It’s hardly a surprise, that Monster Hunter Stories, is back for another outing. Now on its third installment (as the name gives away), Monster Hunter Stories 3 is the most ambitious, highest budget entry in the sub-series yet, and arguably the clearest realization of the gameplay loop and stylings these games are clearly going for. Boasting a stronger emphasis on narrative, and a raft of improvements across the board, those who are fans of the MH Stories games will find this one to be the best, most compelling title yet.

"Almost equally as immediate of an improvement is to the game’s storytelling."

On the other hand, however, if you weren’t already sold on Monster Hunter Stories, then this game may not necessarily convince you. In fact, depending on WHY you weren’t on board with the previous games, this one may put you off even more.

Monster Hunter Stories 3 is a mixed bag of good and bad. To be clear, this isn’t an AMAZING looking game, at least on Switch 2 — there are some issues that undermine the game’s graphical prowess that are hard to ignore, and which we’ll get to shortly — but it still looks good, much better, denser, lusher, and overall more vibrant than not just past MH Stories games, but arguably also most, if not all, other games in this specific sub genre of RPG.

Almost equally as immediate of an improvement is to the game’s storytelling. The Monster Hunter games have never been particularly concerned with anything beyond the vaguest suggestion of narrative framing, and the Stories games, while ostensibly more story focused than the mainline ones, have still been very sparse.

The stories in past Stories games have largely been simplistic coming of age affairs, following the main character on a journey across the land as they search far and wide and get stronger over time. There have always been some major narrative hooks that come into play – but to say they take the backseat would still be overstating their prominence to the overall proceedings.

Stories 3 is a far more narrative focused game. It eschews the simplistic framing of past games, and instead goes for a far richer and more textured setup, involving warring kingdoms, the machinations of royalty and their ministers and staff, ecological disaster, the weight of history, and the fate of destiny. It’s not particularly breaking any new ground, especially for a RPG, but it doesn’t have to. What is here is very good, and, in particular because of the increased and stellar artistic values, is conveyed convincingly enough that, for the first time in probably any Monster Hunter game ever, the story can legitimately be your primary compulsion for continuing to play the game.

While it eventually recedes into the background, it’s always a strong hook and frame for your adventure, and it NEVER gives up on strong writing for the many characters you befriend along the way, and several of whom will engage you in elaborate quest lines of their own, which may have you learn more not just about them, but also the larger world.

"Actually engaging with this world is also a lot more pleasant and a lot less tedious than it has been in past games."

That larger world is another strong point of this game. The RE Engine has struggled with open world games in the past, and MH Stories 3 smartly keeps that in mind as it delivers to players vast, open areas that are nonetheless instanced and separated by loads, to keep things manageable. From the various, lush, and often striking biomes you find yourself in (along with all their flora and fauna) to the varied and dense cities, MH Stories 3 makes its world itself a central part of its appeal in a way that I can’t remember a monster catching RPG having done this side of Pokemon Sun and Moon — and that was ten were ago now.

Actually engaging with this world is also a lot more pleasant and a lot less tedious than it has been in past games. And this brings me to what has been one of my primary complaints with Monster Hunter Stories games in the past, which is the core tedium inherent to them. Some of it is intrinsic to the design choices the developers make, and we’ll get back to that shortly. But a lot was seemingly more a matter of execution than concept, since it appears to have been addressed and mitigated greatly this time around.

Traversal, for instance, is one of the easiest and most obvious ways this is apparent — this game still has you use the various abilities of your Monsters (er, Monsties. This may be a more “mature” story than before, but apparently we’re still calling them Monsties) to traverse obstacles an hazards in the environment, but it feels a lot slicker and more seamless this time around, thanks to improvements like a radial UI which lets you quickly change monsters on the fly without delay. All of which results in me, as the player, feeling a lot less disincentivized to explore, since it doesn’t feel as annoyingly start-stop as it has in the past.

Generally, there have been similar attempts to mitigate the tedium across the board — but to varying degrees of success, which brings us to discussing what this game doesn’t necessarily do as well. Take the equivalent of “catching” a new monster.

If you’ve played any of the past games, you know that the process in the Stories games involves beating a monster, that then may spawn a den that it retreats into, following it into that den, and retrieving its egg from it. This process is inherently repetitive and tiring — these dens can be fairly elaborate mini dungeons, that reuse their aesthetic and layouts, and it can feel like too much effort just to get a new monster to add to your roster.

Stories 3 simplifies this greatly — you’re still raiding monster dens to nab yourself their eggs, but the dens themselves are a lot smaller and more compact now, and they’re a lot more forgiving with the RNG in you picking out the egg you want.

The process is greatly sped up here — I’m not saying it’s sped up enough to completely address the issue (it did eventually start to wear on me, especially once the repetition in layouts became apparent, and it happened a lot quicker than I would have wanted it to), but it’s at the very least the best take we’ve had on the concept yet.

Unfortunately this isn’t the only part of the game where the tedium hasn’t been fully addressed — there’s also the combat system.

"Like I said at the outset of this review, depending on what you thought of previous MH Stories games, this one could be your favorite."

The combat system in MH Stories has always been controversial. It is the way it is because of the developers’ (understandable and admirable) insistence on trying to keep the Stories games based in the mechanics and systems of the mainline games. In this case, the developers faced the notion of translating the rather unique and iconic combat of the mainline games to a turn based style.

The results have varied over the course of the series — the original game was praised for its charm, but the battle system got quickly tedious and dragged the package down. The second game attempted to address those complaints by trying to make battles more dynamic, which was good, but simultaneously also served to make the battles feel even more protracted.

And Stories 3… well, first let’s talk about how battles work before we talk about how I feel about them. Much like either previous game in the series, battles are designed around the concept of playing out like turn based interpretations of the fights with monsters in mainline Monster Hunter. At their core, you, your monsters deployed in battle, and your companions all select a TYPE of attack (technical, power, or speed) that you think will top the type of attack the opponent will make (it’s a basic rock paper scissors style triangle).

You’re encouraged this way to learn more about your own monsters, but also the monsters you’re fighting, so you know their behavior, patterns, and tells, and know how to react accordingly. That’s the basic setup – you also want to keep elemental advantages, special attacks you and your monsters can perform in junction when you’re all synched up, Ultimate all out attacks, targeting specific parts to break them off, which monster and character is targeting whom, and mini head to head confrontations all on top.

Does that sound like a lot to keep track of? It is. It’s a lot, and even a standard “trash mob” fight can take MINUTES to get through. Now consider how many fights the average RPG has you engage in, and the problem starts to become clear. It’s just a lot of cognitive load, with even the parts that should traditionally be downtime asking a lot out of the player. That’s to say nothing about how slow each fight feels.

