Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney /// A Video Game Review

What do you get when you cross two popular franchises, one about solving puzzles and the other about court trials, and set them in an epic fantasy world?

One of my favorite games of all time.

I just finished playing Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney about a week ago, and now it's time to review it. Because honestly, I want to increase awareness about this title. I'm getting ahead of myself, though, so let's start at the beginning . . .

source

Overview

Espella Cantabella is on the run.

With witches on her tail, she heads out into London in search of one Professor Layton, whom her would-be rescuer says can help. Not long after she asks for assistance from him and his apprentice, Luke, she is captured by one of the witches. Layton and Luke launch an investigation, and in a series of strange events, Espella is able to hide from her pursuers on a cargo ship . . . but the other two are transported to a town in another world via her book, Historia Labyrinthia.

Meanwhile, Phoenix Wright has been flown out to London with his assistant, Maya Fey, to participate in an exchange set up by the Legal League of Attorneys. However, though he had no intentions of standing in court, Nick is called to be a defense attorney for a young stowaway found on a cargo ship, as she's accused of committing theft and assault. The girl's teacher, Ms. Darklaw, tells Nick that his client, Espella, has already plead guilty. He won't stand for it and decides to prove her innocence. And he does . . . but afterward, when he and Maya find a book called Historia Labyrinthia that Espella dropped, they are brought to the medieval town of Labyrinthia.

Now the four heroes must join forces and unravel the mysteries of this bizarre town, where written stories become true and magic-wielders are burned alive. They also do their best to protect Espella and fight for her as she is tried in the Witches' Court, but Labyrinthia holds many dark and deadly secrets. Will truth and logic win out?

Or is this the last adventure for the gentleman professor and the ace attorney?

As I mentioned above, this is a crossover for the Professor Layton and the Ace Attorney series, and the gameplay is fairly straightforward. Half the time you'll be doing the Layton side of things, which entails solving puzzles, finding clues, and just exploring in general. The other half will be spent with Wright's elements: defending in court trials, finding contradictions in testimonies, and presenting evidence. While it sounds simple, it blends together quite well.

The idea came from the CEO of Level-5 (the company that makes the Layton titles), Akihiro Hino. He was actually a big fan of the Ace Attorney series and pitched his idea to Shu Takumi, who designed the Phoenix Wright series. And thus, a game I'm sure no one knew they wanted was born. It released first in Japan in November of 2012, before getting a localized version in Europe in March of 2014. North America didn't receive its own localization, but rather the European one, in August of the same year.

Keiji Inafune, who's involved with Capcom's research and development group, has said that this game wasn't just the result of one developer licensing the other's characters; both developers were in the thick of it, working together to create something I feel hasn't really been done all that much (or all that well) in the gaming industry. But did it work? Well, I've already said it's one of my absolute favorite games, but let's take an in-depth, spoiler-free look.

source

Negatives

As I did for my Undertale review, I'm gonna start with the cons because I just prefer to get them out of the way. And just like that one, I'll first mention the fanbase. They're not as bad as Undertale's can be, but they can be pretty whiny. They've taken to the Internet to talk about all the plot holes they find in the game, especially those related to the ending. Without divulging too much, I really don't think most of these are actually plot holes if you stop and think about them or use your own reasoning. Are there a couple of potential ones? Yeah, but I personally don't think they're as bad as people make them out to be. Besides, it's apparently typical of Layton games to have an ending where plot holes are a high possibility, so . . .

I will quickly mention that, when they revealed that Luke can talk to animals, I thought they had just pulled this out of a hat, since there'd been nothing building up to reveal that. A little bit of research told me that this had been established in his games already, which is why it felt out of the blue to me. I should've known that it was just part of his character, so I figured I'd spare you from coming to the same conclusion.

There's some violence in the game, ranging from mild cases, like Nick being bitten by a pooch as part of a running joke or a girl getting clubbed in the back of the head, to stuff that's a bit more severe, such as a few people getting murdered. Some blood is shown, but not never in the murders themselves. In the Witches' Court, if you're found guilty, you are "cast straight into the hellfire." What surprised me most was that there's one suicide (not seen by the players) and a couple of suicide attempts throughout the game (never depicted as a good decision, though).

Language is pretty much non-existent. Nick often uses "heck," but there really isn't anything else in that regard. The closest we get to real swearing is someone saying "son of a witch" at one point.

What earned this game its Teen rating in NA is a minor character by the name of Foxy, a member of the Vigilantes. She is suggestively dressed in a low-cut, midriff-revealing breastplate and a short skirt. When she appears in a trial, she will frequently and quickly cross and uncross her legs. She is accompanied by two other Vigilantes, Servius and Treddon. They say that they like it when she steps on them and admire her. At one point, she makes a comment about how she likes being on top, something I didn't catch until after I played the game. (There are also apparently a few other remarks in the game that can be taken suggestively, but I think you'd be straining to see those.)

There was a bit of lag on occasion, depending how many characters were on-screen and which ones they were. It didn't really bother me too much, but I figured I'd mention it just in case. I also wished that some of the final puzzles were a little more difficult than what they actually were in the game, though I guess it depends on the person playing.

source

Positives

Oh, where do I start . . .? Let's start with the plot. As someone who has never touched a game in either one of the titular characters' series, the storyline is what convinced me to buy the game--well, that and the fact that I got it for 30% off. Since then, I have bought three Layton titles and the original Ace Attorney trilogy, which should say something. But the plot was super captivating and kept me hooked me all the way through, drawing me back for more. Even when there was a lot of exposition happening at one point--I mean, it is a visual novel, so I'm not sure how else they could've explained all they did--I was still giving my whole attention, because I was connecting the dots and figuring things out.

In fact, without going into detail, I truly loved some of the twists this game had. There were times when they could've gone with the "easier" explanation for something, but they decided to go with that which is "harder." It's difficult for me to fully elaborate without spoiling stuff, but trust me, you'll know once you play.

I also enjoyed the bonus episodes, which are miniature chapters that you can download and play once you're finished the 30+ hours of the main campaign. They're quite humorous and provided me with much mirth, even if they're not totally canonical. Trust me, I'd pay for them in a heartbeat if they weren't free.

The characters themselves were totally amazing, and when there was spoken dialogue, I think the voice actors nailed every line. Layton was the group intellect and leader, while Nick provided the comic relief on a regular basis. Maya's enthusiasm was hilarious, and Luke was just endearing. I read that the other characters were boring and bland, but I completely disagree.

For starters, we've got Espella; I desperately wanted to see her innocence proven, because she's such a nice and caring girl. The Storyteller was mysterious and sent shivers up my spine with some of the stuff he wrote. Darklaw's authoritative and powerful presence as the High Inquisitor could practically be felt through the screen, and the Great Witch's layered voice (you know, when they have several people speak the same lines and layer them all over top of one another) was creepy as all heck. Even the side characters and witnesses were both very unique and very interesting.

