Man, I just don't know about this Amalur business. It's certainly not a bad game - and I know that I can enjoy games which are mostly borrowed - but it just fails to engage me in the moment-to-moment. The game world and play mechanics aren't just familiar, they're exceedingly familiar, to the extent that the Tolkien-styled fantasy setting, and the loose, button-mashy combat feel uninspired and stale.

It's a shame, because it's very evident that an immense amount of care and effort has gone into this production. The writing and voice acting, the artistic detail, the complexity of character stats and equipment, all speak to and realize a grand vision. But that vision just isn't very interesting.

I dunno though; it's not that it's bad. I might come back to Amalur during a particularly slow season. It's just, man ... I don't care about this game world, at all.

So, a few more play sessions got me through the eight worlds (with a surprise-but-not-much-really extra couple levels at the end of World 8), and I was generally happy but not ecstatic about Mario 3D Land. There really weren't a whole lot of power-ups, and although there was a fair number of stages, each one was generally so short that it didn't feel like there was much game overall; which, aside from a few pretty challenging bonus coins, are also fairly easy. Fun game, but not really deep or complex enough to stake a claim against other modern Marios.

But! While I knew to expect some extra bonus stages at the end - I actually expected a special world like the ones in Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. Wii - I was surprised to find that there are a whole other game's worth of special bonus levels. They aren't just dark-world versions of the main game's levels, either -- these are new, more stages. And even in the first stage, I already found a new power-up!

I still feel like 3D Land is a good-but-not-great entry in Mario's franchise, but the special worlds might hold more surprises for me yet.

I was immensely disappointed when I found out that Arkham City's DLC packs for Nightwing and Robin didn't contain any story content, but were really just challenge maps with new characters. But I'm relatively sure that this one is going to actually extend the campaign, in which case, of course I'll buy it.

Five bucks, thirty bucks, whatever. I had a hankering for some sci-fi and, to put it simply, Mass Effect 3 delivered. As in the franchise's last installment, it's not without its flaws - you may have heard of a bit of a dust-up over the ending - but personally I came away from it very satisfied.

I was worried at first, though. Mass Effect 3 does not put its best foot forward; when the story begins, as the Reapers come to Earth, what should be a both emotional and bombastic scene is instead a hand-holding tutorial. And the next several sequences continue to hold your hand through heavily linear plot points, none of which are particularly interesting or relevant. But in time, ME3 does develop a much more open-ended structure, similar to ME2, where enough optional (yet still meaningful and engaging) side-quests are sprinkled between plot events to keep the galaxy from feeling too claustrophobic.

Gameplay-wise, if there are differences between the ME2 and ME3 experiences, I wasn't able to pick up on them. (So if you hated ME2's departure from the classic-RPG complexities of the first game, you'll find no solace here.) There are new enemies, some of which are really fun to fight, and some of which are the most annoying things in the history of forever; but by and large, it's the same deal as last time, which is pretty good. Personally I've never wanted to play as anything other than the sniper (Infiltrator) class, and headshotting alien dudes from across the map is as awesome now as it's ever been.

And then there's the, uh, Multiplayer. What's surprising about this isn't how it feels relevant to the campaign (it doesn't), or how it respects the player's time and money (it doesn't), but how it isn't terrible. There is actually some fun to be had here, in the same way that any other recent game's Horde Mode can be entertaining for a few minutes at a time. I can't see how anyone would care enough about it to put real money into randomized character bonuses, or even to play it long enough to get the full Galactic Readiness bonus out of it (which deteriorates over time!?). But I played enough matches to get tired of it, and still got a pretty good Readiness boost out of it, so I won't harbor any particularly ill will toward the feature.

One aspect in which ME3 definitely falls short of ME2 is its cast. Given that the second game was all about assembling a rag-tag team of ass-kickers, the third game's crew has relatively few shining stars. There's really only one new crew member I would call "awesome," and it's a bit disappointing that, at least for my tastes, none of my favorite fighters from the last game are even able to join the crew. It's not a bad assembly, especially with classic standbys like Garrus and Tali, but it's just not as good as last time.

