#actually just chilling. and maybe it adds a little more to the disability related themes in general but thats probably just me

[fuse2dx]

June '20

Trials of Mana

Maybe not the highest profile remake Square-Enix have put out in recent memory, but one that was pretty exciting for me. I played a fan translation of the Super Famicom original some 20 years ago, so while it's not particularly fresh in my head, there's just enough there to enjoy some infrequent little pangs of nostalgia. The move to 3D has made for some welcome changes to to combat - jumping adds a vertical element to combat that wasn't present before, and enemy specials being clearly telegraphed and avoidable puts a little more control in your hands. There's still a good amount of 16 bit jank though - combo timing feels unreliable, the camera's often a pain, there's plenty of questionable hit detection, and you definitely wouldn't want to leave your fate solely in the hands of your party's AI. Willing to put most of this aside, what actually mattered more to me was that it still had the kind of playful, breezy nature, it looks and plays nicely, and that it progresses at a nice clip. Party selection will change the way you fight moment-to-moment, but only provides minor and very brief deviance from the main storyline, most of which is the kind of schlocky cartoon villainy that will have you looking for a skip button before it would illicit any kind of emotional response. But you know what? Overall, I still enjoyed it a lot.

So while it may not be revolutionising the action RPG, what it does show is that Square-Enix is capable of acknowledging their history of previously untranslated works, and that they also now have a pretty good template for getting a B-tier remake of such titles out in a reasonable timeframe. Where do I send my wish list in to, team?

Sayonara Wild Hearts

As a one-liner found on the back of the box, 'A pop album video game' is about as on-the-nose as it gets. The old "it's not for everyone" adage is definitely applicable, and its defiance of traditional video game metrics is not in any way subtle. How sophisticated is the gameplay? Not particularly. How long is it? Not very. But how does it make you feel? Now you're talking. It presents a simple but deeply relatable story of a broken heart, and leads from there with a catchy tune into a fast and colourful onslaught of new ideas, perspectives, and concepts. That is to say: it has the potential to make you feel all kinds of things. 

One especially celebratory note was how well the game is structured to fit into the album structure it boasts about. Stages flow quickly into one another, and while shorter, more compounding numbers are often about introducing new ideas and themes, moving on to the next is a few simple button presses and a brief, well-hidden loading window away. Inevitably there are more standout stages, those that feel like the hit singles; the longer, verse-chorus-verse type joints that grant the space for more fleshed out visual story telling, and that smartly synchronise their percussive hits, soaring vocals and the like to appropriate beats of play. A lot of the gameplay can easily (and cynically) be reduced to "it's an endless runner", but to liken this to a cheap re-skin of a confirmed hit-maker is to wilfully dismiss so much of what it does better and so much beside. You can play it on damn near everything, and for the time it takes, it's well worth doing. 

Twinkle Star Sprites

I've meant to play this countless times before. I've almost certainly passed it by while strolling through arcades, the Saturn version has never been hoovered up into my collection, and the PS2 collection this particular version belongs to - ADK Damashii - is no longer a cheap addition to anyone's library. The digital version of it for PS4 however was however recently on sale at a point that saw me receive change from a fiver. David Dickinson would be proud.

Having now credit-fed my way through the game's brief arcade mode, there's no doubt in my mind that the nuance of its systems are going to be glossed over in this rather ham-fisted appraisal. At least at face value, there's plenty of character and charm to appreciate in its colourful and cutesy style. As a two-player, vertically split-screen title, its a pretty clean break from a lot of a shooter's typical characteristics - rather than 6(ish) stages of hell, its a series of one on one battles - and all the better suited to 2 players for it. As enemy waves come at you, taking them out in chains can generate attacks to the other player; however if these attacks are too small then it's entirely possible they'll be killed off again, and an even bigger attack will come straight back at you. Think of a bit like competitive Tetris, but with shooting rather than puzzling. It's a neat and curious little game, that's likely best experienced properly, with a friend on the other side of the sofa to hurl abuse at. 

