QR Double Feature Part I: The Expendables

Possibly one of the greatest film concepts ever, when The Expendables was announced and the first trailers were shown, I must admit I was extremely excited. This movie couldn't possibly suck with the literal and figurative firepower fueling it. Now that this big, dumb, action romp to end all big, dumb, action romps is finally in theaters, does it live up to expectations or is The Expendables not worth your expendable income?

SO WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

The Expendables follows the titular mercenaries on a suicidal operation on the fictional island nation of Vilena. A dictator, backed by a shady American, is bleeding the country and its people dry, and the CIA needs some heavy hitters to bring down the regime at all costs. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), must decide whether or not he should risk the lives of himself and his team for a noble cause and a chance at redemption.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The cast of this movie does what they do best, and that's to kill things and blow things up. When the action is good in this movie, it's very good. Highlights in the film include Jason Statham fighting a group of preppy basketball players, a "wrestler vs. boxer" rematch as Steve Austin takes on Sylvester Stallone, Terry Crews firing a huge gun, and Randy Couture executing the most pointless finishing blow I've ever seen in an action flick. Also, despite not having too much to say, the chemistry shared by the stars of the film is great, and it helps to compensate for some of the movie's faults. There also exists an incredible geek-out moment when Sly, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar share a fairly comical scene inside a church. Lastly, Mickey Rourke continues to be one of my favorite actors as, despite his limited role in this movie, he adds unmistakable charisma and emotion to his character with just a few monologues.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The problem with The Expendables is, although it takes obvious cues from films of yester-year, it fails to eclipse any of them. The sad fact is that The Expendables is just too tame for its own good. Sure, there is plenty of bloodshed (some of which is obscured by some... interesting photography and editing choices), but some of it feels hollow when compared to the cast at work here. I mean, we're talking about a collection of action stars here, and sadly they all just feel like they're too contained and there's never a moment when these guys are just allowed to get nuts. When combined with the bare-bones plot with very few compelling villains and a very flimsy driving force for our heroes, you're left with something that amounts to an appetizer rather than the feast of action that this movie should have been. It should also be said that the Dolph Lundgren subplot started out with great potential, but failed to end satisfyingly. It's a shame because Lundgren actually does a good job, and sadly he doesn't get nearly as much time on-screen as he deserved (this can be said for a couple other cast members, as well). I mean, it's Dolph Lundgren. Throw the guy a bone.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Since the name of his character is mentioned MAYBE once in the entire movie, I'm just gonna assume Steve Austin played himself. I mean, it's even said how he has no qualms with laying the smack down on a woman (in real life, Austin was accused of abusing his ex-wife Debrah Marshall), so that's just further evidence that the Texas Rattlesnake is not acting so much as just walking on set and talking.

Also, Terry Crews in a movie without letting him do the robot dance? Blasphemy.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

This is a very entertaining movie whilst it lasts. Putting aside any wasted potential, The Expendables is a great action flick the likes of which hasn't been in theaters in quite some time. That being said, with a weak plot and some even weaker characters, this movie lives and dies on both its action and the personality of its main cast. Both of these are relatively strong, making this a movie worth watching at least once, but there just isn't much to latch onto once the final credits roll.

i-Rix Review: Castlevania: Harmony of Despair

2010 seems to be the year of our lord Dracula. Not only is Konami's venerable vampire-killing franchise getting a proper current-gen console release when Lords of Shadow comes out later this year, but during Xbox LIVE's summer of arcade, we're given a unique take on their side-scrolling adventures in the form of Castlevania: Harmony of Despair. With its focus on multiplayer speed-runs over the more traditional story-driven castle exploration of its more recent efforts, Harmony of Despair is somewhat of an enigma. As such, it's ironic that the title of the game includes both the words "harmony" and "despair", because for those players that are not intrigued with the idea of working in harmony with fellow vampire hunters, this game will likely only lead to despair.

PROPER PROs

This is still Castlevania. However different the general mechanics of what you're attempting to accomplish in the game are, it still plays the same as the series has played since Symphony of the Night. The smooth platforming action combined with great character sprites and detailed environments still make this a joy to play. This adventure is a bit condensed however, with no story to speak of and 6 smaller environments taking the place of a larger castle, but that actually gives the game a bit of a retro feel as the goal of each map is simply to reach the boss and defeat it.