But I think my favorite character, aside from the main ones, was Inquisitor Zacharias Barnham. He stood as Nick's rival in court, but he was so much more than that. He cared about his town and the people who lived there. He didn't want to see them continue to be hurt by witches, so he hunted them down with a vengeance. Though antagonistic toward Wright, I would classify Zach as more of an anti-hero. Plus, I loved how the crowd would shout his name out during the trials, adding to the chaos of the medieval court. I didn't catch until later that it's a play on words, as the people shouting "Barnham!" is supposed to be like "Burn 'em!" In fact, in every language that the game has been released in, his last name is a pun of sorts for witches being burned. So that's a plus.

source

I will mention that there is a certain character who gets dropped out of the last act of the game, and fans have expressed their disappointment over what they consider to be the abandonment of a character arc. I strongly argue otherwise, as I believe the arc was finished like it was intended. But again, I can't explain in detail, due to spoilers. If you play the game and find this to be so, message me and we'll have a discussion.

What about the actual gameplay? Like I mentioned earlier, the two different styles merged into a very satisfying and enjoyable experience. I had also never played a visual novel before this, but I thoroughly enjoyed it! Think of it as reading a book, except you've got the visual aspect added and you can interact in some ways. It's amazing. Never once was I bored by what I was doing in the game, even though it's not as involved as, say, a Zelda or Kirby title.

And if there's something that can absolutely not be criticized, it's the music. It's absolutely gorgeous, an orchestral masterpiece. I have never, for any other game, stuck around on the menu screen pretty much every time I played to listen to the opening theme in full. I also spent $75 to buy a physical copy of the soundtrack from Japan, so that should tell you how highly I regard this soundtrack.

It takes themes and songs from both series and gives them a new flair. Layton's side of the score tends to be more calming and gentle, as it's used for the areas you explore and the puzzles you solve. Wright's tracks can be anything between quietly suspenseful to bombastically grand as you stand in court and fight for people's lives. It's all so phenomenal, and is now tied with Undertale for my top favorite soundtrack of all time.

I'm not really sure what else to mention. I've already discussed plot, characters, music . . . I loved the art style of the game! I found it very pleasing, from the anime cutscenes to the whole look of Labyrinthia to the 3D character models. I also appreciated the themes of the game, and as much I would love to discuss them, I really can't do so without possibly moving into spoiler territory, and I do not want to disclose anything remotely spoilery for you guys. Again, if you finish the game and want to talk about its themes, find me somewhere online to have that conversation.

Conclusion

I think one of the best judges of a story, be it a book, film, or video game, is how you feel when you have to bid the characters farewell.

As I finished off the last chapter of Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright, and the credits began to roll, a heavy feeling made itself known in my gut. I was going to miss these lovely individuals and their incredible adventure. The feeling was dulled somewhat by the knowledge of the special episodes, but it didn't disappear completely.

Then I played the DLC and got a lot of laughs and joy from the bonus chapters. Even though it hadn't been that long since I played the main story, I was excited to be reunited. It didn't last forever . . . only a few hours, to be precise. It was all over again, and this time around, it felt real. I got that pained hangover one gets when saying goodbye to characters one had become attached to. In fact, it was several days before I picked up my 2DS XL to play another game.

That spoke volumes to me. Even though I get to now explore the individual series and see their own worlds and characters, it won't be the same as my first love for Layton, Nick, Maya, and Luke in my introductory journey with them. I have already determined that, after I've let it rest for a while, I'm going to replay the crossover.

Combined with a magical plot that entranced me play session after play session and a beautiful score that instilled in me all the right emotions at all the right times, it's made for a game I won't easily forget. It didn't take long for it to rise through the ranks of my favorite video games, and now it's sitting at--or close to--the top.

Is it completely stain-free? No, and some might find it more problematic than I did. I think that it all comes together to tell a powerful story, one of truth and its ability to set captives free. It resounds with me, and it's something that more people need to hear.

Thank you, Level-5 and Capcom, for sharing this with me. I am grateful for having gotten the chance to experience all the emotions and themes you placed within your game.

Onward to truth, and may we never stop searching for it!

source

I'm finally done rambling about and praising this game. I hope I did it justice with my little review. What did you think of it? Are you now interested in playing it? If you have already, what did you like or dislike about it? I'm more than happy to talk about it with you!

Aquman /// A Movie Review

Last week, one of my cousins texted me and asked if I wanted to come with him and another cousin to watch Aquaman. I immediately said yes, because these two guys are fun to hang out with. But at the same time, there was a bit of hesitation in me. It didn't have anything to do with my cousins, but rather with the movie itself. After watching the last DC movie in theaters (Justice League, which I did post a review of), I was unsure of how the new film would hold up. I had seen a couple trailers and thought it looked cool, but I wasn't about to have high hopes for the DCEU.

It was with little to no expectations that I went to the theater. But what I saw pleasantly surprised me.

source

Plot/Story-Related Stuff

It's been a year since Arthur Curry fought alongside the Justice League against Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons. Arthur--also known as Aquaman--hasn't stopped his heroic deeds. But if one thing's certain, it's that he wants absolutely nothing to do with Atlantis. Its denizens are why his mother is gone, and he won't forgive them for that.

One evening, as he and his father are leaving a bar, Princess Mera (briefly featured in Justice League) shows up, begging for him to come and fill his role as king. If he doesn't, then the current leader, Orm, will unleash hell upon the surface dwellers. Arthur has no interest in being king, and chooses to head back home.

On his way there, an unearthly tidal waves almost kills his father, and he realizes that this is only the beginning of the madness that Orm has planned. Thus, he reluctantly travels to Atlantis with Mera to put an end to those schemes. But he will have to prove his worth, and all of the underwater kingdoms are against him.

I'm gonna be completely honest here: the plot itself isn't anything completely new or revolutionary. If you boil it down to its basics, it's a quest for an item of power to take down the villain, and the hero grows and changes along the way. But even if we've seen this kind of story before, it's still one that I thoroughly enjoy. And besides, there's nothing new under the sun, right?

A complaint that critics had about the movie was the supposedly-convoluted plot, and here I'm going, "Did you somehow turn your brains off partway through the film?" I found it easy to follow along with the different characters, and every scene had a purpose. There was no fillers, nothing that made me question why I bought a ticket to see this movie. I thought it was a solid--albeit somewhat cliché--storyline.

Characters

Something that Justice League failed at was properly introducing the new characters--Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman. Those who were already known didn't get any good continuation on their character arcs. The villain was boring and incited no fear in me as a viewer. Aquaman was very different.

I enjoyed Arthur's character. He's one of those guys who has a big, tough exterior and a good heart beating below the surface. In his opening scene, he charged without a second thought into the thick of a band of dangerously-armed pirates to save the helpless crew . . . but he wasn't above mentioning that they were cutting into his drinking time. He was roguishly charming, and the way he evolved over the course of the film was excellent, I thought.

Mera was a great companion, one who believed in Arthur even when he didn't. She was what I consider to be one of the best types of female characters: a girl who has a tender heart, but who can also seriously kick butt and fend for herself. Her powers complemented Arthur's, and I could believe that their romantic relationship was possible. My only complaints about her are that her name sounds a lot like Ariel (the bright red hair doesn't help), and that her standard outfit reveals far too much cleavage.

What about the two villains? Well, Orm was certainly an interesting and complex villain, far better than Steppenwolf, or even Ares. Honestly, I could see why the Atlanteans adored him as their ruler. He seemed like he cared about them and wanted what was best for them, but in truth, he was manipulating things from the shadows to get what he wanted. I probably wouldn't classify him as one of my all-time favorite antagonists, and I'd have to see the movie again to fully analyze his character, but I thoroughly enjoyed his personality and demeanor.

I think the second villain, David Kane, kinda stole the show. Though he was a ruthless crook, he still had a bit of . . . I dunno, good? Maybe relatability? Whatever the case, Aquaman basically created this foe, and even though his motivation for revenge isn't totally unique, he was still great on screen. Maybe I'm just a sucker for epic battlesuits that involve lasers shooting out of the helmet's eyes. Speaking of which, that brings us to the next section. (I will quickly mention first that I also enjoyed the other characters in the film, but I won't bother talking about each and every one of them.)

source

Costumes/CGI/Cinematography

The costumes in the film were epic. Seriously, I loved the armor that the Atlanteans wear, especially their water-filled helmets they have to don on land. Arthur's classic Aquaman outfit and Black Manta's suit looked like they were pulled straight from the comics.

What was even more epic was the CGI. Whoever did the special effects needs an award. From the typical ocean life to the war sharks and sea horse-like creatures, from the towering titan monsters to the Trench, everything was breath-taking. I was even blown away by the simple ripple effect that was used when the characters were underwater. And the final battle, man . . . I'd totally agree with the critic who compared it to The Lord of the Rings.

After I took my media class in college, I've become a lot more aware and appreciative of great camerawork, and this film has plenty of that. It's very evident that James Wan was a cinematographer before he became a director. One of my favorite scenes was the battle with Black Manta, and how the camera would smoothly transition from Aquaman and Manta duking it out on the foreground to Mera running from elite warriors in the background. Huge props to the camera crew for their amazing work.

Music

As I said in my review of Justice League, I believe music is one of the most key elements in a film. Danny Elfman composed a lackluster score for the previously mentioned movie, one that failed to do justice (pun intended) to Hans Zimmer's and Junkie XL's musical DC world thus far. Rupert Gregson-Williams's compositions, on the other hand, is a complete 180. He set a great tone for an underwater adventure, using a mixture of synths and orchestra to his advantage. I recall almost always being aware of the score when I watched the movie, something I hadn't done since The Death Cure. I was listening to it while I wrote up this post, and I'd have to say it's a great addition to my superhero soundtrack collection. I'll definitely be featuring it on my blog at some point.

One prominent theme was Orm's, which always consisted of a Zimmer-esque, synthetic WHOMP WHOMP, if you know what I mean. Black Manta's theme involves some nice dark and heavy synths, whereas Aquaman's theme is on the opposite end of the spectrum. I hope DC continues to have Rupert compose their film scores, because he's created a fantastic one for Aquaman.

source

Conclusion

Never did I ever think a movie about a hero whose power is talking to fish would work.

The fact that James Wan made Arthur's powers feasible, realistic, and actually very cool is a testament to his dedication to the film. You can tell it was made by someone who loved what he was doing. Compare the movie to the one bland underwater scene in Justice League, and you'll spot the difference quite easily.

There are a lot of things working for this film, and I was thrilled the entire time. Some might argue that my seeing it in 3D and in D-BOX increased my enjoyment, and while I agree, those things can't disguise a bad movie. Watching Justice League (I'm still bitter with that movie, as you can tell) in the same fashion wouldn't have suddenly made it a great cinematic experience. And those things can't add heart, an element that Aquaman had. Seriously, I almost teared up once.

This depth of emotion is something that DC's been missing for quite some time. And in spite of the film's plot and characterization not being entirely unique and new, other aspects give it more creativity and originality. At the end of the day, I would say that Aquaman was better than Wonder Woman and just as good as Man of Steel. I would even say that it was leagues ahead (pun also intended) of the other DCEU installments.

Dare to dive into the world of Aquaman, and I think it might surprise you.

Those are my thoughts! Have you seen the movie yet? If not, why haven't you? If you have, what did you think? Did you agree or disagree with my points, or have anything else to add?

The Lone Ranger (2013) /// A Movie Review

You probably know by now that I'm a fan of the underdogs in media, such as The LEGO Ninjago Movie and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. They aren't critically acclaimed or have experienced a falling out, but I love them wholeheartedly. I consider it my duty to share my enthusiasm for them so that others might come to appreciate them as well.

That's where the 2013 film The Lone Ranger comes in.

source

Now, I've got three historical periods that I love in books, movies, and games: the feudal era of Japan, the Golden Age of Piracy, and the Wild West. When I saw the trailers for The Lone Ranger (which I'll probably be abbreviating to TLR for simplicity's sake), I was pumped. I hadn't really seen any movies about gunslingers facing off with train chases and epic shootouts. Western movies generally seem to be a thing of the past, so I anticipated a more modern film.

Then I heard that it bombed in the box office and was hated by many, many people. (I also heard some joke about it, but I can't recall it at the moment. Something about it being free on Black Friday and it not even being worth that? I don't quite remember.) I still wanted to watch it, but now I was a bit apprehensive. Was it as bad as people said? The only way to find out was by seeing it for myself.

Warning: potential spoilers ahead!

Plot

John Reid is a lawyer who's coming home. He's joining his brother, Dan, in a group of Texas Rangers, upholding the law on the untamed front. It's not his forte; he prefers to fight in a courtroom, not in the wild desert. But when a search for the infamous Butch Cavendish goes south, John is the only one who comes out alive.

Presumed dead, he must don a mask and become the Lone Ranger, a warrior for justice who operates outside of the Rangers' jurisdiction. With the help of Tonto and the spirit horse, Silver, he goes after Butch and his gang. But there's more going on here than meets the eye, and soon the duo uncover a plot bigger than both of them. They're the only ones who can stop it, but will they when both the law and the outlaws are against them?