Blasphemous

Let's get the lazy-but-effective description out of the way: it's a 2D MetroidVania Souls-like. You've got "that" type of map, definitely-not-bonfires and definitely-not-Estus Flasks. You are encouraged to return to your body upon death, the combat system is very reliant on parries and dodge-rolls, and there's even a dedicated "lore" button to use on every item you pick up. 

While this likely sounds dismissive, it's more about addressing the elephant in the room. To give some context, these are both types of games that I love, and the end product here has done a pretty good job of bringing them together. The exploration is pleasantly open - gatekeeping is typically done less by specific items and abilities, and more by just which areas you're brave enough to poke your head into. It's a little bit of a shame that most of the new abilities have to be switched out for others rather than adding to a core arsenal of moves, but at the same time its base setup gives you plenty of ways to deal with any number of combat scenarios. This is of course best demonstrated by the boss encounters, which are wonderful affairs - big, gruesome, thoughtful variations on approaches to combat, which drop in at a nice pace to keep you from ever getting too cocky. The theming in general is wonderful, and the name is certainly appropriate - there's a lot of deep catholic inspiration in its gorgeous backdrops and environments, but then layered on top are some chilling elements of religious iconography, along with a cast of disturbing devotees and martyrs to sufficiently unsettle you. It's arguably a small intersection of the gaming population that it'll appeal to, but if you're in there, it's a real treat.

Death Come True

The first thing you see upon starting is the game's central character breaking right through the fourth wall to tell you directly not to stream the game or to share anything that might spoil the story. The first rule of Death Come True, and so on. I consider myself fairly well versed in such etiquette, so to then have the screenshot function entirely disabled for the whole game felt a little like being given a slap on the wrists for a crime I had no intention of committing. I don't envy the team trying to market it, that's for sure. 

The reasoning behind this is clear at least - it's a game that is in total service of its plot. Consider a mash-up of a 'Choose your own adventure' book and a series of full-motion videos, and you're mostly there. Unless you were to walk away from the controller or perhaps fall asleep, there seems very little chance that your play time will deviate from the 3 hour estimate - which will certainly put some people off, but is understandable given the production values, and personally, quite welcome in the first place. In terms of replay value, there are branching paths that a single route will obviously skip: as an example of this, in looking up a screenshot to use in lieu of taking my own, I found a promotional image of the central cast, only to not recognise one of them at all. One thing that such a short run-time does ensure though, is that minute-for-minute, there's plenty of action; without wanting to speak about the story itself (rather than in fear of reprise for doing so, I might add), it kicks off with plenty of intrigue, shortly thereafter switching to full-on action, and then strikes a pretty fine balancing act between the two for its run time. It doesn't get quite as deep or as complex as I would've hoped given the team's pedigree, but I do like it, and think it'd actually be a pretty fun title to play with folks who normally don't concern themselves with games. By the same token, it's probably not for the 'hardcore' types looking for something to string out over dozens of hours. 

Persona 5: Dancing in Starlight 

After the generous main course that was Persona 5 Royal, I figured that I'd follow up with dessert. I did however wait until a weekend where I knew my girlfriend would be away, so as not to trigger any unpleasant flashbacks to looped battle themes, and the chirpy, indecipherable voices of Japanese schoolkids that made it so painful to endure as a non-gaming cohabitant.  