This plays into the main draw/downfall of the game, and that's its five playable characters and six-player online multiplayer. The game includes five characters from the more recent games in the series and each play different and have a different levels of progression that reward players for sticking with their favorite character. For example, on top of collectible weapons and armor, most have some kind of talent that can be buffed up through continued play as them. This includes Soma Cruz's ability of Dominance which allows him to collect the souls of slain enemies and use them as sub-weapons and summons, or Charlotte Aulin's ability to bind projectiles to her spell-book, gradually increasing the number and power of her magical spells. Taking your character online will mean that you'll have a particular role to play as you and 5 others go through the game's 6 stages and (hopefully) work together to take down the endboss, Dracula. That, however, works better in theory than it usually does in practice.

Lastly, like every other game in the series, the soundtrack in Harmony of Despair just kicks ass. From the very moment the opening guitar licks light up the first chapter, you're guaranteed plenty of the awesome music the series has become known for. If I ever see a soundtrack for this game in stores, I will not hesitate to purchase it.

CRAP-TASTIC CONs

The problem with Castlevania: Harmony of Despair is that each and every one of its positives (aside from its fantastic soundtrack) can also be seen as a negative, starting with its graphics. Although the environments look good and the character and enemy sprites animate well, every inch of this game is recycled from previous Castlevania efforts. Even if you're not such a fan of the game that you'll notice this, you'll probably notice that despite the HD in the title of this game, the textures are just a bit... jaggy. It's obvious that they attempted to touch-up their old models for this release, but perhaps instead they should have re-drawn some stuff if they seriously wanted to push this game as a major release.

As for the five playable characters, it again seems that Konami went with the economic choice in selecting characters that already had current-gen sprites. The oldest player model is Alucard (and as such he looks a tad out of place), which means that series stalwart Simon Belmont is not in this game. No, this game doesn't have Simon simply because they didn't have sprites for him, but even as such, a classic character like Richter Belmont who actually DOES have useable sprites is not included. The developers have already hinted (and leaked) DLC characters and maps, but that makes the game seem even more of an attempt to cash in. It also stands to mention that at 6 stages (each meant to be beaten within a time limit of a half-hour), this game is a little light on content.

And that finally brings us to actually playing the game. I actually like the fact that this game is challenging and a bit grind-y when played alone, but it's obvious that it was meant to be played with 5 others. That means your enjoyment of the game is going to be dependent on who you're playing with and, with no off-line co-op, that means it's most likely going to be strangers. While most players are relatively cool and attempt to stick with you throughout the stage, there are quite a few jerks or people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing, which isn't a whole lot of fun. Also, the only other mode included is a Survivor mode in which 6 players try to kill each other. I think the only way to describe why this mode doesn't work is this statement.

THIS IS CASTLEVANIA.

THE FINAL VERDICT

If you're a Castlevania fan, this can be a fun addition to your collection. There is some fun to be had here, and the idea of putting together the series' hunters to take down Dracula is a great idea. The execution, however, is far from perfect, and everyone else not acquainted with the franchise aren't going to really see a lot of appeal. Do yourself a favor, if they ever release the soundtrack on CD, use the 15 dollars you would have spent on this game on that.

Final score: 2.5 Bone Pillars out of 5

Questionable Review: Inception

Since I've been neglecting my blog as of late (despite sitting on a bunch of stuff I should really be writing down), what better way to get back into the swing of things than tackling Christopher Nolan's latest juggernaut of a movie, Inception; a movie I saw whilst on my recent pilgrimage to Las Vegas.

This movie really just kinda snuck into theaters, in my opinion, and managed to garner a ridiculously huge audience through its original premise of "subconscious security". As A Nightmare on Elm Street first showed us, we're never more vulnerable than when we're asleep, and Nolan has taken that idea into what is essentially high-stakes/high-concept crime movie. Does this lead to success, or is this movie far from a dream come true?