There’s a built in speed up option,  but even with that, I got to a point where I was actively dreading fights. That should never be the case in a game about fighting monsters – but it was here. And unfortunately, the concessions made to streamlining here only served to infuriate me further, with, for example, your current ally acting on their own, which can lead to moments of frustration when they do the opposite of what you were counting on.

The other big fumble with the game I want to talk about is also rather central, and in this case directly ties into what should otherwise be a strength — the graphics. On the Switch 2, specifically, this is not a particularly well optimized game.

The resolution seems to be generally low, leading to a soft image quality, the framerate is unlocked and varies anywhere from 30-50fps, only going up to 60FPS in very small and contained interiors, monsters, people, and objects just a few feet away have severely noticeable decimated framerate animations, and the pop in is immense, with things fading into existence just a few feet ahead of the player. All of this is fairly unfortunate, since it has the side effect of the game seeming unpolished and janky (which it is not), and also undermines the story and storytelling.

It’s confusing why this game is as unoptimized on the Switch 2 as it is — pretty much every other game on the system, from Street Fighter 6 to Resident Evil Requiem, has been exquisite in its technical implementation. Presumably the poor optimization here comes from the game’s semi open nature, which RE Engine has historically struggled with. Equally presumably, it looks and runs a lot better on more capable hardware. But to be perfectly honest, it should look and run a lot better on Switch 2, and it’s a real bummer that the developer hasn’t seen it fit to address these issues that must have very obviously come up in QA and testing yet.

Like I said at the outset of this review, depending on what you thought of previous MH Stories games, this one could be your favorite. If you liked what you had before and wanted a more refined and polished take on it, you’ll love this. If you were intrigued by the past games, but wanted something more narratively or technically ambitious, this is the game that’ll finally get through to you. But if the tedium and repetition of the past few games gave you pause, well, things could go either way with Stories 3.

While it does make several attempts to mitigate the repetition, the jury is out on whether or not they’re enough; certainly this is something that will vary person to person, and where I still found many aspects of the game tiresome, you don’t necessarily have to. The game has a free demo on all platforms, so I do encourage you to see for yourself what you think if the tediousness has been a sticking point for you in the past, and you’re not convinced Stories 3 has done enough to address it.

This game was reviewed on Nintendo Switch 2.

So many great things happened that it feels almost ungrateful to be negative about video games after all that. And yet, in spite of how amazing the games themselves have been, this year also had some really dismal lows — and those are all owed to the platform holders who are tasked to be the custodians of the industry.

Make no mistake about it — for as successful as games are now as an industry, and as a creative medium, 2025 probably marks the year that gaming consoles, long a stalwart and hallmark of the medium, found themselves on shakier ground than ever before. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all variously shot themselves in the foot through the year, making it really hard to root for any of them, with the poor and baffling decisions they kept making.

In fact, let’s get this out of the way — if you really want to know which platform holder “won” this year, the only one we’d feel comfortable talking about without feeling icky and gross about validating some pretty poor decisions, is Valve and Steam, who, like every year, entrenched themselves into the hearts and minds of video game fans the world over, and made some major, bold moves that see them in more direct competition with the other three than they have ever been. Especially with their new hardware announcements, they brought a lot of excitement to their platform. Valve and Steam both have their own issues, of course, particularly when it comes to content moderation, but on the whole, they’re the only platform holders who did well without caveats this year.

Which brings us to the rest of them. This piece, of course, is about the console manufacturers, so those are the three we’re going to focus on for the remainder. And that’s where… actually you know what, let’s save everyone some time and remove Microsoft from the competition right now.

If ever a platform holder has had a period of time where their continued participation in the industry was in question, Xbox’s 2025 would be it. Microsoft opened the floodgates on third party publishing this year, making it clear that ALL their games will hit PS5 (at the very least) going forward. This even extended to Halo, Gears, and Forza – the three pillars of the Xbox brand. Microsoft announcing Halo would be on PlayStation going forward was a surreal moment, akin to seeing Sonic on a Nintendo platform after Sega exited the hardware market following the Dreamcast’s failure.

Microsoft’s continued indication to all customers that there is no need for Xbox hardware to play Xbox games ended up becoming a an expected outcome. Sales of Xbox, which had already been in free fall, declined even now precipitously this year, with Xbox consoles being outsold not just by the eight year old Nintendo Switch, which has its successor out on the market already, but in some territories, even being outsold by niche VR and PC handheld hardware.

Several retailers the world over even started to make moves to discontinue carrying Xbox hardware entirely — this is something you only see when your sales are Dreamcast or Wii U level poor, to be clear. That’s how badly Microsoft fumbled Xbox this year.

The sad part is it didn’t have to turn out like this. Ironically enough, after more than a decade of hyping up their games output and various initiatives like Game Pass, this was the year where things finally came together for Microsoft — their first parties put out several major, largely well received, games, while Game Pass was offering major bangers, including some of the most hyped games of the year in Clair Obscur and Silksong, day and date. Of course, we’re ignoring the several price increases (for hardware AND services, and even an attempted increase for games) along the way — but that only serves to reinforce the infuriating schism between Microsoft’s game output and their business decisions.

With Microsoft being out, the other two are a lot closer to each other. In terms of pure sales, Sony had a great year with the PS5 outperforming its sales in 2024. This, incidentally, was in spite of Sony, rather than because of them, because they chose this year to increase the price of the PS5 hardware globally AGAIN. There were some regional exceptions — the U.S. never saw a price increase, while Japan saw a region locked cheaper model introduced — but other than that, five years into the PS5’s life, we are continuing to see prices increase, rather than come down as they would in a sane world.

Console pricing wasn’t the only thing Sony increased this year either, as PS Plus prices continued to increase in several markets around the world, such as Canada and Australia. Sony also made some decisions that generated concern among their fanbase, such as the decision to release a PlayStation published game in Helldivers 2 on Xbox.

In fact, through the entire year, Sony and PlayStation were marred by small scale controversies — whether that was poor performance and support for PS5 Pro by several games, or them sending mixed signals about when to expect the PS6 (and making no one happy in the process), State of Play events that disappointed multitudes of fans… In fact, arguably the only thing Sony and PlayStation got right this year were the actual games.

This is the one area Sony almost always delivers on, and to their credit, they kept that going this year as well. Sony saw two flagship releases for the PS5 this year, with Death Stranding 2 and Ghost of Yotei. Both of these games were very well received, both sold well, and both are garnering accolades and acclaim on the awards circuit already.

