Hi pickhut--I guess even winners of the RotW get tip topics, especially with relatively few writers.
I've followed your AC saga with interest. You seem to have improved with each one. That's what sequels should do.
After playing through the first few missions of Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, I was dead set on putting it on equal footing with Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies. For those that don't know,
This gets into self-conscious reviewer mode too much, too early. I mean, when you're playing an action game, you shouldn't start Evaluating How Good It Is. Did AC5 continue AC4's fun? If so, you could just say "AC5 seemed just like AC4, with better graphics. AC sequels do that. AC5 could've been just AC4 with different missions and been fine.
obviously, so I guess
This is a complete 180 in confidence. I dislike "I guess" in reviews.
Now, I should tell you that, if/To be honest
Well...reviews are about what you should tell people. Yes to this being conversational, but it brings my confusion over the After Burner comment up a notch--could be me missing it, but small mistakes can compound quickly. I like the sense of AC5 giving you the plot even if you skip the cut scenes. I'd like more games like that.
I'm also interested in if characters played a big part in Ac4. The impression I got from your earlier AC reviews was that character development was not a priority. If their confusion is tied into the sudden war starting, that's a good thing to tie in.
missile-wielding pacifist this contrast seems too contradictory
green as hell too conversational
small bad things.
For once, you don't come off as some distant god of destruction, but a mortal with friends to keep an eye on and people to protect. This is especially true in the later missions, when you know these characters much better, more of the plot gets revealed, and things start getting out of hand.
Big good thing. Reviews of games in a series should be about how it improved. More good below, then...
a new danger arises: The enemy starts firing a crap load of cruise missiles towards the base. It's nearly impossible to destroy each one, which Grimm clearly expresses over the radio by freaking out. But the people below are putting their faith in you, so you try your damnedest to minimize the damage.
Oh no...this is way too colloquial! I figure on one swear word per paragraph, max, including "soft" swears. Unless I'm writing about a particularly bad or edgy game. I like the general idea of damage reduction.
For me, this was the turning point of AC5. Here I'd tack on that you quickly put watching a stupid high-speed car chase aside.
It would be an understatement to say that I was pleasantly surprised at how polished the overall product was, since this is the seventh installment (the series started life in the arcades with two releases, if you didn't know).
This comes off hoity toity--perhaps "After seven installments, including two arcade games before the PlayStation games, it's easy to expect a huge regression, or even that the designers would coast. AC [continues the expected progress/does better than expected] in [one area/many areas.]"
a combination of nicely executed storytelling, polished AI, fine-tuned play mechanics, and a wonderful soundtrack.
This seems good, but I would guess "meeting and organizing several interesting characters, fighting increasingly more clever enemies with controls that allow it, and damage reduction thrown in with scatter-shooting" may be less over-general. YMMV.
My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips