS: units move by themselves, and in fact even more simplistically than in Majesty, since S&S is played on a side-scrolling battlefield.

Pleasantly, Swords & Soldiers' idea of real-time interactivity is more sophisticated than Majesty's. Part of the game's tech tree development includes magic spells, which are actually necessary to level the playing field, as AI opponents have their own magic as well. Managing your mana level and using the right spells on the right targets, all while keeping an eye on your forces and infrastructure, makes Swords & Soldiers feel less, well, diluted than most mobile games.

At the same time, an irreverent if slightly racially-insensitive sense of humor helps keep S&S lighthearted and fun through its campaign. All the Vikings ever wanted was to have a great barbecue, their quest for which culminated in a boss fight with a giant chili pepper (who could resurrect the dead with its zombie powers). I'm curious what wacky antics the Aztecs and Chinese will get up to in their campaigns.

Progress: Finished the Viking campaign

Man, there are a lot of tanooki tails in this game. On Mario, on Bowser, on Goombas, on Bullet Bills; it's downright silly. But 3D Land fully embraces this silliness, which forms part of its surprisingly unique personality.

Its general philosophy of level design is another facet of 3D Land's uniqueness; while the "NEW" Super Mario games are nostalgia-thick with modern twists, and the Super Mario Galaxy games are in motherfucking space, 3D Land's levels fit somewhere inbetween. There's a healthy mix of old and new powerups; there are some sidescrolling segments, but mostly three-dimensional geometry; there are even Galaxy-style throwbacks where props are made from enlarged pixel art, or a 3D Mario finds himself juxtaposed in a 2D scene from an NES game. The genuinely 3D perspective also allows for some cool levels which navigate on all three axes -- imagine a Galaxy level with more verticality.

On the other hand, since 3D Land is neither as nostalgically strong as NSMB, nor as epic and far-reaching as SMG, it really has its work cut out for it. So far the game has done pretty good at justifying the 3DS; but it's not as great at justifying itself, at least not so much as other recent Mario games have done. Its fresh take on the Mario formula is interesting, but not especially amazing. At least, not so far. I do have plenty of game left ahead of me.

Progress: Finished World 2

Of course I'll buy it.

A few beers and one Steam holiday sale later, I found myself with a cheap copy of Bastion in my backlog. And although at first, I was pleasantly impressed with the variety of weapons and apparent longevity, ultimately these positives turned into not-positives.

The game's length is misleading in a distinctly Final Fantasy IV-style; at first, it looks like you have to find three of a key item, but then you have to find three more. Then as you proceed, you find that the one-item-per-level pacing gets munged by some levels being wild goose chases. And then you have to find six of some other key item. Maybe it seems counter-intuitive to complain about more-than-expected playing time, but the way Bastion repeatedly sets and breaks that expectation is distressing. And, with one or two exceptions, most of the levels aren't bringing anything new to the table anyway.

Which brings me to the weapon variety, in that it also isn't all that it appears to be. Although there are about half a dozen each of ranged and melee weapons, they only practically vary in terms of charging time and attack speed. I found my favorite weapons early on, and only changed once. You can collect key items and spend currency to upgrade weapons, but the differences still aren't drastic.

The larger point that I'm getting at is - though Bastion sure looks pretty, and has a nice-sounding narrator - there isn't enough depth of gameplay. At six-to-eight hours long, it feels at least twice as long as it should be. And even if it was a shorter game, Bastion's Unique Selling Point (its presentation) wears off as soon as the trailer is over.

Bastion isn't a terrible game, but it's extremely unremarkable. And if you play it to completion, it wears out its welcome a few times over.

Better than: Jumper: Griffin's Story
Not as good as: Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia
Once again, I must say: fuck you, Internet!

Progress: Finished on Normal

The demo - back when Shank first came out - completely failed to impress me. But I came into digital-possession of a copy from a Humble Indie Bundle some time ago, and this evening I was in a unique position of having a short amount of time to kill, while paying half-attention to something else (watching a series of hilarious attempts on Super Mario World's Special World levels). Shank fit the bill perfectly, and I may have underestimated it a little.

The gameplay is absolutely shallow, the story is absolutely stupid, and the cutscene presentation is absolutely unpolished. But there is one thing that Shank does mostly-great, and that's the sense of focus and flow when you're speeding through levels, and through enemies. It definitely feels button-mashy, but being obligated to vary between quick attacks, power attacks, and ranged attacks instills just enough attention-keeping into the experience to make it feel somewhat meaningful.

I think the most apt way I can describe it is that it's a lot like an old coin-op brawler. You won't care about the plot or the depth of gameplay, because the simple mechanics flow quickly enough to keep you casually engaged for its brief duration.

But, yeah. It is just the two hours long. And the mechanics aren't perfect, either -- aiming your gun is difficult, which usually isn't a problem, except when the final level keeps putting gunners in elevated balconies; and mapping your standard attack to the same button as using an item causes you to waste far too many healing pickups. The quick-time prompts for counter-attacks could have clearer icons, too, although they occur pretty rarely.

At its best, Shank can feel as good as the fast- and free-flowing parts of a Prince of Persia, rushing through the level like it's nobody's business. But Shank, to put it bluntly, lacks substance. It's not a bad way to spend a couple hours on a lazy weekend, but it's really nothing special.

Better than: Steel Storm: Burning Retribution
Not as good as: Torchlight
I'm slightly curious about the sequel: but I'd have trouble justifying a purchase if it's only another two hours of this

Progress: Finished on Normal

In one sense - actually, in most senses - Missing Link is more of the same from Human Revolution. You can sneak around a facility, knock dudes out and/or unload lead into them, hack employee terminals, punch through walls, upgrade stuff, buy stuff, et cetera. There are a few key differences though, chief among them, that the 4-8 hour-long campaign is completely linear. (You can also do a stealth takedown on the final boss, which is pretty awesome.)

Much like the full game, Missing Link starts pretty rough, with no useful augments or items. Fortunately, once you weather the introductory segment, the experience levels and praxis kits start flowing in like, uh, some kind of electric gravy. And there's even a store in the form of one dude with an underground market -- and he has sidequests! It quickly builds back up into the same Deus Ex experience you grew to like in Human Revolution.

I do want to complain about the biometric scanning chambers, though. I assume they're used to conceal level loading time, because all they do is gate your progress for a minute or so with the same animated effect each time. And since there is a significant amount of back-and-forth in the DLC campaign, you'll be forced to sit through the effect far more times than is welcome.

Missing Link is like a snack-sized Human Revolution. If there's any real disappointment to be had here (other than how awkwardly it fits into the existing Human Revolution storyline), it's that the DLC's "game world," as it is, has no depth or meat to it. But if you liked Human Revolution's gameplay, you'll like this just fine.

Better than: Red Faction: Armageddon Path to War
Not as good as: Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Also, most of the voice acting is terrible: except for the underground shopkeeper, who is extremely Scottish

Progress: Finished on Normal