Immediately, it's clear that very little has changed since Persona 4's take on the rhythm action genre. The core game, while still functional and fairly enjoyable, hasn't changed a lick. Perhaps the most notable improvement to the package as a whole is in scaling back on a dedicated story mode, and instead just having a series of uninspired but far less time-consuming set of social link scenes that pad things out. The biggest flaw is repeated wholesale though, in that trying to stretch out noteworthy tracks from a single game's playlist into a dedicated music game leads to repetition - and there is a much less prolific gathering of artists involved in remixes this time. I'd be willing to wager that it's a very similar story once again with Persona 3: Dancing in Moonlight, but I'm not about to ruin a perfectly good dinner to start with the sweet just to find out, if you'll excuse a second outing of the metaphor. Still, again compare these to Theatrhythm though - where Square-Enix plundered the Final Fantasy series in its entirety, along with spin-offs and other standalone titles to put together a library of music worthy for the one single game. Cobble the tunes from Personas 3-5 together into one game, and you're still coming up very short by comparison.

[tkmedia]

England's run down to Southgate, players breaking away from the past

12:10 PM ETAfter nearly a quarter-century living in England and covering the national team for much of that time, I can tell you that this run to the semifinal feels different. (In a good way, I hasten to add, though obviously that does not mean they will win Euro 2020 because, history shows, they usually do not end up with a trophy.)Make no mistake about it, some things are the same. Few countries, at least among the "bigger" nations," have the ability to go from ecstasy to dejection based on a single result, for example.Win and you will hear pundits and fans -- at least those who make the most noise -- talk about how, deep down, England can beat anyone and how everyone with Three Lions on their shirt is "world class" or, as they like to say, "thereabouts." Lose and they are inept no-hopers at best, a spoiled, ungrateful bunch of disinterested stains on the national character at worse.This is not to say media and supporters in other countries do not get carried away when they excel, or turn into angry villagers with pitchforks and torches when they underperform. They certainly do; it is just that there is not normally the 180-degree turnaround from game to game.But while that part has not changed about England, what has is a lot to do with the man leading the team, Gareth Southgate, and a little to do with the sort of players who comprise his squad. Here are five ways in which this side is different.- Euro 2020 on ESPN: Stream LIVE games, replays (U.S.) - European Soccer Pick 'Em: Compete to win $10,000 - Euro 2020 bracket and fixture schedule

1. Southgate is likeable and humble and normal

England's manager is probably more relatable than any of his seven permanent predecessors. Let's remind ourselves that the list includes a guy who lost his job after saying he believed in reincarnation and that the disabled were being punished for sins in a former life (Glenn Hoddle), a guy who quit out of the blue in a post-game interview at Wembley (Kevin Keegan), a guy who had an affair with an Football Association employee and who was duped by a man dressed as a wealthy Sheikh (Sven Goran Eriksson), a guy who quit because the FA forced him to strip his captain of the armband (Fabio Capello) and a guy who had to leave after a single game because of an undercover sting that saw him talk about "by-passing rules" to register players (Sam Allardyce).Now, there is context and another side to all of the above and none of it means the aforementioned were worse managers than Southgate; in fact, from a purely footballing perspective, most were arguably better. But it does mean that the current England boss has managed to avoid controversy and drama to a degree that others did not. Moreover, he has done it while being humble and earnest, traits that folks find appealing.

2. Southgate is not unduly influenced by the media

Whether it is playing Kieran Trippier at left-back (and not playing Ben Chilwell at all), sticking with Kalvin Phillips in midfield, making Raheem Sterling a fixture or starting Bukayo Saka against Germany, Southgate has made a series of decisions that most might describe as well outside popular wisdom. The same popular wisdom, that is, which compelled previous managers to shoehorn Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and, occasionally, Paul Scholes into the same midfield.Nor does Southgate freak out when performances leave critics unsatisfied, like the 0-0 draw against Scotland or the second half against Czech Republic in the group stage, the latter of which saw England contrive to register 0.0 Expected Goals (which is frankly difficult to do).He has a plan, he sticks to it and he knows that, while short-term he might be judged by how well his teams play (and therefore risk a media battering), long-term he will be judged by how far they advance in tournaments (and, so far, so good).Southgate gets a basic concept that others seem to miss: Club football -- with its 38-game league season -- generally rewards teams that attack and play well, creating more than they concede. Tournament football, on the other hand, is a different animal, where risk-taking is discouraged.France won at the last World Cup by essentially sitting deep, not conceding and waiting for superstars at the other end to do something special. England have not quite gone that far -- and may not, given Philips is no Paul Pogba, Declan Rice is no N'Golo Kante, Sterling is no Antoine Griezmann and there is not a Kylian Mbappe in sight -- but the concept is not dissimilar.Gareth Southgate's approach has resulted in a squad that is at ease in tournament situations. Getty Images

