StarCraft II's multiplayer match-making is complete garbage. At least, as far as I can tell. Not that I mind terribly -- being neither great nor terrible at StarCraft, I'm fine with winning against awful players and losing to skilled ones. But it's extremely clear from examining my competitors' rankings that Battle.net isn't trying very hard to find comparably-ranked opponents for me.

This is probably because, at a fundamental level, the ranking system is broken. Your initial rank is determined by five "placement" matches, and you have individual rankings in the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 categories. But the rub is, you also have separate rankings for each team configuration you play in. If you play 2v2 teamed with Friend A four times, then play 2v2 teamed with Friend B four times, you still won't have a 2v2 ranking, period.

This makes sense from a precision standpoint: the ranking applies to your team's collective ability. But it also means that, unless you have a dedicated regular team, your ranking is basically meaningless. Not to mention, requiring five games in the same team set-up before getting any kind of ranking means that casual players will probably never get one at all.

Like I said, it's fine for me because I feel like I'm pretty much in the middle of the ability spectrum. And it's probably also fine for serious competitive players, assuming that they have high rankings, because they play enough to be placed against foes of similar standing. But if Blizzard wanted the random matchmaking system to be accessible to everyone, I'm pretty sure they failed.

Anyway. It's still a super-fun strategy game, even when I'm losing. Unless it's to a cannon rush. In which case: fuck you.

Progress: Finished the campaign on Normal

Adventure games have a tendency to implement at least a handful of puzzle solutions that only make sense to the game designer. It's an unavoidable dilemma that his outside-the-box thinking isn't the same as yours. Modern adventure games sometimes tackle this with robust hint systems, but Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People takes another route -- using the narrative strength of protagonist Strong Bad, any absurdity can make sense in the right context. Frequently, a puzzle's solution is more evident by the available items, and the perceived result, than by the actual premise of the puzzle.

Which is not to say it wholly eschews hints, either. For example: one puzzle that gave me trouble required me to place a plunger on a wall-mounted drain, and after a few failures, Strong Bad made a clever remark about suffering "drain bamage." At any rate, I never had to check a walkthrough, and still didn't feel frustrated by the game, which is a major victory for an adventure game.

The downside to this sense-through-nonsense approach is that the larger plot isn't very cohesive. The overall "goal" of this episode was to beat up Homestar Runner, which didn't actually come into play until the final minute or so; and every time I stepped away from the game and came back, I completely forgot what I was supposed to do. The puzzle architecture ensured that I could get going again without any downtime, just by exploring what was open to me, but it didn't do much for my sense of motivation.

Homestar Ruiner looks good, sounds good, and is written very well: the Homestar/Strong Bad world is consistently hilarious, and doesn't feel at all diluted in game form. And I wouldn't say that the mini-games (like Snake Boxer or Teen Girl Squad) are a primary draw, but they are fun distractions to try once or twice.

As long as the other episodes can keep up this caliber of writing and design, Strong Bad's got a real winner on his hands.

Better than: Time Gentlemen, Please!
Not as good as: The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition
I wonder if the other episodes will: carry over my info from this one, because I may have totally screwed up the game map

Progress: Complete

Although Conviction promises to offer the player more options and freedom, many of the game's levels are designed contrary to that goal. The Iraq level may as well be an on-rails shooter. A chase scene later on is almost completely devoid of gameplay whatsoever. And the no-detection-allowed mission I was on last time is virtually impossible unless you know the golden path through it -- even trying to discover this path by trial and error is an exercise in frustration, as the game in general has terrible check-points.

Sneaking works reasonably well, when the level can support it, but there are also a number of circumstances where the game devolves into a poor Gears of War imitation. Frequently, in the middle and ending sections of the game, hordes of enemies search for Sam, and the only escape is through them. Unfortunately, this exposes the insufficiencies of the shooting and cover mechanics; Sam isn't built well for these kinds of fights. So why do I keep getting into them?