Pros

Oh, where to begin? I'm predicting it now: I'm going to be all over the place in praising this film, so please bear with me. Let's start with the plot itself. Is it necessarily new and original? No, not really. But that doesn't mean using the tried-and-true is a bad thing. Sometimes we can get all up in arms because a movie or book doesn't do something we haven't seen yet. Falling back on what's worked before, while still adding your own elements to that, is okay. In fact, media like that can become a comfort movie/book.

What I'm trying to say is that it's fine for the movie to not try something extremely bold or daring. The plot still worked well for the movie, which means it's A-Okay with me. Speaking of the plot, I've heard it said that the runtime felt a little padded. I disagree. I never felt that any one scene was unimportant or too long. They each did what they were supposed to do, so again, no complaints from me. And to be honest, the story-within-a-story got me off-guard, so good for them.

What about the characters? Considering that Armie Hammer hadn't played in many movies beforehand, and this was supposed to be his big break, I think he excelled in his role. He captured the essence of the Lone Ranger perfectly: a man who follows the law without being in it, who refuses the mindset of "shoot to kill." Indeed, neither he nor Tonto directly kill foes, even when given the opportunity. You have to understand, this is coming from a guy who didn't grow up on the radio series and doesn't suffer from what I'd like to call the negative nostalgia syndrome. (In short, that's when fans of something old are always complaining about the new version and talking about how the old one was the best.) So I think Hammer nailed his character and brought some fresh life to him.

The casting of Tonto, however, was quite controversial. People wanted someone who fit that role in the racial sense. Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that if the actor is good, the race doesn't make that much of a difference to me. I don't know why people don't get that. Take Black Panther, for example. Was it a great movie? Sure, but I wouldn't say it's Marvel's best film. But you see everyone praising it for having such a huge black cast, and I have to wonder how successful the movie would've been had the cast been white. It probably would have made less. That's not me saying I can't have other ethnicities play in movies, but my first question always is, "Can they act well?" not "What race are they?"

A rabbit trail, to be sure, so let's get back to Johnny Depp playing Tonto. I thought it was a perfectly acceptable decision. He's aced every role I've seen him play, and Tonto was no exception. Plus, he's got the best facial expressions, and you can't argue with that unless you're blind, in which case you can't see his face . . . Ahem. Anyway. With his tan and face paint, it didn't matter that he wasn't the proper ethnicity for the part. He still succeeded.

source

Other actors and actresses also did well. William Fichtner got the vibe of the cannibalistic Butch right; while I wouldn't say he was as creepy as, say, Heath Ledger's Joker, being a consumer of human flesh makes you pretty darn spooky in my books. Tom Wilkinson was the perfect greedy tycoon. I'm not going to mention everyone else, but I never felt like anyone's acting was sub-par.

Plot and characters are arguably the most vital elements, but you still need a great score. Hans Zimmer delivered, as he always does. Do yourself a favor and listen to TLR soundtrack. Not only does Zimmer keep his signature epic style, but he also gives it a delightful Western flavor. I'd have to say that the ten-minute track, "Finale," takes the cake, as he gives the "William Tell Overture" his treatment. I've read that he apparently used a sledgehammer and an old train engine near his house to create the forward momentum feeling for some of the songs. Basically, Zimmer is always a win.

Everything else, from CGI to the scenery to the cinematography, was wonderful. I never felt pulled out of my immersion by any of the elements in the film. And while I can't recall any really unique camera shots, that doesn't mean the camerawork was bad. I was hooked from the first second to the last.

Cons

How about the fact that it failed so miserably? That's definitely a negative. My cousin explained to me that Disney tends to put a lot of money into marketing select movies they hope will make it big, which are usually the ones that rake in the least amount of cash. TLR was one such film. He also told me that Westerns just aren't popular anymore, and so it was a bad time for it to release.

Hammer also said in an interview (which I read in this article) that critics had been attacking the movie for quite some time, as if determined to see it fail. And seeing as how the masses can have (not always) a general tendency to view critics as the be-all, end-all when it comes to cinematic opinions, the film crashed and burned. Which is completely unfair to me. Critics, who have never made a piece of art in their life, should not determine how well a movie/show/book/game does. Just saying.

As for actual content concerns, there is some swearing, but nothing out of the ordinary for your typical PG-13 film or TV-PG show. John and Tonto visit a brothel to get some information; nothing inappropriate is shown. The only thing we really see is a man try to force a woman to stay seated on his lap; some of the girls' outfits reveal cleavage; and Red, who runs the place, occasionally hikes up her dress on her fake leg so she can use the built-in gun. Rebecca Reid had a previous relationship with John before marrying Dan, but she clearly likes John more, so it's a bit strange until Dan dies and removes any further weirdness. Butch pees into a bucket, and we see him (and the stream) from behind.

Some violence occurs, like two outlaws having their heads crushed (it sounds worse than it looked), and a lot of people being mowed down by machine guns. Comeuppance is served in most spectacular fashions. I don't recall every single death, but there wasn't anything too bad. The worst was--obviously--Butch himself with his cannibalistic tendencies. He licks a knife with blood on it and has taken body parts from others. We see one example of this, when he takes out Dan's heart and bites into it. However, due to the fact that we're watching via a reflection in John's eyes, it's not as uncomfortable as it could've been.

source

There's also a general Native American spiritual aspect that comes into play, with John being a supposed spirit walker who can't die in battle, and Silver being a spirit horse. Some more sensitive people might not like this, but I took as just part of the storyworld. Some people might also argue that soldiers are portrayed as being evil, but I never got that sense. It was more of just one corrupt captain trying to save his hide and his men showing loyalty to him. This isn't a fully detailed review, and you can look one up at PluggedIn if you want. I thought it was fairly good all-around, and I certainly had no issues story- or character-wise.

Conclusion

If I were to describe The Lone Ranger in one sentence, I'd say this: it's a Western take on a Pirates of the Caribbean film with characters who have stronger moral backbones. It's got the crazy action, goofy humor, and occasionally over-the-top violence of the Pirates films, while giving our heroes solid morals. John despises guns, but he still wishes to uphold the law. So when he wears the mask of the Lone Ranger, he shoots to wound or disarm. And yes, while some of his actions do result in the death of villains, I never felt that he was doing it for fun or with vengeance in mind. He was simply trying to do the right thing.

This is where I think a lot of old fans--with a lot of negative nostalgia syndrome--have issues. In the old shows, one of the Lone Ranger's codes was to never kill. His bullets were made of silver to keep in the forefront of his mind how valuable life is, and how taking it is not something to be done lightly. So when they watched the 2013 film, they think that the creators have taken that aspect away from him.