SO WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

As I stated before, this move is all about dreams and what occurs within one's own mind. It revolves around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his shady activities as an agent of the mind and master at the art of extraction which is the act of entering the dreams of another person in order to extract some clandestine information from them without them even realizing it. His expertise draws the attention of energy corporation CEO Saito (Ken Watanabe) who promises to get Cobb and his partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), out of the mysterious trouble they are in if they are able to perform an "inception" job on a rival. Inception refers to the act of PLANTING an idea into someone's head rather than extracting it, something that has been proven to be far more difficult to achieve, and Saito wishes this to be performed on a business rival (Cillian Murphy) so he will break up his father's energy monopoly and allow Saito the upper-hand.

The film then breaks into full-scale "bank-heist" mode as Cobb must assemble a team of specialists to make sure the job goes down without a hitch. Among them are an "architect" (Ellen Page), a "forger" (Tom Hardy), and a "chemist" (Dileep Rao), all essential to building a convincing dream-world. Things start going south almost immediately as the combined complexities of constructing layer upon layer of dream reality are even FURTHER complicated by Cobb's sordid past which makes the operation a fight for the participants' very lives.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The very concept of Inception is incredibly intriguing and executed phenomenally well for how complex it eventually gets. You might not ALWAYS understand the greater intricacies of what is going on, but the movie does a good job of slowing itself down to make sure the basics are explained. The dream world itself is also very well done through the use of subtle special effects, and one scene in-particular is pretty incredible in the way it makes a familiar environment feel extremely surreal.

There is also no denying that the cast here is stacked with the highest quality of actors. DiCaprio does his usual great job as the troubled hero of the story, and Page is fantastic playing the audiences' anchor to reality (being the relative rookie and the storyline and the one who truly questions Cobb's motivations). I would also probably mark this as Gordon-Levitt's breakout role, as he does an equally good job of playing both suave professional and comic foil. The rest of the cast is equally strong, with Watanabe in particular putting on a great performance as the cold, yet trustworthy Saito.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

For as much as this movie deals with dreams and the darker patches of the mind, only a few times does it ever truly get as bizarre as you yourself might recall your own dreams to be. That is a missed opportunity. The mainstream critics as well as the marketing campaign for this movie is really pushing the MIND FUCK aspect of it... yet my mind felt relatively unsatisfied with just how straight-forward the plot is.

Finally, this movie suffers from three of the pitfalls of Christopher Nolan's films. The first is its ridiculous run time. This movie is almost 3 hours long, and it certainly feels that way as the climax drags on and on for far too long; there is only so long one can feel tense before it becomes too much, and this movie's climax is just a bit too much. Secondly, the dialog is a overwrought in places, which leads to some overly dramatic and just flat-out stupid conversations. People don't always spout cryptic shit, Nolan, so stop making them do it. Lastly, the majority of the action sequences are shot like ass. If you have ever seen Batman Begins, you know that Nolan isn't the greatest at staging coherent or even exciting action sequences, and that is the case here as well. Overall, these are just nitpicks, but they do add up to a point.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Oh, Ellen Page. How I wish you'd marry me and make giant fore-headed babies with me. Alas, it shall never happen. That aside, it's actually kinda funny just how young and out-of-place Ms. Page can be in a majority of scenes in this movie. For those that don't know that she's 23 years old, it can make the kiss between here and Joseph Gordon-Levitt seem like pedophilia.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Inception is a good movie. Nothing more, nothing less. It's easy to dig the over-arching idea of it, but its length when placed next to the extent of its plot makes a lot of the film seem like padding. It is greatly pushed up by the strength of its acting performances and its originality, but this is definitely a movie that will likely be recalled as being greater than it actually is. You should definitely experience its unique and complex world at least once, but don't let yourself be lost in delusions of this being a masterpiece.

New and Exciting: i-Rix does ANIME!

I have, for some time now, turned a contemptible eye towards the broad spectrum of animation that falls under the identification of "anime". I can't even truly pinpoint the source of the hatred; as a youngster I would revel in following series like Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Dragon Ball Z, and Monster Rancher and as an adult I love the craziness of video games developed under Japanese developers like Capcom, Konami, and of course Nintendo. This would seem like I'd have a hell of a foundation and propensity towards enjoying anime, but I've been a longtime subscriber to the Jeff Gerstmann school of "Anime is for Jerks, yo".