I've heard that Ubisoft plays musical chairs with its gameplay designers - switching them off of and onto projects "as needed" - and I feel like this game is a perfect example of the somewhat-obvious consequences. Conviction has some great ideas, but more often than not, doesn't execute them properly; parts of the game go in totally different directions, and even the big concepts like mark-and-execute are barely followed-through on.

Better than: Vampire Rain
Not as good as: Batman: Arkham Asylum
But probably also better than: the Bourne and 24 licensed games

Progress: Finished on Normal

Last week, when I was harping on about how BioShock 2 should have freshened up its setting, this is exactly what I meant. It's pretty rare that a game will sell itself to me on announcement day -- kudos, Irrational.

Ubisoft has done a tremendous job of disappointing me lately. Splinter Cell: Conviction makes it a trifecta.

The game starts out promising enough, building on the fun I had in the demo: while previous Splinter Cells left me bored and frustrated in a matter of minutes, Conviction offered an easily accessible sneaking system, a pleasant amount of freedom in killing thugs (and in completing other objectives, I guess), and an exciting edge that the Bourne game could only wish to achieve. The first few levels are actually pretty fun, and I would generously describe the experience as "Arkham Asylum with a gun."

But then things start to go awry. The game's narrator, for some reason, suddenly decides to flash-back to Desert Storm -- and now, instead of sneaking around with a silenced pistol, you're charging down sandswept streets with an assault rifle. Putting aside the curious narrative gaffe - the game proceeds to turn into a bad episode of 24 - it raises the question, what game did the design team want to make? (Given the four years Conviction spent in development, it seems like they weren't sure, either.)

Returning from the flashback, levels become overburdened with enemies - who, as I discovered at this point, don't indicate their line-of-sight very well - and understaffed by effective hiding spots. As the challenge escalates, options dwindle. Well, more weapons become available, but these are basically meaningless; you have a few silenced pistols which are barely different from one another, and using any of the rest of the weapons is just asking to be killed (Sam Fisher is much worse at soaking up bullets than Batman is).

Oh, and checkpoints: they're terrible. This is 2010, guys. If I die and have to repeat the last fifteen minutes of my life, I didn't fuck up, you fucked up.

Right now I'm in a level where I lose instantly if I'm detected. This is my least favorite game mechanic. Ever.

If you've been a Splinter Cell fanboy for a while, Conviction will probably feel like a "fresh" take on the series. For me, and for anyone else who was hoping for a better game, it's a let-down. I guess I was foolish to hope for anything different from Ubisoft.

Progress: Infiltrating Third Echelon

It's true -- StarCraft 2 is great. It's just about everything you could hope for in a sequel. That being said, if you disliked StarCraft, this one isn't going to change your mind. Also, you're going to hell. But that's your business.

If there's one thing that Blizzard hasn't over-delivered on, it's the story. The single-player campaign is architected in a non-linear fashion, and has a pretty impressive cast of characters; but none of them are interesting for more than a few minutes. All the male characters are real men's men, making decisions and taking action without a second thought -- they show strong personalities, but no dynamism or conflict. And the one (human) female character is just another damsel in distress. Wings of Liberty has an intriguing plot - which promises to become more intriguing in the Zerg- and Protoss-oriented sequels - but the people involved in it are largely inconsequential.

That aside, the gameplay of the campaign is a real treat. You'll play 25 missions, plus one more if you unlock the "secret" mission, and three of those are based on storyline choices, so subsequent playthroughs can be a little different. (I wish, though, that after finishing the campaign, I could just play the other three missions without going through the whole campaign again.) Although they almost all involve base-building, each mission has a unique gimmick, often revolving around a new unit -- not unlike Zelda dungeons. One early mission puts you on a planet with a twelve-minute day/night cycle, tasking you with burning down infested terran structures during the day, then defending yourself against hordes of shambling zombie-terrans during the night. Another has you use your shiny new Wraiths to provide air support for a powerful but slow-moving war machine.