This was on top of their existing games, like Astro Bot, Gran Turismo 7, and Helldivers 2, which all got great continued post launch support as well. And on top of that, the PS5 remained the best console to play most games on, with PlayStation versions of most third party games read performing better on the base PS5, when compared to the competition. Much like with Xbox, the actual games output was fine — it was the other areas that drew ire.

This is sort of a theme in this whole piece, because it also holds true for Nintendo. Nintendo had an extremely eventful year — this was the year that the long awaited Nintendo Switch 2 finally launched, which would make one think, ordinarily, that they’d have it in the bag. But Nintendo made a lot of decisions along the way that proved to be unpopular — from becoming the first publisher to adopt $80 pricing for video games with Mario Kart World, to adopting Sony’s model for paid cross gen upgrades, to high pricing for hardware and accessories across the board, to unpopular DLC policies…

The one area where Nintendo always delivers is games, and in 2025, they… mostly did that. Mostly. I’d argue 2025 was actually an uncharacteristically poor showing from Nintendo on the games front, at least compared to their own standards. They put out several games — Mario Kart World, Donkey Kong Bananza, Pokemon Legends ZA, Hyrule Warriors, Kirby Air Riders, Metroid Prime 4… and except Bananza, which is one of the best games of the year, all of the games were disappointing or divisive in some way or the other.

I’d argue their output this year is still better than Microsoft and Sony, because they had more games out, and because they have the highest rated game out between the three — but it’s actually a surprisingly poor showing from a company that otherwise reliably delivers hits. We are also not talking about games like Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour and Drag X Drive, both of which were very poorly received and represent some of the worst reviewed Nintendo games ever.

Where the Switch 2 did surprisingly well was third party support. Now, over the Switch generation, Nintendo managed to rebuild their third party relations, and with the Switch 2 being a far more capable platform, and Xbox in particular imploding, it’s not a surprise to see that continue here. However, even here, Nintendo made some baffling decisions, withholding development kits, or in some cases even announcements of Switch 2 versions of third party games.

However, in a lot of regards, third parties shone on the Switch this year. Multiple third party publishers seem to have communicated and indicated that the Switch 2 is part of their multiplatform pipeline going forward. Hell, it was  announced Resident Evil Requiem day and date for the Switch 2, which is arguably the biggest show of third party support the system could have gotten other than GTA6 being announced for it. And, as with the original Switch, indies continued to thrive on the platform, with Silksong and Hades 2 (the latter being console exclusive for Switch and Switch 2) being particular highlights.

What’s also interesting is that, for all the unpopular decisions Nintendo made this year — and there were so many — their performance on the market never slowed down. In fact, it did the opposite and it accelerated. In spite of a truncated marketing cycle and a lot of backlash from enthusiasts, the Switch 2 broke pretty much every record in the book for a console launch, selling 3.5 million units in three days (something no other system in history has managed) and over 10 million units in four months, keeping a pace of sales far beyond any other platform in history.

What made this doubly impressive was that the Switch 2 sold this much in spite of a somewhat lacking lineup — it had Mario Kart and Pokemon Legends, yes, but both were criticized by fans of the respective series, and none of the other releases are major commercial hits. This means that Nintendo still has its biggest system sellers — Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, mainline Pokemon — to come, and sales are already this high. It indicates that Nintendo handled this generational transition well, that they have created an ecosystem where players want to stick around, and where they are willing to buy the hardware on faith that the games will come, not unlike PlayStation.

Based on the Switch 2’s explosive sales, as well as Nintendo’s lineup being better than either competitor (if still being weaker than Nintendo’s own prior showings), I suppose if I had to pick a platform holder that “won” 2025, it would be Nintendo. But I want to make it known thar I am not happy about this at all, and that I’m awarding Nintendo this “win” under protest.

Their litany of business decisions this year were deeply exploitative and alarming, and the only reason that doesn’t put them in last place is that, somehow, the competition was at least as bad as them on this front. Corny as it sounds, this year is a prime example of “whoever wins, we all lose”. Nintendo may have won the console war this year, but they’ve made a lot of people very unhappy along the way, just like Microsoft and Sony also have.

For 2026 and onwards, let’s at the very least hope that these console manufacturers can keep their greed in check at least a little bit. But with a whole third of the console market taking itself out of the running, and the sheer state of the hardware components market at the present moment in time, something tells me things might in fact be about to get a whole lot worse.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Today, portables playing AAA games, Skyrim ports, and the Nintendo Switch are all commonplace, and so the true impact of that moment can often be lost on newer audiences. But Skyrim for the Switch helped legitimize both that burgeoning system at a time when it still wasn’t clear that there would be a sustainable market for it, and for the resurgence of portables as a whole. That the port was as impeccable as it was – for years it was among the most recommended versions of the game – only served to reinforce that further.

"Additionally, this version also includes mouse control support for the Switch 2’s Joycon controllers."

In 2025, Skyrim on Switch 2 isn’t really anything special. It’s simply Skyrim, now with a native Switch 2 version. Theoretically this should be an easy win. At this point Skyrim is a several generations old game, the hardware in question is extremely capable, and the version Bethesda has chosen to port – the Anniversary Edition – is a great one. It comes along with the original base game, all its DLC and expansions, multiple quality of life improvements added to the game adapted from player created mods, multiple quests similarly added from the Creation Club. New additions like fishing and Survival Mode (which is honestly my favourite way to play Skyrim now), along with the Nintendo exclusive extras from the original Switch version, most notably the Zelda-themed gear, help round out the experience..

Additionally, this version also includes mouse control support for the Switch 2’s Joycon controllers. The game also looks and sounds great, with the visuals here being basically on par with the visuals for Anniversary Edition on any of the other platforms.

The icing on the cake is that Bethesda has made the upgrade available for free for existing owners of Skyrim Anniversary Edition on Switch. Given all of that, it’s honestly hard to imagine how one could possibly take issue with this package, but unfortunately, there are some critical missteps and omissions here that hold the package back.

"Bethesda is leveraging some of the Switch 2’s unique capabilities here — DLSS is being used to some degree; Bethesda only specifies its usage as being for anti aliasing, though I assume they’re also upscaling the resolution a little bit"

Let’s start with the most obvious – this game still runs at 30fps on the Switch 2. This is a title that ran at 30fps on the Xbox 360 or the original Switch, both vastly inferior bits of hardware to the Switch 2; there should be nothing stopping a 60FPS implementation here, even only as an option. There is none. Skyrim, as I mentioned, was 30fps to begin with (unless you played on a PS3, in which case 30fps was the highest you could hope for if you were exceedingly lucky), so this isn’t a downgrade, but it absolutely does feel baffling that Bethesda missed out on such an obvious and immediate upgrade here. Again, at the very least you’d expect it as an option or a toggle, but nope.