That is until... well... only a few weeks ago, now. I finally was able to step back and look at my general interests and ask myself, "Why is anime not among these?" Okay, I didn't really ask myself that, since I don't really speak that way in real life, but the point remains the same. Why NOT anime?

So in the spirit of trying something new and exciting (and because it's my birthday and I do what I want), because the title says so, I have cast away (most) prejudice and have embraced the world of anime. Perhaps embraced is a bit of a strong word, as I've only entered what one might consider the shallow end of the ocean that is anime, but nevertheless I am fully prepared to "do this thing".

So what am I watching, you may indeed be asking yourself my nonexistent readership. Well, because I have admired it from afar for so long due to its ridiculous depiction of exploding body parts, I've dove head first into Fist of the North Star aka Hokuto no Ken. A rough undertaking to be sure, as the core series has over 100 episodes, but after speeding through the Shin saga, I cannot get enough of Kenshiro and his continuing journey through the wastelands of 199X.

Anime fans know the series is a classic, and I have taken it as my first big step into fandom to watch every bit of the series that I can. Luckily for me, the series is subtitled in English and can be watched free and legally on Funimation.com. I'll probably be doing some sorta... review thing for Part 1 of the series in the weeks to come.

But that is not all, no. Because she more or less is the boss of me, a good buddy of mine suggested I give the insanity of one of her favorite series a try. That series just happened to be the sublimely psychotic FLCL (or Fooly Cooly to me and you).

OH GEEZ. That is pretty much all I could say after the first episode. This had to be one of the craziest, randomest, and utterly insane things I've ever seen, but with only 6 episodes comprising the series, there was something infectious about it. The characters were likeable, the animation was fantastic, and it just had an intangible quality that made it impossible to dislike the series. I can now say with some certainty that FLCL is one of my most favorite THINGS ever ever. I am pretty much indebted to my dear friend for her forcing this onto me. Like Hokuto no Ken, I'll be doing something with FLCL down the road.

And I suppose that's how the future of my anime-watching will go. I will seek out the classics that intrigue me, and those in the know will suggest more obscure titles that I wouldn't ever think to bother with. I am not saying I'm going to become some super otaku or anything, but I believe I have embraced a new medium that will lead to much more enjoyment down the road.

Most importantly, this new and exciting change has shown me that, just like everything else, anime has many facets and should not be classified as a single entity to be hated.

If you have any comments, or just like what I wrote, or would like to point out how WRONG I am, feel free to type it up in the comments section. I greatly appreciate feedback.

Until next time.

Questionable Review: Toy Story 3

I know I said that my next blog post would be regarding trying new things, but first I believe it is imperative that we re-visit the familiar. Amazingly, it has been 15 years since the first Toy Story movie put Pixar on the map. I myself was just 7 years old at the time, and my younger brother hadn't even been born yet, and somehow after all these years, the franchise has managed to stay relevant and to shine in every aspect.

From story-telling to characterization to comedy to visual flair, Toy Story has and always will be Pixar's darling child. Now here in the year 2010, the final(?) chapter of the Toy Story has been released, and not only does it rocket passed all expectations, it will easily become a long-cherished movie for infinity and beyond.

SO WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

We pick up the plot of Toy Story 3 relatively chronologically from where Toy Story 2 left. A large chunk of time has passed, and with it have come many changes. Andy is 17 years old now and is headed off to college, and understandably his toys have been neglected for quite some time now with some even having been thrown away or sold off in yard sales. Those that remain are led by Woody and Buzz Lightyear who attempt to keep their fellow toys' spirits up, but when a mistake leads to a majority of them ending up on the curb with the garbage, they decide they are better off being donated to the local daycare center. Although Sunnyside Daycare seems like a paradise at first, it is soon becomes clear that it is more prison than retirement home. Now it's up to Woody and pals to attempt to get out of dodge and return to Andy, where their fate may be even more uncertain.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