Completing missions earns you credits, which you can use inbetween missions to upgrade your forces in various ways. You can buy/unlock groups of Mercenaries, which are hero units you can then call on during a mission. You can also buy new and upgraded abilities for your units, like a permanent Ghost cloak, or reduced friendly-fire damage from a Siege Tank's siege blasts. Most missions also allow you to collect items or perform secondary objectives to earn Protoss and Zerg "research" points, which can be used for even cooler upgrades (like an auto-turret for bunkers, and the Science Vessel unit). The available variety, and the ways in which each upgrade can fundamentally change how the campaign is played, are pretty amazing.

In addition to the campaign, there's also a small collection of single-player "Challenges" that serve as training exercises for multiplayer matches. They'll put forth goals like countering specific units and tactics, and give you tips on how to pull it off, but still require plenty of practice and quick-thinking to do well.

As for the multiplayer, well -- it's StarCraft, but 2. Basic strategy and game flow will be instantly familiar, but there are enough twists and additions to make it feel like ten years' worth of fresh. Nukes are much easier to mass-produce. The Protoss Void Ray can make a skirmish more dangerous as it continues. Zerg Roaches are kind of bullshit. It's a whole new game to learn, with easily accessible base mechanics, but an incredible strategic depth, that seems designed to satisfy all skill levels. And the matchmaking promises to keep players from becoming too frustrated or too complacent, although I personally haven't had a lot of experience with random match-ups either way.

In conclusion: this is a sequel to StarCraft, and it's great.

Better than: StarCraft
Not as good as: if the whole StarCraft II "trilogy" was already available
The Lost Viking mini-game: is, yeah, pretty awesome

Progress: Finished the campaign on Normal

By itself, I'd say that BioShock 2 is a great game. It's mechanically solid, highly entertaining, and consistently (post-shotgun) fun to play. But it has the dreadful misfortune of existing in the shadow of the original BioShock. Although the sequel can claim to have slightly more involved gunplay in the form of Little Sister defense, it otherwise hits all the same notes -- except the narrative, which, while well done, simply can't hold a candle to the first game's. (Though there is an exceptionally clever sequence near the end.)

BioShock 2 mostly kept me engaged while I was playing it, but it had a very hard time drawing me back in, as I've continued to note. Rapture is as good as ever, but no better, and it simply doesn't feel fresh or mysterious at all.

Kudos to 2K Marin for doing, I'd say, the best they possibly could with a sequel in the same setting. But BioShock is just better; and leaves little left for the sequel to improve upon.

Better than: Red Steel 2
Not as good as: BioShock
Why not mix up the plot more?: I would have loved to see some Rapture-surface interaction, possibly in Rapture's far future (e.g. present times)

EDIT I keep waffling on my "score" for BioShock 2 because, while it might be a fantastic game when evaluated on its own, it's impossible for me to see it as anything other than an excessively familiar sequel. And I can't necessarily say that you'd be super impressed with it if you haven't played BioShock, because the second game's storyline assumes you have a working knowledge of the first game's plot.

Progress: Finished on Normal

What's funny about Vampire Rain - well, aside from this - is how obviously it cribs from Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell, copying wholesale sound effects and UI elements. Making a bad stealth game look like better stealth games, and hoping no one notices, is pretty ironic in its own way.

Even from a $10 7-11 used game bin, this is a ripoff. It's too long and slow to be comedic. And it's too terrible to be anything else.

Progress: Gave Up -- Mission 2?

God damn it Ubisoft.

As Forgotten Sands soldiers on, the cracks in its paint start to show prominently. In 2003, getting stuck on walls and repeatedly missing how-did-I-not-make-that jumps was understandable, if frustrating; now, I would say it's inexcusable. TFS's later platforming segments are full of these moments, and it's shameful. Prince of Persia 2008 had no problem running and jumping through sheer canyons -- why is this game's platforming worse?

I would have gone without mentioning the mediocre graphics, too, but near the end of the game they become a liability. When sand is whirling around the room, and you have to see an object made of water, it's damn near indecipherable. The final tower was challenging enough without the herculean task of distinguishing walls from pillars.