The problem with the 30fps is exacerbated by the baffling, and I mean BAFFLING, degree of input lag the game has. In docked mode it can be almost comically obvious, with actions on screen taking a perceptible amount of time to execute after you press a button. It does feel slightly better in portable mode, but in either case, it’s unclear why or more importantly how, something like this passed QA and was allowed to release as is. Skyrim isn’t Elden Ring, so the input lag, while noticeable and bothersome, isn’t really disruptive in any sense; it does, however, make the game feel worse to play, particularly since the framerate is already 30fps to begin with.

Bethesda is leveraging some of the Switch 2’s unique capabilities here — DLSS is being used to some degree; Bethesda only specifies its usage as being for anti aliasing, though I assume they’re also upscaling the resolution a little bit. The aforementioned mouse controls are also implemented well, and it that’s a control scheme you enjoy playing with, you’re going to like it here too. Mercifully, given how much of a time investment the game can be, Bethesda have also allowed players to import their saves from the original Switch version of the game.

"I would definitely be a lot angrier at the missteps taken here if it weren’t for the fact that the upgrade is being offered for free for existing players."

All the peripheral considerations aside, the game itself is still excellent. Skyrim is one of the most beloved and influential games of the modern era, and that’s because its core design is so innately compelling. It’s so easy to pick it up and get lost in its dense, layered, sprawling fantasy world again, and find yourself in adventures of discovery and exploration and intrigue. The fact that the game itself remains fun to play means it is still easy to recommend – well, mostly. There are those peripheral caveats that can’t really be dismissed or handwaved after all.

I would definitely be a lot angrier at the missteps taken here if it weren’t for the fact that the upgrade is being offered for free for existing players; however, for anyone who is looking to jump in now, these omissions and fumbles are fair warnings for them to consider and bear in mind. Skyrim on the Switch 2 is conflicted – it’s Skyrim, and on Switch 2, which is great, but this isn’t a particularly great version, and there are some very obvious fixes Bethesda can make here. Hopefully in the months to come, they will be patching those in.

This game was reviewed on the Nintendo Switch 2.

There was, of course, always that possibility – this is a game that was announced in 2017, rebooted development entirely in 2019, swapping out the original developers for the custodians of the original trilogy Retro Studios, and then spent an additional six years in development, across a whole pandemic and a generational transition. The development was so prolonged and protracted, it’s no shock it would reflect in the final product.

And it does reflect in the final product. Metroid Prime 4 is almost baffling, because it simultaneously feels like it is too slavishly adhering to the format and template of the original game, without taking into account the more than two decades of game design evolution and development that have followed since, while also feeling like it’s not doing enough to be like Metroid Prime. It feels too much like Metroid Prime and not enough like Metroid Prime in all the wrong places, and the end result is a game that can feel frustratingly held back.

"Retro Studios made the absolutely correct decision to prioritize 60fps gameplay for this game even on the Switch as a baseline, which then allowed them more overhead to push things further on the Switch 2."

Which feels particularly galling, because to be honest, there is a lot that this game does right. More than anything else, this game is the tech showcase that Nintendo players may have been looking for. It’s a beautiful, gorgeous game, thanks to Retro’s typical smart blend of leveraging the tech available to them with art and stylization. On the Switch 2, which is where I played, this game runs at 4K and 60fps (which honestly feels shocking), or 1080p and a blistering 120 fps.

That it can achieve this is, of course, down to the fact that at its core, this game is a game made for the original Switch. Retro Studios made the absolutely correct decision to prioritize 60fps gameplay for this game even on the Switch as a baseline, which then allowed them more overhead to push things further on the Switch 2. The game’s Switch roots can often be visible if you squint – the geometry in particular can be extremely simplistic, and some areas of the game, such as the by-now infamous desert hub world, can look jarringly sparse and ugly compared to the rest of the game.

But on the whole, the game’s great art style does wonders to cover for any technical weaknesses the game may have. This should come as no surprise to anyone at all – this is what Metroid Prime has always been known for, and Prime 4 Beyond continues that legacy. It also doubles down on all the great embellishments with the presentation and immersion that these types of games are known for – charge up your arm cannon in a darkened room and release fire, and the flash of light causes Samus’ face to reflect in her visor.

Raindrops slowly trickle down her visor, and her cannon. Steam fogs up her vision. In every way possible, Metroid Prime 4 places you firmly in Samus’ power suit and behind her visor, truly immersing you in the setting and in her character.

"The problem, like I said, comes down to how the game feels the rest of the times. Before I talk about that, I want to talk about the first of the game’s major problems, the level design."

Another area where the game deserves credit is the control options it offers. You get dual analog, gyro assist, and the new signature control scheme offered by this game, joycon mouse controls. The Dual analog and gyro assist work pretty much identically to how they did in 2023’s Metroid Prime Remastered, which is to say, both are excellent and have great game feel. As for the mouse controls, they are sublime. Their implementation is completely seamless, because at any point while playing the game, you can choose to turn one of your joycons sideways, and the game automatically switches to mouse controls.

These mouse controls are great, and probably the best showcase for the otherwise neglected feature the Switch 2 has had since its launch earlier this year. They also allow for the gameplay to feel a lot faster and more dynamic than it otherwise does, because you are able to move, strafe, and aim a lot more freely and spontaneously than you are otherwise.

The problem, like I said, comes down to how the game feels the rest of the times. Before I talk about that, I want to talk about the first of the game’s major problems – the level design. The design is largely streamlined and simplified, mostly linear and funnelling you forward through its levels and environments, without the kind of sprawl and maze like traversal you would find in the original Metroid Prime.

A part of the issue here is the game’s structure. Beyond is structured like an old Zelda game, with a central hub area and multiple biomes you can enter from it, completing their central “dungeon” to gather an item for progress. This, of course, prevents the game from having the kind of global sprawl and design that Metroid Prime had. However, even with this style of design, Beyond could have done a lot better – Prime 2: Echoes, for example, also similarly broke down into three independent areas, the difference being that the design of each of those areas was significantly better than most, if not all, of the regions within Beyond.

I honestly don’t begrudge Retro the decision to make the game with this structure – it is what helps them keep things manageable for players who may be new or daunted by the prospect of a game with backtracking – but I would have liked them to do a much better job with it than they did.