I've always criticized Mass Effect for its half-assed choices: dialog options don't sync up with what actually happens (let alone what you wanted to happen), and often the consequences make it feel like you really didn't have much of a choice to begin with. Well, ME3 still isn't perfect in this regard - not to mention the ending (which I'll get to in a bit) - but I felt like this time, my choices had more meaningful consequences than ever before. Choosing between crewmates, and between civilizations, for the ultimate goal of liberating the galaxy; the premises of most of the game's big decision points really built up my sense of the game's stakes, and made me feel like I had a real, significant impact in them. Granted, I looked up the plot points later and found that the potential outcomes were not actually that different, but at the time it really felt like my Commander Shepard was orchestrating the salvation of the galaxy.

Now, about that ending -- there are some really legitimate complaints to lodge against it. In many ways, with its random-ass contrivances and the multiple endings' utter lack of variety, it does feel like something that someone whipped up in ten minutes. Analytically: it's pretty stupid. But holistically, as I felt my dozens of hours of preparation leading up to this one conclusion, it did feel very powerful to me. Hell, maybe it was just the music (which does reach an emotional swell in the game's finale). And, yeah, it's pretty arbitrary and dumb. But I didn't feel as upset about its shortcomings, as I felt happy to see Shepard's three-game story come to a end. I'm pretty curious what that Extended Cut DLC will attempt to do from here.

Fun, engaging, but imperfect. Mass Effect 3 is definitely worth playing, as long as you didn't hate the second game. And for what it's worth, my Origin experience was actually very pleasant. Kudos to BioWare for wrapping up this trilogy on what I would call a good note.

Better than: Mass Effect
Not as good as: Batman: Arkham City, I guess (hard to come up with a good comparison)
Basically as good as: Mass Effect 2

Having dumped even more time into the beta, I have developed even more thoughts regarding it.

Story: it's voiced and written well, and I can already tell that it's got that heartwarming Diablo feel to it, with ancient Hell lore ravaging the already-quite-ravaged lands of Sanctuary. I'm curious to see what trouble Deckard Cain and his cute little adoptive niece Leah will get up to. What really felt missing from the beta were some of Blizzard's classically-epic cutscenes, but I assume that's just because of, you know, beta.

Classes: I tried out each of the game's five classes through the beta quests, and the Monk was my favorite by a mile, although this could easily be an accident of the limited number of skills available at lower levels. The game's three physical classes (Barbarian, Demon Hunter, and Monk) all have a cool seesaw dynamic with their ability meters, but I felt like the Monk had the best balance of left- and right-clicking. I also got a Rune upgrade that made my punch move teleport to the enemy, which was awesome. Anyway, I'm super interested in how later-game abilities will mix up the classes even more.

Mechanics: I was a little disappointed to see the complete disappearance of stat points and talent trees, and the streamlining of the ability hotbar - no longer a freeform amalgam of your favorite abilities, but now one ability and Rune combination choice from each of six categories - took some getting used to. It's definitely a step down from Diablo II in terms of customization and complexity; on the other hand, you can change your loadout whenever you want (even in the middle of a battle), which is way better than never. And the abilities in general are fun enough to make up for the relative inflexibility.

Online: online activation DRM, for better or worse, is a fact of modern PC gaming. But I find it pretty disturbing that there's no offline mode at all, and the beta weekend was a perfect demonstration of why: server instability. Maybe you can get over the client-side connection requirement -- but what happens during the game's launch week, when server stability and capacity issues make it difficult for you to sign in to what is, very likely, a single-player game session? And what about when servers have to be restarted for regular maintenance, making it impossible to play? This isn't an MMO, and having the stringent connection requirements of one just seems wildly inappropriate.

Like I said, most of this bile is from the access issues during the beta weekend, which is honestly somewhat expected. Blizzard has built up a fairly good stability record with StarCraft II's backend, as far as I know, so it's not necessarily going to be a thing. But if it is a thing, it's going to be a pretty goddamn frustrating one.

Open beta! Yeahhhh!

I'd long ago come to accept that I would buy, and play the hell out of, Diablo III regardless of what crazy mechanical or business concerns Activision-Blizzard threw at me. Fortunately, having now actually played it, I'm really pleased with what I'll be inevitably wasting my weekends on.