As for the combat, yeah it's awful. All the game can do is throw hordes of tiny enemies at you, or a few larger enemies (who simply take more sword-slashing to fell). Not to mention how slow it can be -- in Sands of Time, the best way to fight multiple enemies was to move swiftly between them, so none would be able to charge up an attack; but in Forgotten Sands, you take just as long as your enemies do to pull back a sword and swing. If you see a sand-skeleton a full second away from hitting you, you have to roll away or eat the hit*. What a joke.

• Or use your fully-upgraded Whirlwind spell to defeat basically every enemy on the screen at once. That was fun.

The water-freezing mechanic is a genuinely clever addition to the Prince of Persia formula, but the bad fighting and lame story weigh the game down. And it makes so many of the same mistakes that the Sands of Time trilogy did, that it's hard to call Forgotten Sands a step forward at all. Just play Sands of Time, or the 2008 PoP, instead.

Better than: Prince of Persia: Warrior Within (iOS, NGC, PC, PS2, XBOX)
Not as good as: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (NGC, PC, PS2, PS3, XBOX), Prince of Persia (2008)
Why the fuck: was this game made in 2010?

P.S. The final boss can eat half of your health bar in one attack, and this is the one place in the game where you can't rewind time. Great!

Progress: Finished on Normal

Let's get this part out of the way: this Prince looks weird. Something is wrong with his face. There's a very, I don't know, chimpanzee quality about it. But anyway.

Forgotten Sands makes the ending of Sands of Time seem exceptionally ironic, because this is basically the same game. Same art style; same voice actor; same composer; same enemies; same time-rewinding power; same basic plot. Sands of Time was a great game -- in 2003. This many years on, I expect a little more, not to mention some sense of newness. So what makes Forgotten Sands different from Sands of Time?

For one thing, the combat is worse than ever. Now, SoT was known for having workable, if slightly awkward, combat mechanics; while Warrior Within exacerbated its problems, and Two Thrones had no choice but to work around them with instant kill moves. And the 2008 iteration had an interesting new combat engine, that just wasn't executed quite right. So the Prince of Persia team has had plenty of chances to learn from its mistakes, here.

Forgotten Sands implements some outsourced component called the TAG Fighting Engine, and I can't say whether the engine or the integration is at fault, but the execution is terrible. Until you get magic fighting powers, it's nothing but mashing the X button, and sometimes the B button to dodge; once you get magic fighting powers (specifically the instant-win Whirlwind power), you'll mash the X button inbetween using those. The mechanics just aren't deep enough to be even slightly interesting, and the hordes of enemies thrown at the Prince are tedious rather than difficult.

Another difference is, as above, the magic fighting powers. But I've already described just about all there is to those. There are four, one for each element, and on the whole they're pretty uninteresting. (The upgrade system for unlocking them, though, can also be used for other things - such as a larger health bar - which is a plus.)

One legitimately new and interesting concept in Forgotten Sands is power over water. Once the Prince attains this power (in a story cutscene), he can stop flowing water in place, and incorporate it into his acrobatics. Since the power has a time-limit, it generally serves the purpose of forcing the Prince to move swiftly, which is when the game is at its most fun. Sometimes, it's used to create scenarios where the Prince needs to time very carefully - stopping, re-starting, and re-stopping water at specific intervals to avoid plummeting to his death - which adds an interesting twist of challenge to the established Sands of Time formula.

Unfortunately, the last major difference between Forgotten Sands and Sands of Time is that the story just isn't very engaging. The acting isn't half-bad, and the Prince's idle chatter is as amusing as always; but the story scenes are dull, formulaic, and seem like they were written over a weekend. The ending might surprise me, but frankly, I don't expect much.

Forgotten Sands is a fun game, and feels like it fits in perfectly with the Sands of Time trilogy. But that's just its problem -- those are old. If this had come out in 2004 in place of Warrior Within, everyone would have been a lot happier; but six years on, it isn't that impressive. And given that PoP 2008 was a refreshing reboot for the series - even if you didn't love it like I did, you must admit it showed amazing potential - it's baffling that this new franchise entry eschews that completely.

Progress: Jumping around the observatory