The level design here is not bad. It’s fine. It’s good a lot of the times. But it rarely, if ever, becomes more than that. You can even be playing through the game and enjoying a lot of it, but no part of it sticks with you like the Phendrana Drifts in the original Metroid Prime.

Another problem I often have with the game is its insistence on companions and NPC chatter. Now, to be honest, this issue isn’t as prevalent as I had feared going into the game – you usually get a chattering companion for a small section of an area once you enter it and rescue them, and after that they occasionally chime in to tell you what should be doing. But to me, the problem is that any prevalence of this problem is too much.  Prime in particular, is about isolation and atmosphere, which are both qualities that take a backseat when you have an NPC character telling you how to solve a puzzle, or that there is a crack in the wall you should be examining, or that you just walked by a door with something interesting.

"Prime 4 is not that bad, but the presence of this at all is a problem."

This is the exact thing modern Sony games are criticized for NPC characters telling you what to do the second you entered a new room or encounter, without even giving you the chance to look around and figure things out for yourself. Prime 4 is not that bad, but the presence of this at all is a problem.

I understand considerations around helping players who may feel stuck, so I don’t really take any issue with them deciding to implement the feature, but my complaint is the same as it was for any other game that did this – at least let me turn this off, or, if nothing else, give me the option to not engage with NPC chatter, so I can just try and figure things out myself, and fall back on them for hints should I need those. Naughty Dog solved this problem more than a decade ago with Uncharted and The Last of Us. It boggles the mind that other studios consistently miss the boat on this.

One thing about the game that I think does deserve credit is the sound design and soundtrack. This, again, is not a surprise – Prime  games, more often than not, have incredible music, including ambient soundtracks, and that remains true in this game as well.

The sound design, as well, is fantastic, and contributes so much to the incredible sense of immersion. The audiovisual presentation aspects of this game pull their weight so well when it comes to delivering on a next generation realization of Metroid Prime… it’s honestly a shame to see the actual design decisions made with the title not do their part as well.

"After nearly 20 years since the last Prime game, a lot has happened in the world of game design, but Prime 4 barely seems to acknowledge that."

Because, yeah, ultimately, there is so much the game does do well that it is, frustratingly, not a total write off. There’s a lot Prime 4 does that is great, which makes it that much more frustrating that there is so much more it completely drops the ball on.

After nearly 20 years since the last Prime game, a lot has happened in the world of game design, but Prime 4 barely seems to acknowledge that. Even that would have been okay with me – just more Metroid Prime would be great! I love Metroid Prime, I would gladly take more of it. But it has to be good, and Prime 4 very often misses the mark, at least when it comes to things that matter most, such as the level design and traversal.

My hope is that this game is what it is due to the unique circumstances of its development. Hopefully, Retro will be allowed to put out a follow up, and hopefully, that follow up will be a lot less confused and conflicted, and a lot more cohesive with its overall vision and design. Until then, Prime 4 is what we have – the worst of the four mainline Prime games.

This game was reviewed on the Nintendo Switch 2.

Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment is not unlike Age of Calamity, another Hyrule Warriors title that promised to tell the story that took place a hundred years before Breath of the Wild in a musou style action game format, except this time, we’re reliving the past events from Tears of the Kingdom instead.

Since this is now the third Hyrule Warriors game (and the fifth Warriors game based on a Nintendo IP overall), I have to assume most people know what they are getting into here. These games are not a lot like the franchises they are based on. So if you are hoping for Zelda’s dose of adventuring, exploration, dungeon delving, and upgrades, Hyrule Warriors Age of Imprisonment will not provide that to you. It is, rather, a game that prioritizes large scale battles with waves upon waves of trash mobs, taking over and holding objectives, holding off big bosses… that whole formula is all here. And since, like Age of Calamity before it, Age of Imprisonment is technically set during a war, the style of game does lend itself well to it.

In terms of pure production value and design iteration, this is the best Hyrule Warriors game. In fact, there is an argument to be made this might be one of the best Warriors games overall. For starters, unlike Hyrule Warriors and Age of Calamity, both of which suffered heavily from being constrained by the hardware they released on at the time, Age of Imprisonment looks and runs… fine! The gameplay targets and mostly holds a 60fps frame rate, which is especially impressive not just by contrast to the previous games, but also because this game emphasizes a lot more alpha effects and transparencies and colours and explosions on the screen at all times.

While there are frame rate drops when things seem to get especially hectic, the frame rate never seems to drop below the low 50s, which means that the drops, when they do crop up, almost feel more like hitstun effects rather than actual performance issues.

That right there I would argue automatically makes this game a good recommendation to anyone who likes the Hyrule Warriors series – you are getting the best performing and looking game right off the bat. That said, there are still issues here – the game’s resolution is extremely low, for example, running at 720p-900p in docked mode, and lower than 600p in handheld mode; these are resolutions that I would have hoped we had left behind in the Switch 1 era; unfortunately, Koei Tecmo’s technical proficiency has never been particularly great, and the Warriors games, in particular, always underperform relative to what you may expect of them.

I will say that by and large, much like the framerate, the resolution doesn’t stand out as an issue that often. It is most noticeable when the game switches from gameplay or in engine footage to pre-rendered cutscenes – the cutscenes seem to be rendered at a lower resolution than the gameplay, and the image feels a lot softer in them as a result. Unlike the rest of the game, the cutscenes are also all seemingly in 30fps, which makes them stand out even more.

It is, however, to the game’s merits that it runs well enough that the big complaints with its visuals and technical facets hew closer to nitpicking this time around. Age of Calamity in particular was infamous for its absolutely horrid performance and visuals on the Switch, and remains to this day one of the worst looking and performing games on that system, 5 years after its initial release. Age of Imprisonment has its shortcomings in this regard, but it also represents a big improvement over its predecessors.

"In pure gameplay terms, this is arguably the most fun and differentiated roster a Warriors game has had."

This holds true elsewhere too. For example, the actual gameplay is arguably the best here than it has ever been across the Hyrule Warriors series. Now, Age of Imprisonment is limited only to the cast and locales from Tears of the Kingdom; not just Tears of the Kingdom, actually, it is limited to a very small part of Tears of the Kingdom’s story. This automatically limits what is arguably one of the biggest strengths of the Warriors games – the crossover from all sorts of characters, and how well and differentiated they all tend to be in how they play.

The original Hyrule Warriors, for example, pulled in major and minor characters from across the entire decades long history of the Zelda franchise. It was a delight to see fan favourites and deep cuts alike return in that game, and even more so to see how they were translated into the Warriors template. Age of Calamity was a downgrade in this regard, limiting itself solely to one specific Zelda game; but it did pull from the whole breadth and range of that one game, and, owing to its lack of regard for the canon of the events it was depicting, managed to have a fairly wide and varied roster too.