I don't see it that way. Life is complex, and not everything can be boiled down to black and white. Should our heroes always be perfect? Are they not allowed to make mistakes? Have we never wished that the justice system was improved? Sometimes we want to take matters into our own hands, which is what John does when he becomes a vigilante. But like Batman, he doesn't want to kill. At the end of the day, he simply wants his loved ones to be protected and the innocent kept safe.

So yes, much of this movie can seem like a fun, summer blockbuster on the surface. But examine it closer, and I think you'll begin to appreciate how Gore Verbinski approached the character that is John Reid and his transformation into the masked man. I hope you'll give The Lone Ranger a chance, because it has a lot to offer you: two and a half hours of enjoyment and laughs with a side of thought-provoking questions if you're willing to do some contemplation.

Well, do you agree or disagree? Have you seen the movie, and if not, why? Have I improved in my movie-reviewing skills since I did Justice League back in December? Do share any and all thoughts!

Sophie Quire and Half Moon Investigations /// A Double Book Review

A little over a year ago, I reviewed the whimsical tale of Peter Nimble and His Fantastic Eyes. Since then, I haven't done another book review. But today is the day that I remedy the situation. I'll be showcasing not one, but two stories. I shall try to avoid spoilers, and any that I must give will have a disclaimer. Let's do this!

Also, I apologize for the lateness of this post. It just took longer than I thought it would, which is kind why I slightly rushed the second review. Sorry about that.

We shall start with the review for Sophie Quire and the Last Storyguard!

Plot

Twelve-year-old Sophie Quire is at odds with the people in her town. Bustleburgh has decided they shall be rid of all nonsense--and that includes all fiction. They are rounding up all novels and creating the Pyre of Progress, which shall be lit in a short while. Sophie is having none of that. Her father is the owner of a bookstore, and as the bookmender of said store, she understands the magic of stories.

Her talents don't go unnoticed, and the blind thief, Peter Nimble, and his companion--the man-cat-horse known as Sir Tode--show up on her doorstep. They've brought a book with them that needs to be repaired, and it is anything but ordinary. The Book of Who is a thing of magic and nonsense, one that answers to your "who" questions by flipping to the correct entry.

Caught up in something bigger than herself, Sophie must join forces with Peter and Tode as they search for the other three books, which are What, Where, and When. Villainous folk lurk, and they would love to get their hands on the power contained within the books' pages. To save the world, Sophie will have to become . . .

The last Storyguard.

Pros

Oh, where do I start? I think the beginning is a very good place, because with the first paragraph, I was reminded just how much I loved Jonathan Auxier's writing style. Allow me to share it with you:

It has often been said that one should never judge a book by its cover. As any serious reader can tell you, this is terrible advice. Serious readers know the singular pleasure of handling a well-made book--the heft and texture of the case, the rasp of the spine as you lift the cover, the sweet, dusty aroma of yellowed pages as they pass between your fingers. A book is more than a vessel for ideas: It is a living thing in need of love, warmth, and protection.

In fact, I firmly believe that Auxier's voice is one of the reasons both Peter Nimble and Sophie Quire were so enjoyable. Take away his whimsical way of writing, and you take away one of the stories' key ingredients. A writing style is like the wheels of a car: if they're flat, no matter how good that car looks, it isn't going anywhere. I think he definitely nailed his own unique approach to a novel.

Something he's also succeeded at is his worldbuilding. While the setting of Peter Nimble was the mixture of clockwork machinery and fairy tale castles, this one has a very different flair to it. I wouldn't know how to describe it, but I very much enjoyed the backdrop he created. It fit the overall story quite nicely. One might say it resembled that of a classic fantasy adventure, but not in a bad way.

I'd like to point out--and appreciate--the fact that some of my cons from the previous book are now pros. A big issue for me was that some characters had felt a little flat and could've used some rounding out. If they had been given more oomph, the story would've come alive that much more. This time around, that was a non-issue. The main characters were teeming with more life than they had in the first book, and no side character was uninteresting. Considering that Auxier has only written one novel between the two Peter Nimble books, he's come a long way.

source

I also mentioned that there were times when Peter suddenly felt something, liked tiredness or hunger, with no build-up to be found. Not a trace of that problem remained in Sophie Quire. It seems Auxier has learned from his mistakes, a much-needed quality in a writer.

I loved the plot. Just as the first book turned the orphan saga trope on its head, this title did the same for the chosen one trope. I was never once bored by the story, nor felt that any part of it was shoddy. I couldn't put it down for long; it got me hooked and didn't lose me at any point in the story. But what I really want to touch on is the theme of the story, which is both strangely profound and vastly different from anything I'd ever read. So, just in case . . . POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT!

Auxier's message is that books are magic. When we lose that magic--that "nonsense"--our world becomes bleaker. There's one scene where Sophie peers into another world, where children are doing school. They'd lost their stories of wonderment and imagination, and now they're dreary from all the boring information they have to read.

That's what Auxier hits so perfectly. He inspires you to go read other books and renew that sense of awe. For a writer like myself, by the end of the story, I felt a strong desire to go out and contribute to that magic as well. I can't recall the last novel I've read that has ever had this effect on me.

He also disabuses the notion of escapism, which I've never appreciated or cared for. He demonstrates this perfectly in one conversation:

"I don't understand," Peter said. "How can burning a bunch of books hurt things in the real world?"

"The real world," Professor Cake repeated with a tone of notable contempt. "The very notion is absurd. Worlds and everything in them are made real by the stories that inhabit them."

I totally agree. Books can give us hope for brighter days, help us to see something from a different perspective, or just find some simple enjoyment. It's interesting to note that Auxier also proves this in the story's finale (ACTUAL SPOILER ALERT!): when a monster is unleashed to destroy all nonsense, the first thing it does is to gobble up the villain who brought it forth, then head right for Bustleburgh, as if they're the ones who are full of nonsense. ALL SPOILER ALERTS OVER!

I could go on and on about this story, but I still have to do the cons and another novel, so I better get in gear.

Cons

As is often the case with middle grade stories, twelve-year-olds do far more than they technically would. Both Peter and Sophie are this age, and they put their lives on the line a lot. However, because I enjoyed this book so much, it's something I can easily overlook.

Now, I have to ask, how much have middle grade books evolved since I was last part of the target audience? There are things I wouldn't have imagined back in the day. For starters, there's one use of "d--n," though said character is reprimanded. (I can't recall if there were a couple uses of "bloody" or not.)

Violence-wise, it happened less often than it did in Peter Nimble, though it was still the same level. Again, I don't remember all the instances of violence, but here are a few that stuck out to me: a character is gobbled up by a monster and suffers a most painful death; someone is shot in the throat; someone's hand gets chopped (off-screen); a man is eaten by wild animals; stuff like that.