EVERYTHING.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

It eventually ends. Despite your complete desire for it to continue, it will eventually end.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I cried during the closing scenes of this movie. I think that says enough about the level of sentimentality, nostalgia, and overall emotion that this movie brings to the table. If there is anything closer to a perfect film or a perfect conclusion to a series than what Toy Story 3 brings to the table, I would love to see it.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Pixar are geniuses. How they somehow made a movie about toys feel like a gripping human drama is just all part of their film-making magic, and in my opinion, not only is Toy Story 3 arguably the best in the series, but it is in the top 5 of best Pixar movies ever. I usually use this space to qualify my verdict and say "If you like this or that, then you should probably go see this movie", but this film requires no qualification. If you are a HUMAN (maybe even if you aren't) you need to see Toy Story 3,

Impressions of Dragon Age 2 [The (not so) Short Version]

Seeing as I am probably the last person in the world that completed Dragon Age: Origins and that I probably have less than merited opinions on it, I figure I may as well add to the cacophony of conflicting opinions on where the series is headed and what the possible changes could be.

I suppose I should just begin by saying what my overall impression is of what's been announced about the game. Generally speaking, I'm truly excited for what the proposed changes will be. A general idea of my thoughts can be found in the Dragon Age 2 discussion of last week's TalkGames podcast, but here are the individual bullet points on what I'm hopeful about and what I'm NOT so hopeful about with Dragon Age 2's announcement

WHAT SOUNDS COOL, DUDE?!

• Improved graphics. I don't believe I'm the only one who believed Dragon Age: Origins looked BAD... and I mean REALLY BAD. I'm never one who gets super worked up over a few rough edges in a game, but considering how character-driven Dragon Age is, and how the lack of convincing character models and poor animations really ruined some heavy moments in the game for me, any improvements are really welcome. Also there are mentions of a new "visual style", hinting at a more stylized game. That's always a good way to go in my book.
• Combat seems to be moving more towards action. This is a point of contention with most who discuss this game, believing it as another sign that the game is becoming more like Mass Effect with swords rather than staying closer to its more archaic and hardcore roots. As someone who likes Mass Effect a lot more as a game, this probably excites me more than anything. I realize because I played the first game on Xbox 360, I may have a different experience than most, but I reiterate my feelings; It may have been EASIER to manage the game's various systems had I used a PC, but I doubt it would have made it more enjoyable.
• The idea of a voiced protagonist and more centralized plot seems like a step in the right direction. Dragon Age: Origins had a fantastic storyline with great characters, but little of that really had anything to do with YOUR character. Sure, you were recognized as the Grey Warden and the leader of the group or whatever, but not having a voice and kinda ineffectually standing to the side whilst all the discussion was standing by didn't really do much to make you feel like a super integral part to the plot. Hopefully that's remedied in the sequel.
• Darker edge? I know this is pretty tricky to pull off without seeming like you're trying too hard, but I thought Dragon Age was supposed to be about DARK Fantasy. Sure, Origins was pretty violent and there were some pretty messed up aspects, but it still felt very much like high fantasy, and therefore at times could be extremely comparable to other already existing franchises. The current screenshots are showing a much more haggard world and a darker overtone, so I hope that Dragon Age 2 actually takes it all the way into dark territory.

WHAT MIGHT BE LAME, BRO?!

• Improved graphics?! If you say so, dudes, because if these early screenshots are any indication, your definition of improved is certainly different from mine. The fist image looks pretty good, but nothing earth shattering. I hope the game looks a lot better in motion or starts looking better as we get closer to release.
• New territory to explore. I guess this is a good thing, but considering how much info. and care was put into Ferelden, placing our hero into a whole new territory could make the game feel considerably different in a way that may be hard to appreciate.
• Lack of variety with the protagonist. It seems that the ability to play as either a warrior, a rogue, or a mage is still intact, but as the protagonist has a set name and back-story, that eliminates one of the interesting things about your main character in DA: O, and that is the origin story. Sure you can make your individual "Hawke" unique through his/her actions, but there is definitely a lot of truth in people's concerns that Hawke is going to be the Commander Shepard of Dragon Age.

As you can see, my concerns are far outweighed by my hopes for this game. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Dragon Age, but I am a fan of Bioware's ability to tell a story and, if the promised changes all come together, this should shape up to be one of the best games of 2011. After all, it's not always bad to try new things.

Speaking of trying new things... that gives me an idea for my next blog. Anyway, if you have any comments on what you just read, or just liked what you saw, just go ahead and leave me a comment. And if you REALLY liked it, go ahead and give me a follow. Until next time...