3. England's players look like they want to be there

After most tournament disappointments in past years, the English media would run their inquests about what went wrong. This would be a familiar process. The coach's decisions would be criticised (always) and, usually, there would be a grand theory, sometimes involving an individual scapegoat, like David Beckham in 1998 or David Seaman in 2002 or Wayne Rooney most of the time, and sometimes noting a collective dereliction of duty.Inevitably, another of the sub-themes to come up was whether these players really wanted to wear the Three Lions and whether there were internecine rivalries that ripped the group apart. Eriksson famously remarked how players would eat and hang out with their club teammates, other managers have talked about how players felt "less protected" with England than at club level and others still noted how players felt it was a "chore," given the environment around the national team.And when things went awry, there was, punctual as ever, a story making its way into the national media. Maybe, if England get beaten by Denmark on Wednesday (3 p.m. ET, LIVE on ESPN), the cycle will be repeated.I don't think so, though, because there were none after the World Cup semifinal defeat to Croatia in 2018 and every indication is that, unlike past expeditions, there is no poison in this England camp. Credit for that goes not just to Southgate, but also to this group of players.

4. This group has the right blend of leaders and foot soldiers

2 RelatedThere is no question that, in terms of strength in depth, particularly in attacking positions, this England is as strong as any non-French speaking team in Europe. But there is also humility to the players Southgate has entrusted most over the past few weeks. There are very few alpha male, eyes-on-me, superstar types among the regulars, compared to yesteryear.Rice, Phillips and Jordan Pickford watch the Champions League on TV. The three Man City players are important to their club side without being indispensable, partly because of Pep Guardiola's strong collective ethos, partly because of the talent around them. Mason Mount is not an A-lister yet. Luke Shaw plays for Man United, but has had his share of setbacks. Harry Maguire is a natural leader, but was at Hull City until the age of 24.The one exception is Harry Kane, who has been carrying Tottenham on his back for many years, but in terms of ego and personality, he will not be mistaken for Zlatan Ibrahimovic any time soon. It is a blue-collar team for a blue-collar style of play, with plenty of talent and game-changers rotating in and out from the bench, whether it's Jadon Sancho or Phil Foden or Jack Grealish or Saka. This is not a side built around two or three individuals -- arguably, Kane apart, though even then you saw him go for long stretches with no service and he did not complain -- and that makes it different.

5. Success breeds success and confidence

This also feels different for the simple reason that many of the players know what national-team success looks like. England have reached the semifinals of major tournaments just six times, with Southgate and much of this this squad having done it twice, just like Sir Alf Ramsey and Co. in 1966 and 1968.England had gone more than 20 years without reaching the last four of a competition, before Southgate took them there in Russia. It does not mean the pressure is off, but it is not insignificant, because once a cycle begins, it is hard to slow down.Once you have experience actually achieving something meaningful, it becomes easier to do it again. This England team does not play with swagger, but the players do seem to have a quiet confidence. And that can be even more important.Southgate's England have managed to break the feedback loop of drama and disappointment. Not by necessarily playing better football or by having better players -- at least in terms of the ones who actually make it on to the pitch -- but in the way they carry themselves and the way the environment in the camp projects beyond them.It may not be entirely down to the manager. It may be the players. It may be the fans and the media who, after 18 months of pandemic, are just a little more chilled out and happy and wanting to highlight the positives.It also may or may not be enough to win the Euros, but it is a darn sight different from the past. Read the full article