But the biggest concern of this story is more of a . . . sensual matter. A woman gives Sophie a dress that bares her neck and shoulders (because her original clothes were torn in a "disadvantageous" way), but Sophie isn't comfortable with that. The woman tells her:

"A walled garden must have a lattice gate. Before a woman can be desired, she must reveal a bit of what makes her desirable."

Said female character later does things like slit her dress up to her thigh to garner pity and . . . male attention, I suppose. Now, if this was a YA novel, I would say it's a very clean one; I wouldn't really bothered by it. But because it's in the juvenile section of my library, then I feel weird about it being in here.

Conclusion

If someone were to ask me what my favorite book of the year was, it'd be a toss-up between Moonblood and this one. Sophie Quire was an immensely enjoyable read. Aside from my opinion that it should be labelled a YA story, I enjoyed everything this book had to offer.

Sophie Quire and the Last Storyguard is one of those rare books that refuses to be pushed back by those who claim we read only to escape reality. Auxier believes stories are magical things that need to be loved and cared for, and he weaves a gripping tale that makes you want to go out and just read as many novels as possible. Too often, we abandon childlike wonder and hope when we age, but this story is a call for us to come back to that.

To conclude, Auxier included a quote at the beginning by Scottish author Kenneth Grahame, who said, "The most priceless possession of the human race is the wonder of the world. Yet, latterly, the utmost endeavours of mankind have been directed towards the dissipation of that wonder . . . Nobody, any longer, may hope to entertain an angel unawares, or to meet Sir Lancelot in shining armour on a moonlit road. But what is the use of living in a world devoid of wonderment?" Auxier absolutely nails this message, tucked away in a delightful, imaginative read.

source

I give it five out of five stars!

Now, here's the review for Half Moon Investigations!

Plot

Twelve-year-old Fletcher Moon is a detective who's seen it all. That's what he thought, anyway, until he gets a new case that is unlike anything he's dealt with in the past.

It all started with him proving that Herod Sharkey stole an organizer at school, and when Fletcher reveals that Herod is indeed the culprit, Red Sharkey doesn't like it. Fletcher's prized badge disappears, and he knows that the Sharkeys--the town's biggest criminal family--are behind it.

But in trying to get it back, he becomes involved in a new case . . . one in which he is framed for the crime. He has to clear his name, but time is running out fast.

And the criminal is still out there, waiting for another opportunity to strike.

Pros

As I mentioned in my last Monthly HapPENings post, I love me a funny detective story. My love for this sub-genre started when I read Sherlock Johny's Case Files on the MBs. Here, I even got the author's permission to share an excerpt. I wanted to include the whole scene, but it'd probably end up being longer than the actual review.

As soon as we entered the first floor, we were met with AP's voice.  "What will the Moderators do next? NOTHING! As usual. I'm AwesomePythor for MBN. We'll be back! Right after these commercial messages." The TV above MKM's desk cut to commercials.

"AP's so annoying," Darthy said. "And weird. He's like, addicted to chocolate milk."

"Addicted?" I asked.

"Yeah," Darthy said.  He lowered his voice.  "I heard he can't go without a bottle of chocolate milk a day."

"That's crazy talk," I said, turning for the door.

"No it's not, look," Darthy said, grabbing my shoulder and pointing at the TV.  A giant glass bottle full of brown liquid had just appeared.

"What's that?" I asked.  5 seconds later, I wished I hadn't.  Out of the screen belted the most obnoxious voice I've ever heard.

"Coco Sippies taste so good!

You should drink them, yes you should!"

On the screen a user suddenly grabbed the bottle and started chugging it.  It took me a moment to realize the user was AwesomePythor.

"When you're grumpy, when you're sad!

Coco Sippies make you glad!"

That story is where my love for comical mystery began, and if you enjoy that too, this is the perfect story for you. I really appreciate Eoin Colfer's sense of humor, and he succeeded at it in this story. But it's not all fun and games. The plot has some very interesting twists and turns, and even had a reveal in the end that I didn't see coming (but is apparently a trope used in old detective shows).

No one can ever say that Colfer creates boring characters. Well, The Supernaturalist might be an exception, but for the most part, they are all unique, and very much so. While there isn't necessarily a lot of emotional connection to the characters, by no means does that entail a disinterest in them. I very much wanted to find how whodunnit (see what I did there?). What's very clever is how Colfer made things seem really grand and conspiratorial, when in reality the whole thing was on a lower scale than Fletcher might be willing to admit.

I think those are probably the biggest pros of the whole thing: the spot-on humor, the intriguing plot, and the characters who tie them both together.

Cons

Very few. There's the occasional use of "oh my God." Fletcher finds himself in perilous situations, but there really isn't any strong violence (the one thing that really sticks out to me is Fletcher being struck forcefully by a bat). He also has to escape the police and break into one place, but that kinda comes part and parcel with the genre. Someone uses his computer to illegally download music. It's just little stuff that I mention just so people are aware, not because I'm actually offended by it.

Conclusion

After reading The Supernaturalist, I was hesitant to read another one of Colfer's stand-alone books. Half Moon Investigations seemed the most promising, but would it hold up to the awesomeness that is the Artemis Fowl series?

In short: yes. It was very different from that series, but it was very good. Would I say it was as good as Sophie Quire? No, because that book left me inspired and gave me food for thought. This was just a fun, fast-passed read, and it's most certainly worth your time. (I don't want to give the impression that I don't like the story. I just have less to say about it, and I want to get this post up.) I really hope it gets a sequel, seeing as it even got a small TV show.

source

I also hope that other authors pick up on the whole comedy mystery idea. We could use some more of those types of tales.

I give it four out of five stars!

So what're your thoughts on my double review? Would you read either one of these books? Which looks more appealing, and why? Should I do more book reviews in the future?

Undertale /// A Video Game Review

Let's talk about Undertale, shall we?

Now, I've been wanting to discuss this game on my blog for a long, long time, but I had just never gotten around to it. Since I recently beat it for the first time, I figured now was as good a time as any.

source

Overview

So what's the premise of the game? Humans and monsters used to live peacefully, until war broke out between the two races. After many battles, the humans won and decided to seal the monsters in the Underground by having their magicians create a barrier to keep them in.

Years later, your character--a human child (no gender is given, but I've always considered them to be a girl)--falls through a hole in a mountain and ends up in the Underground. There, you encounter a wide variety of monsters, ranging from a talking flower and a goat mom to skeleton brothers and a fish knight. (Sounds crazy, I know.) Your goal is to exit the Underground and return home . . . but what you do along the way is up to you . . .