Back-Catalog Critique: Dragon Age: Origins (Xbox 360)

Although video games grab relatively top priority when it comes to any funds I accrue, I always inevitably do run out of money at some point. When that happens, I turn to those archived games that I've yet to finish or just never got around to playing in any sort of length. Obviously, popular opinion and critical consensus on these games are already well-known by this time, so what could I, a lowly blogger possibly add to the conversation?

So, instead of doing a super in-depth review, I'd just like to write down some of my personal feelings about these games and how I enjoyed playing them long after most people had already thoroughly completed their own experiences.

For the first edition of this ill-conceived series, I'll share my feelings about the Xbox 360 version of the instant Bioware classic, Dragon Age: Origins.

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT THIS GAME:

The story, voice acting, writing, and portrayal of complex characters are absolutely top-notch in this game. This seems to be a Bioware's bread and butter, and it's in full force with this game. I really cared about my party members in this game. I didn't want to upset them, and I certainly wanted them to trust me. Saying that about a game with characters who are not real people is, to me, an astounding accomplishment.

Even the very minor characters in this world have their own personality and back stories. If you can speak with someone, chances are they have a story to tell. My favorite parts of the game were the sections that were heavy on the dialog and less so on actual "action".

Lastly, the amount of varied choices in this game mean that your playthrough is going to be at least slightly different from any other person's playthrough. It isn't simply a matter of choosing either the "good" or "bad" option. In this game, you really have to think about what it is you want to do and who it's going to effect. This, combined with the world's deeply rich history really make you want to live in this world.

But notice I said "live" and not "fight...

WHAT I THOUGHT WAS ASS IN THIS GAME:

Combat. For the love of God, the combat. Now, I know playing this game on the Xbox 360 is truly a disadvantage. You can't zoom out and get a good look at the battlefield, having to scroll through your party members during the heat of battle to get to the one you want is just tedious and annoying, and something is wrong with the AI. I created my character to be a DPS frontline fighter. That means when he engages the enemy, I just want him to stand in front and swing. Yet, half the time I would engage an enemy only to have my guy strafe around his target for ten or so seconds while he tried to figure out what he was supposed to do.

I might not be the best strategic mastermind in the world, and whilst I enjoy RPGs, I'm not exactly an expert on character-building in games, but a lot of the deaths I suffered didn't really feel like my fault, rather the game didn't give me proper knowledge of the battle I was facing and therefore I couldn't make an informed decision on what to do next. There were even cases where enemies would just pop into battle after I engaged an enemy further away. I understand that some enemies are stealth-oriented, but this was a graphical glitch, and a costly one at that.

And that finally brings me to the presentation of this game. I've already stated I absolutely love the voice acting, but as far as the actual aesthetics of the game, they're kinda bad. Keep in mind that I played this game following Mass Effect 2, another Bioware game, and while I know that the same team didn't work on both games (Terminal Reality being the DA:O team), but I'd like to think the graphics would have been a little bit better.

Textures are terrible with strange clipping and pretty bad lighting effects, player models aren't great and animate and emote awkwardly, I could go on and on. I'm not one to put too much of a game's quality on its graphical prowess, but if they couldn't get the best fidelity out of this game, they could have at least chosen an art style that would have served the game engine a little better. I know it looks slightly better on the PC, but this game's graphics would have to look a lot better for me to think of them as any good.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

There's no denying that Dragon Age: Origins is a well-made game. The world itself is one that needs to be explored because of how meticulously it has been crafted, and the interaction with your character's storyline is the best I've ever seen in any video game.

That being said, on consoles, the combat is just horrendously clumsy and I never thought of this as a good looking game (in fact I think it's the opposite). It just reinforces my feelings that you can't make a really good real-time strategy oriented game on consoles with the restrictions of the controller, but I also feel that some of those elements in this game are far too archaic, paying too much homage to its "Baldur's Gate" roots.

This is all me musing, but the fact of the matter is that, for the story alone, I'd recommend it. You can set the difficulty to easy and slog through the combat just to experience the fantastic world within. If you really need to enjoy every aspect of the games you play, or you aren't a fan of the fantasy genres, you'll probably want to pass.

My official score.

3/5 decapitated heads.