Not unlike StarCraft II, Diablo III impressively channels its predecessor - rolling through Tristram's ruins, taking apart zombies and picking up loot, the legacy of hack-and-slashing immediately rushing back - while updating and enhancing the experience for modern sensibilities. No, it isn't brand new, and yes, there is a slight sense of (for lack of a better term) "streamlining" in the UI's familiarity with World of Warcraft. But at its core, this is a game about exploring a map, destroying enemies, and tricking out your paper-doll with magic equipment, all in the name of tracking down evil demon lords.

It's good to be back.

Here's a blast from the past: I remember playing the Mac version of this guy, what, almost a decade ago? At the time I got bored with how much of the game was point-and-click rather than keyboard-based. Now that I've got a shiny new copy from some past Humble Bundle (and now that I've got a beer in hand), I decided to give it another go -- and unfortunately stumbled into a basic design flaw that really ruins the whole experience.

The basic element of suspense in this style of game is the trace, where the target of your intrusion attempt will try to detect you. And although Uplink offers a wide array of purchaseable upgrades - faster processors and modems, more memory, cracking software with more features and power - there are no upgrades to reduce the speed or effectiveness of these traces. Instead, the only way to foil trace attempts is to connect through a large number of intermediate gateways, which makes the map crowded and useless, and even when you overcome the tediousness of clicking on dozens of relays, this feels like it dilutes what is otherwise the major challenge of the game.

I would also accuse the game's general balance and pacing of being really off: the credit rewards for individual missions are never enough to make significant progress, missions can only be done simultaneously in very rare instances, and to start, your reputation is so low that there are barely any missions available at all.

I am as interested as ever in the idea of a hacking game, but Uplink is just too unpolished to deliver what I would call an adequate experience.

I picked this up from the latest Humble Bundle, and while I can't speak for its console and PC versions - which frankly, I'm concerned might be a bit too simple - the Android iteration feels like a pretty good fit. Not unlike Majesty, Swords & Soldiers succeeds on an input-challenged platform by automating much of the micromanagement traditionally associated with RTS: units move by themselves, and in fact even more simplistically than in Majesty, since S&S is played on a side-scrolling battlefield.

Pleasantly, Swords & Soldiers' idea of real-time interactivity is more sophisticated than Majesty's. Part of the game's tech tree development includes magic spells, which are actually necessary to level the playing field, as AI opponents have their own magic as well. Managing your mana level and using the right spells on the right targets, all while keeping an eye on your forces and infrastructure, makes Swords & Soldiers feel less, well, diluted than most mobile games.

At the same time, an irreverent if slightly racially-insensitive sense of humor helps keep S&S lighthearted and fun through its campaign. All the Vikings ever wanted was to have a great barbecue, their quest for which culminated in a boss fight with a giant chili pepper (who could resurrect the dead with its zombie powers). I'm curious what wacky antics the Aztecs and Chinese will get up to in their campaigns.

Man, there are a lot of tanooki tails in this game. On Mario, on Bowser, on Goombas, on Bullet Bills; it's downright silly. But 3D Land fully embraces this silliness, which forms part of its surprisingly unique personality.

Its general philosophy of level design is another facet of 3D Land's uniqueness; while the "NEW" Super Mario games are nostalgia-thick with modern twists, and the Super Mario Galaxy games are in motherfucking space, 3D Land's levels fit somewhere inbetween. There's a healthy mix of old and new powerups; there are some sidescrolling segments, but mostly three-dimensional geometry; there are even Galaxy-style throwbacks where props are made from enlarged pixel art, or a 3D Mario finds himself juxtaposed in a 2D scene from an NES game. The genuinely 3D perspective also allows for some cool levels which navigate on all three axes -- imagine a Galaxy level with more verticality.

On the other hand, since 3D Land is neither as nostalgically strong as NSMB, nor as epic and far-reaching as SMG, it really has its work cut out for it. So far the game has done pretty good at justifying the 3DS; but it's not as great at justifying itself, at least not so much as other recent Mario games have done. Its fresh take on the Mario formula is interesting, but not especially amazing. At least, not so far. I do have plenty of game left ahead of me.

Of course I'll buy it.