This is where the really interesting stuff comes in. You see, Undertale is an indie RPG (role-playing game, for all you non-gamers out there) developed almost entirely by one man, Toby Fox. His tagline for the game is, "The friendly RPG where no one has to die!" If you've ever played RPGs before, you know that when you fight enemies, you can either choose to do battle or run away. Not so in this one. You have other options at your disposal; if you choose to do so, you don't have to kill a single monster.

The combat system is also different from your typical RPG. It's bullet hell combat, which means you evade enemy attacks, as shown in the gif below:

source

Because you have the ability to spare enemies, that opens the door to multiple endings. There are three routes, which are basically different ways you can play the game: Neutral, Pacifist, and Genocide. Neutral is where you kill some enemies and leave others alive, which is what I did for my first playthrough of the game. Obviously, you spare everyone in Pacifist and kill everyone in Genocide.

When Undertale was released in September of 2015, it blew up all over the internet. On Steam, the game has overwhelmingly positive reviews, and it's easy to see. With graphics that hearken back to old-school games, clever dialogue, unique fights, phenomenal music, and dynamic characters, this game has been loved by many. But what's my opinion on it? Well, that's what I'm here to give, and I think it's ideal that I wasn't caught up in the initial hype. I will try my hardest to keep this review as spoiler-free as possible.

Negatives

Now, I think I want to tackle the negative things first, because I just want to get all that out of the way. I'll start with the fanbase. If you hear the name Undertale and you cringe, you've most likely encountered the bad side of the fandom. Not everyone is like that, to be sure, but sometimes it's the noxious people who are the loudest. From simply being toxic to going so far as to make pornographic fanart (I hear Tumblr is especially bad), these people can be off-putting. But you should not judge a piece of art by its audience.

For example, let's pretend I saw a book that has a really interesting premise. However, I knew people who read this very novel, and I found that their obsession with it to be very weird. So I decide not to read it. That's not fair to the author! I'm basing my opinion off of other people, rather than the source material itself. You can only take someone's opinion as that: their opinion. It's up to you to decide your thoughts on the book. You shouldn't choose to think of a book negatively because of negative people.

So while I'm talking about this, I may as well insert a disclaimer: what I talk about in this review is, of course, my opinion. I'm basing my review of off my personal experience with the game, so you can take it or leave it. We may have differing opinions, and that's okay. It's just life.

Now, back to the minuses of Undertale. There is a bit of swearing, but not all that much. It's a few typical misuses of God, h-ll, and d--n. There's also some talk of becoming a "god," or "godlike," so if that makes you uncomfortable, just a heads-up.

But there's an issue that's, uh . . . a lot more sensitive in this day and age. There are two homosexual couples in the game, one gay and one lesbian. If you spare two Royal Guards (both males who say "like" and "bro" a lot), they confess their feelings and go get ice cream together. That's it. The other couple, however, is a little more prominent, as it involves two main characters. Only in the Pacifist route is it featured more. The worst that happens is that they're about to kiss, but are interrupted; later, one kisses the other on the cheek.

This might already turn some of you away from ever playing Undertale, and I can respect that. Truth be told, I didn't even know about those two relationships until after I was gifted the game (thanks to a generous coworker of mine) on Steam. But with my knowledge that I have now, would I still buy the game? To that, I give a hearty "yes." (You'll see why when I list the pluses.) But here's my take on it: as much as I believe those relationships aren't healthy and that they're not what God desires, the game is still an amazing experience. The same-sex couples are not the point of the game; it's not to push that agenda in your face. It's about a fun, emotional experience that subverts your expectations of RPGs.

Why did Toby include homosexual relationships? I don't know. Would some say that the game is supposed to challenge your thinking, and adding those couples is part of that? Maybe. Would others claim that it's an attempt to normalize these relationships? Possibly. We live in a world where we have to face these issues, and we shouldn't be scared of that. We can still love on people while not supporting their lifestyle--although that's another topic entirely.

In the end, for me, it boils down to the fact that the couples are not the main focus of Undertale. Believe me, if they were, you probably wouldn't have this review, because I probably wouldn't have played the game. And again, if it makes you uninterested in the game entirely, I understand. Just wait until you've read this whole post, okay?

Lastly, there is a robot by the name of Mettaton who has an alternate form that would some might think looks feminine. I, personally, think it looks cool; after all, he's just a TV celebrity who wants to be glamorous.

source

Positives

Ah, where to begin . . .? Let's start with the fandom. Yes, I listed it under the negatives, but I was thinking of the weird ones. There are "normal" fans too, who draw really good fanart of the game. In fact, I have a whole board for Undertale on my Pinterest account for art I find that I love. (Be warned: some pics might be spoilery.) I shall share just a few of my favorites throughout the rest of this post.

Another positive is the cast of characters. As I said before, they're a dynamic crew. Here's a collage I found of the main characters:

source

How Toby was able to inject so much life and love into these rather simply designed characters is beyond me. In fact, that's one of Undertale's tricks: plain design, lots of heart. I fell in love with each and every one of these characters. I mean, even the regular enemies are all unique with their own interesting ways to be bested in combat.

Toby said that he wanted every monster to be an individual. He made a comment that in RPGs like the Final Fantasy series, all the enemies are the same and that there's "no meaning to that." His work paid off in crafting a world brimming with creative monsters who have their own personalities. Yes, you'll sometimes encounter the same kind of enemy more than once, but even so! A lot of effort went into making a solid cast.

Although I love all of the characters, my three favorites are Papyrus, Undyne, and Mettaton. (You already saw a pic of Mettaton; Undyne is the fish and Papyrus is the skeleton on the far right of the above collage.) Papyrus is so quirky and lovable (yes, I know I keep using the word "love"). You can't help but like him even as he attempts to capture you and stump you with puzzles. He might not the be the brightest candle on the cake, but he's definitely one of the friendliest! . . . If candles could be friendly, that is.

Undyne initially comes off as a tough-as-nails, kick-butt warrior in her menacing armor, armed with an endless supply of energy spears. But she's fiercely loyal to her friends and has a huge heart. You might be rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh yeah, haven't heard that one before." Trust me, you haven't met a female character quite like her.

There's a lot more to Mettaton than meets the eye, in more ways than one. At the end of the day, his dream has always been to be glamorous. I'd talk more about him, but he comes around closer to the end of the game, so I don't want to spoil anything. Suffice it to say he has secrets . . . and one of the best boss themes in the game.

source

Speaking of the music . . . on second thought, I'll blabber about that on the next Music Monday.

And the dialogue! It's always so perfect. There are a lot of memorable quotes throughout the game. (Also, I'm currently playing through the game again with Kaitlyn watching, and I've been reading the dialogue out loud using different voices. It adds another level of enjoyment, almost as if Toby intended the lines to be spoken.) One of my favorite quotes is when you tell Papyrus that you'll be his friend, and he responds with, "Really!? You want to be friends, with me??? Well then . . . I guess . . . I guess I can make an allowance for you! Wowie! We haven't even had our first date, and I've already managed to hit the friend zone!!!"