Age of Imprisonment stumbles here. Now, to be clear, I want to note one thing – it does an amazing job of fleshing out the moves of each character and translating them from the original game to this title’s Warriors style combat. Mineru, for example, the secret fifth sage from Tears of the Kingdom, returns as one of the primary playable characters this time around. In Tears, she took on a construct form, and knew a lot about Zonai tech and powers like Ultrahand Autobuild thanks to her extensive research; in Age of Imprisonment, that manifests with her combat essentially being her constantly pulling, summoning, and constructing Zonai devices and constructs to mow down waves upon waves of enemies. And this game is full of examples like this, where it’s a delight to see something familiar recontextualized in the framework of an action game.

The issue, however, is that the roster it can pull from is by definition limited – you get  Zelda, Queen Sonia and Mineru, but in terms of familiar characters that is about it. You get other characters joining you, don’t get me wrong – from Koroks, Gorons, Gerudo, to even a construct that basically plays exactly like Link and is this game’s way of allowing players to have a Link moveset in combat without Link himself being there (since his presence there would contradict canon). These other characters are all incredibly fun to play with, very fleshed out, with very unique and differentiated moves.

In pure gameplay terms, this is arguably the most fun and differentiated roster a Warriors game has had. But the problem is, most of these characters basically amount to fanfic OCs; they are original characters who didn’t appear in Tears of the Kingdom (or were barely alluded to), all of a sudden taking centerstage. I can care about them because of how much I enjoy playing as them, but in terms of narrative investment, there is a barrier here – I don’t care about these characters because I have no reason to.

This ends up tying into the biggest problem that I feel Age of Imprisonment has – the story. Now, I am going to discuss general vague spoilers for Age of Calamity, the previous Hyrule Warriors game that promised to depict the events leading up to Breath of the Wild, here for a bit, so skip ahead if you haven’t played that game already, and care about spoilers.

When Age of Calamity was announced, it was announced as the game that would depict the cataclysmic events of 100 years before Breath of the Wild – essentially a prequel. At the time especially, this was a very exciting prospect. Breath of the Wild’s backstory and lore was arguably the most interesting part of its tale, and getting to see it fleshed out was a tantalizing prospect.

The game’s placement in the Zelda timeline at the time was unclear, so the idea of getting more information was exciting. And most of all, the actual events of 100 years before Breath of the Wild are essentially a longform tragedy – everything goes wrong, the good guys lose, and that’s how Link finds himself having to clean up the mess a hundred years later by himself. The idea of playing a Zelda story that had such a depressing and unflinchingly tragic bent was exciting too.

"To me, the story was actually the most disappointing thing, especially because of how much it limited the game elsewhere."

However, Age of Calamity pulled a fast one on everyone by not being an actual prequel after all. Instead, it ended up being an alternate story set 100 years in the past, featuring a version of those events where the good guys do manage to win, in part due to assistance from characters from Breath of the Wild, who traveled back in time to help them out. In other words, it was not a prequel, it was arguably not even canon, what it was instead was a nonsensical excuse to have as many characters together as possible in the roster. And that was… fine. It was extremely disappointing that we didn’t get the story we had been looking forward to, but it was maybe wrong to expect that from a Warriors spin off game to begin with.

I went into all this detail to point out how Age of Imprisonment is different – unlike Age of Calamity, nothing that happens in this game contradicts canon. For all purposes, this is a true prequel. The issue is, it’s a bit of a nothing burger. Look, the stories in Zelda games, while compelling enough to frame the adventures they set players off on, and featuring rich tapestries of backstories that allow for decades long fandom arguments about the broader timeline, are ultimately fairly simplistic. They are like fairy tales – stories told in large scale motifs and archetypes, dealing in broad, universal, timeless themes.

Tears of the Kingdom’s story was like this too – sure, there is a whole past conflict (the Imprisoning War, which is what this game is set in) alluded to, but we learn everything important there is to learn about it in the game itself. Age of Imprisonment doesn’t actually bring anything new to the table. You are getting an expanded version of the same major events – but it’s still that same story, and it’s not a story that is good enough to be a motivating factor for a game this long. And unlike with Age of Calamity, by this point in time we know where these games fit into the broader Zelda timeline – and we know they are standalone and don’t really interact with the rest of the series much, which means there’s even less intrigue here.

To me, the story was actually the most disappointing thing, especially because of how much it limited the game elsewhere. If the developers had chosen not to stick to established canon, maybe we would again have had familiar characters I am attached to in this game, and I would have cared more about their participation in whatever non-canon events were transpiring, for example. We could have had Link, rather than Robo-Link at home, for example. But the developers did choose to respect the canon this time around, and all of that was in service to a story that is, ultimately, fairly dull.

It is especially disappointing because, as I mentioned previously, this is arguably the best playing Hyrule Warriors game yet; to have that tied to the dullest roster and story feels like a let down. Even a pure fan service story with absurdity powering the narrative, as was the case in Hyrule Warriors, would have been better, I feel. The story here was so uninteresting that I just didn’t… care.

"To be perfectly honest, I am a little fatigued by this Hyrule, this Zelda, this Link, and this version of the Zelda mythos overall."

At least in part, I think this issue owes itself to overexposure. Look, Breath of the Wild is an amazing game, debatably the single greatest game ever made, but we have now spent nearly a decade in its world and continuity. Not counting re-releases, we have had Breath of the Wild, its expansion, Age of Calamity, Tears of the Kingdom, and now Age of Imprisonment.

To be perfectly honest, I am a little fatigued by this Hyrule, this Zelda, this Link, and this version of the Zelda mythos overall. One of the strongest points in the franchise’s favour in the past has perennially been how each new game varied from its predecessors in every regard – story, characters, map, even art style. But we’ve been stuck with the Breath of the Wild rendition of Zelda and Hyrule for so long now, that I am honestly ready for something new. That isn’t this game’s fault, mind you – but it does mean that its inessential stay rankles more than it would if I didn’t feel this way.

Eventually, the Switch 2 will have its own proper Zelda game, and when it does happen, I hope it is something completely new and exciting that introduces a new era for the franchise. In the meanwhile, for those fans who want something Zelda for their new Switch 2s, Age of Imprisonment is a fairly good game to look into – it is packed with content, looks and performs better than any previous game in the series, and has arguably the best gameplay and design in the entire subseries.

Its shortcomings with the story, and consequently deficiencies with the roster range, are unfortunate – but at the very least dedicated fans of the Breath of the Wild duology will probably find a fair few to enjoy in Age of Imprisonment.