While we're on the topic, the humor in this game is always on-point. I don't know how to properly describe it, but it's made me crack up so many times. And yes, there are puns in this game, which I quite appreciate. I think the humor caters to a bunch of different tastes. One example of this is Toriel in the beginning of the game. You see, her name is a play on words. It comes from "tutorial." Toby disliked the character of Fi, whom he believed to give the answers to puzzles too early (careful, dude; don't go hating on my favorite Zelda fairy). So he had Toriel just do the initial puzzles for you and make the solutions super obvious.

Some more of his wit shows up in characters like Sans, who speaks in the Comic Sans font, and Papyrus, who speaks in the Papyrus font. There's even a character who you may never see, W.D. Gaster, who speaks in Wing Ding.

This is a good segue into what's called the "fun code." Basically, whenever you play through the game, it randomly picks a number between 1 and 100. Depending on what number you'll get, you will receive different phone calls or see some rare characters, which adds to the playability factor.

source

And THAT moves nicely into the topic of the story. Because the game has different routes, and the Neutral route has several different flavors, if you will, the replay value is significantly higher. The plot itself is so creative, but I'm not going to get into it very much because of spoilers. If you're looking to play this game, don't look up ANYTHING else about the game. Seriously, it's too good to be spoiled. By the time I finished my first playthrough, I had pretty much the entire game and all the routes spoiled for me. I still thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but there's something to be said about a spoiler-free experience. It just can't be beat. (If you have any questions, rather than looking them up, ask me so I can give you safe answers.)

When I think of Undertale, there's a few different words that come to mind: "consequences," "remember," and "determination." I'll expand on each one of those words.

We all know that in life, actions have consequences. In many video games, because of linear storylines, things that happen will always happen. That's just how they're programmed. This game takes a different approach. If you save that one character, he may help you out later on. If you kill another, others might not be too happy with you. And should you choose to come with the mindset of playing like it's a normal RPG . . . well, let's just say . . .

You're gonna have a bad time.

To talk about this further, I wanted to share something with you that happened to me while playing the game. MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! You may recall I had this picture in my Monthly HapPENings post for January:

source

So I was playing a Neutral route, and I had decided I was going to get into the mindset of a scared kid who's in an unfamiliar land filled with monsters. I'd figured I would probably kill Undyne, because she was legitimately trying to decimate me. However, before I got to the fight, I left Undertale for a while. When I came back, I knew a lot more about the characters and whatnot. Even so, I decided I would still go with my decision to beat Undyne.

We arrived at our battlefield, and she mentioned I had killed a lot of monsters--including a teen comedian who'd fallen in with the wrong crowd (Snowdrake, in case you're wondering). I wasn't expecting this, and began to start feeling bad.

Then we fought. The conclusion to that battle, and the music playing, made it all so emotional, as Undyne's attacks got weaker and weaker. What got to me was when she "smiled as if nothing was wrong."

I killed her and progressed into the next area, the Hotlands. I received a call from Papyrus telling me that he thought I'd be great friends with Undyne. No music played. The Hotlands welcome sign was deactivated. Sans didn't appear at his station. I knew I'd messed up, and as soon as I got to the next checkpoint, I saved and quit. I never thought it would happen, but a game made me feel very guilty about killing one of the characters. That's true brilliance right there.

MINOR SPOILERS OVER!

This is where the game might get a little creepy, because it remembers your previous runs. On my second time playing, characters are acting as if I look familiar--like I'm an old friend--when they technically shouldn't. And trust me when I say that, once you've done a Genocide route, your game will never quite be the same. Simply resetting or deleting files won't fix it. I've found a video of a more complicated way to get a fresh start . . . but that kinda ruins the game's messages: there are, and always will be, consequences to your actions.

This game's self-awareness goes beyond recognizing you after you've reset your file; it breaks the fourth wall. Again, not going to get into the details because spoilers. Trust me when I say it's very cool and spine-chilling.

Honestly, Toby was a genius to code Undertale to remember and be self-aware. I feel like not a whole lot of games out there take advantage of this, which added to this game's success. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one other game that does this. The funny coincidence is that they're both indie games. An interesting thought to chew on.

Lastly, before I wrap this all up, I want to touch on the subject of determination.

source

Determination is a word you'll hear a lot in Undertale. Actually, it's become one of my favorite words since I've played the game/watched YouTubers play the game. Simply put, determination is defined as "firmness of purpose." Many art forms, from books to movies, focus on things like courage and bravery, or strength and power. But what are all these things without determination?

For example, let's say a soldier is in a war to save his country. He's a very courageous soul, fighting for his loved ones and his people. But if he is not determined, he will not last. He must believe in his cause so much that he will push through the pain and heartache to achieve his goal. Nothing will stand in the way of a determined individual.

So I love that Undertale makes use of a word--a theme--that many games don't focus on. It's very thought-provoking, and I think that aptly sums up the whole game. It's a thought-provoking experience, which, in my mind, is what all art should provide after entertainment. But this post is getting long; perhaps I'll do a full post on determination another day.

Conclusion

Undertale began its journey as a Kickstarter project with a goal of $5k. It ended up raking in over $51k, meaning it made more than 1,000% of the original goal. It was released on Steam in 2015 and received glowing reviews, doing so well that it was ported onto the PS4 and the PS Vita, along with being made physically, in 2017. Just a few days ago, it was announced that the Nintendo Switch will be getting a port of Undertale. The game has been called a cult classic and has won or been nominated for about 40 different awards, according to this list on Wikipedia.

It's received phenomenal acclaim, but in the end, does it deserve it? My answer to that question is . . .

YES.

Honestly, Undertale is one of the best video games I have ever played, and I don't say that lightly. I've laughed, I've cried, I've pondered it . . . I've enjoyed it. Immensely.

Does it have problems? Of course it does. I don't want to minimize the issues, but at the same time, no game, or book, or movie, is perfect. There will never be such a thing. But to me, this comes pretty close.

At the end of the day, I walk away feeling satisfied, that I've spent my time well. I've hung out with some of the best characters you'll ever meet, listening to fantastic music, and contemplated a lot of different things. I've had . . .

A good time.

Good job, Toby Fox.

source

After reading my review, what's your opinion on Undertale? Would you ever play it? Why or why not? Do you agree or disagree with my take on it? I'd be happy to discuss things with you in the comments; if you wish to chat about spoilery things, be sure to be considerate of those who haven't played. Also, would you enjoy more Undertale posts, like writing lessons from the game, examinations of some of the best moments, etc.?