This game was reviewed on the Nintendo Switch 2.

So that’s the game that has been modernized here. The original Dragon Quest, which was initially localized in North American regions as Dragon Warrior, as well as its much lesser known and lesser celebrated, though by no means lesser in quality, sequel. And as influential as both of these games were, RPGs have seen a lot of evolution and movement in the very literal decades since they initially came out, which begs the question – are these two games, even combined into a single package, substantial enough to merit a modern full-priced release?

"The game’s story has also been fleshed out more, with new and expanded scenes as well as voice acting."

It’s certainly a fair and valid concern. A lot of improvements and updates has been made to the seminal original game, both in this specific HD2D reimagining, as well as over the years in the various remakes, remasters, and re-releases it has had. For example, this is ultimately still a game where you only ever control one character, the Hero, and no one else – this game is so old that it quite literally predates the concept of parties.

It is also from an era where storytelling in games was extremely sparse – partly by limitation, partly because in the medium’s earliest days, the convention of storytelling were not yet laid down. And, it is ultimately a fairly short game, so short, in fact, that you can play through it start to finish in a fraction of the time that it would take you to do a full chapter in several RPGs that have released this year.

There has been some work done to address these concerns; for example, while you still only ever have a character party of one in the original Dragon Quest, fights and encounters are still more engaging because you can have multi-character and type trash mobs ganging up on you. Spells and abilities that were introduced in later games of the series have also been back ported into the original game, allowing more avenues for you to take on the foes you come across. Interestingly enough, these abilities that were ostensibly not designed for this game don’t really break its balance either.

The game’s story has also been fleshed out more, with new and expanded scenes as well as voice acting. It doesn’t really bring the narrative here on par with even a modern Dragon Quest game (which many genre fans would argue is itself not as narrative heavy as the average modern RPG can be), but it does certainly flesh out characters and interactions, flesh things out to where the contextualization feels credible as a story rather than just an excuse to send you adventuring across the land, and also plays up the game’s connection to Dragon Quest 3, which is the prequel to 1 and 2, more.

While I wouldn’t argue Dragon Quest 1 is a must-play RPG in 2025, I will absolutely argue that, especially with the sum total of these changes that it has accrued in this release as well as several prior ones, it is a very good one, even today. It’s very short, and very basic, but with this release, it has a lot of critical QoL such as the ability to speed up battles, and a generous autosave; and more importantly, its core design still feels compelling today.

The first few Dragon Quest games almost play out like Dungeons and Dragon campaigns, where the player is given some general suggestions of where they should be going and what they should be doing, but everything else that happens is driven by the player, their curiosity, and their ability to put information together. That design is still here, and still very compelling and fun, and it stands as unique enough from most other modern RPGs that there is inherent appeal to it through sheer novelty. Even if you turn on objective markers, which this re-release allows you to, the first Dragon Quest simply does such an effective job of making you feel like a hero on a quest to save the world and help everyone else along the way, that it’s a great, brisk, light hearted adventure that is absolutely worth playing.

"There are new scenes, new locations, and entire new plot lines here to deepen out the existing story, and that story also has other characters of note in addition to the Hero."

The recommendation is especially easier to make because one of Dragon Quest 1’s biggest weaknesses – its overall brevity – is addressed with the inclusion of Dragon Quest 2, which means there is no danger of you not getting bang for your buck with this purchase. This is especially the case because a lot of the things I praised Dragon Quest 1 for also apply to 2, and because Dragon Quest 2 makes improvements to the formula of its own, and because Dragon Quest 2 HD2D makes its own improvements on top of that.

For example, Dragon Quest 2 had a much stronger story focus than the original game, which is then further fleshed out and expanded via similar improvements and updates as Dragon Quest 1’s HD2D reimagining. There are new scenes, new locations, and entire new plot lines here to deepen out the existing story, and that story also has other characters of note in addition to the Hero. Which brings us to one of this game’s biggest improvements (or innovations, at the time), in that it has a full playable party.

Much like the original Dragon Quest game, or Dragon Quest 3, Dragon Quest 2 plays out like a very cool Dungeons and Dragons campaign. Meaning the whole appeal that playing through the original Dragon Quest holds, that also applies to Dragon Quest 2. In fact, it has better encounters, a better story, and better dungeons, which makes this arguably the better game of the two; my only contention is it lacks the purity and briskness of the original. If anything, that is to its credit, but it’s still something worth pointing out.

There is also Dragon Quest 2’s infamous difficulty to consider. This was a famously brutal game, particularly in the back half. Thankfully, Dragon Quest 2 HD2D does enough to allow players to mitigate the difficulty, should they wish to. Like all modern Dragon Quest releases, you can change the difficulty level up or down at any time, so if the game is feeling out of hand, you can knock it down to Dracky Quest and continue having at it. Similarly, if it ever gets too obscure, you can check the listed objectives or turn on objective markers to figure out where you need to go and what you need to do.

Once a lot of that early jank and obscurity has been ironed out, there is an argument to be made that there isn’t a lot of complexity left to these games. However, the games have addressed that – as I’ve mentioned, it has new spells and abilities, allowed multi-mob battles in the original game, and even expanded the Sigil system from the original Dragon Quest 2 to both of these games, to allow players more options in terms of character builds, passive bonuses, and move load outs.

"The updates aren’t just limited to the mechanics, the story, and the storytelling either."

The updates aren’t just limited to the mechanics, the story, and the storytelling either. The eponymous HD2D visuals are absolutely gorgeous and breathtaking, and really update the visuals depicting the iconic worlds and locations of these games without losing the spirit or the soul that the limitations of the era bred into the audiovisual presentation of these games at the time. The music, too, is great orchestral renditions of the original themes.

In a way it’s remarkable, because there is a very strong case to be made that Dragon Quest 1 and 2 HD2D is the best, most definitive version of these games to date – something that is hard to achieve when you are working with games of this stature, and doubly so when those games have had as many varying re-releases over the years as these two have had, and all of which have their own various fans and detractors.

I feel like they bring together all the best parts of the previous releases of the game, add their own modern updates on top, wrap it all up in absolutely gorgeous audiovisual presentation, and do all of this without losing all the various merits, whether intended or borne out of the limitations that come from being a pioneer. And cumulatively, I think that makes both of these gams well worth checking out in 2025. They are not the best Dragon Quest games, they are not the best RPGs you can play today – but they are still very much worth playing.

This game was reviewed on PlayStation 5.

Game Freak should be given credit for not taking the safe route for following up on Legends Arceus’ success. It would have been all too easy to take that game, put it in a new region, with new maps, new biomes, and different Pokemon to catch, while making the requisite amount of polish and UX improvements.

"The decision to set the game in its entirety in just Lumiose City immediately sets this game apart from its predecessor."

Fans had already responded positively to the premise, why not give them more of that? Instead, however, it seems like Game Freak views the “Legends” subseries as a sandbox to experiment and try new things – because with very few exceptions, almost nothing from Legends Arceus made it into Legends ZA. For good and for bad, this game is entirely its own beast, and the only way it can be defined with respect to Arceus is in all the ways that it’s not like it.

That begins from the most obvious, overarching things, and goes all the way down to the smaller details. Take, for instance, the setting – Legends Arceus was a prequel to the entire rest of the series, but Diamond and Pearl in particular, set hundreds of years in the past, in the wilderness of an untamed Sinnoh region before it had been properly settled, and before Pokemon had been tamed or even understood. Pokemon Legends ZA on the other hand is set after 2013’s Pokemon X and Y, and far from being set in the vast wilderness, they are set instead in the entirety of one city.

The decision to set the game in its entirety in just Lumiose City immediately sets this game apart from its predecessor, and indeed, from any other game in the series. Pokemon from the beginning has been about travelling across the land, searching far and wide. It’s about exploration and adventure and discovery – which runs counter to being set entirely in one bustling urban location, surely?

Truthfully, Legends ZA does a fine job of sidestepping this seeming issue. Lumiose is a fairly large city, and Game Freak leans into the mentality almost of playing and exploring and adventuring in a city as a kid – you get to explore back alleys and under the bridges, you get to go up rooftops and explore the scaffolding. There is a surprising amount to explore and discover in Lumiose – the buildings and rooftops connect to each other in unexpected ways, and often lead to very unexpected discoveries.

"It’s all very delightful – there is a childlike sense of wonder and amusement to it all."

Exploring Lumiose is fun. It’s not fun in the same way as the rest of the series – there is no getting around the repetition inherent to being set in one city only, after all, it’s not like you will come across a volcano biome or a tundra biome in different parts of Lumiose. But there are a lot of hidden nooks and crannies, things that look interesting and then lead you on merry diversions and tangents that see you end up far from where you started. As I said, it really taps into that visceral thrill of exploring your town as a kid – even the most trite and banal things are cool to you when you are doing that, and that’s the exact spirit that ZA channels.

It also leans into the novelty of how Pokemon fit into an urban setting and lifestyle. In back alleys, among the trash cans, you will encounter Trubbish. An ice cream stand might see Vanillice hanging around. Bird Pokemon such as Pidgey, Fletchling, and others can be seen on wires and rooftops. Bugs like Spinarak are hiding up trees.

It’s all very delightful – there is a childlike sense of wonder and amusement to it all. Legends ZA commits to it not just in terms of gameplay either – you can even see it in the set dressing. Machoke are helping with the construction. Scyther can be seen helping hair stylists. This is the exact kind of thing Pokemon fans have been asking for for so long – a true game in the series that fleshes the setting out and shows us how Pokemon and people fit into it. And we get that here, better than the series has ever done it before.

Of course, a single urban environment by definition would not allow for a lot of variety with the kinds of Pokemon you can run across, which wouldn’t work for, well, a Pokemon game. Legends ZA cheats here. Its story premise posits that some unexplained phenomenon seems to be causing a wide scale migration of wild Pokemon into Lumiose – and the city, in an attempt to mitigate the disruption, attempts to set up demarcated “Wild Zones” to contain this influx of wildlife.

"ZA makes for a series first – the first game in the series that completely eschews turn based battles, opting instead for a real time action battle system that is inspired by the Pokemon anime."

From a gameplay perspective, these “Wild Zones” are basically like the open world maps that you ventured into to catch Pokemon in Legends Arceus. They are, of course, a lot smaller, and by definition, a lot more one note than the varied biomes and maps of that game. But these see you sneaking up on wild Pokemon hanging out and doing their thing, and try to catch and battle them, with different wild areas playing host to different species of Pokemon. The core loop here is very similar to that game, and is still sublime. You still see Pokemon, freely aim and throw Pokeballs at them, try to stay unnoticed, and engage in battles as and when necessary.

ZA, in fact, makes improvements to the loop here. These range from minor – such as UI improvements – to the major, such as getting the chance to catch a Pokemon even after it has “fainted”, something that no other mainline game in the series has allowed. This is honestly one of the parts the game is best at – the thrill of being able to hunt and catch Pokemon, expanding your Pokédex, the thrill of finding a new or unexpected creature, or a move you are unfamiliar with. ZA keeps this part as compelling as it was before.

Where things are different are in how Pokemon battles go. ZA makes for a series first – the first game in the series that completely eschews turn based battles, opting instead for a real time action battle system that is inspired by the Pokemon anime. Rather than battles seeing you and your opponent take turns, you can use attacks pretty much whenever you want – except that each attack has a cooldown associated with it that you have to wait out before you can use it again. Managing these cooldowns, along with managing your positioning, makes for a very different style of Pokemon battles than anything before.

It’s a lot quicker and a lot more chaotic than anything before, and allows for a very active style of gameplay loop too. Exploring can be a lot more chaotic when other wild Pokemon nearby can join battles and attack you without notice, and without having to wait for their turns. It definitely gives the game a bite of its own, and allows for a level of challenge that the series has mostly lost in modern times. 

"ZA is named after the ZA Royale, a tournament that takes place in Lumiose City after hours, where trainers start at Rank Z and have to work up to Rank A."

What’s interesting here is how much emphasis has been placed on the new battle system – not only is it central to the core concept of the game (we’ll get to this in a minute), this game also supports multiplayer fights, and in fact, even ranked and competitive battles. Game Freak has never extended multiplayer battling support to any Pokemon game with a battle system that diverges from the core series, but they very much have here.

In my experience, the battle system trades away the nuance and depth of the mainline series without as much to show for it. The fights are chaotic, yes, and there is a thrill to seeing them play out in a game like they did in the anime, but to me at least, they never felt as engaging as they have in the turn based games.

In multiplayer, they felt like pure chaos, and wins didn’t feel earned as much as they felt accidental. Of course, I have literally decades of familiarity with the turn based battle system, so any divergence from that won’t feel as comfortable right away, but at least right now, I am not sure how this battle system can have anywhere near the longevity that the mainline games’ combat does. In fact, in terms of my personal enjoyment, I would even rank this battle system below Legends Arceus’, and I already found that one to be a step down from the core series.

Battles, however, are central to the game’s conceit. ZA is named after the ZA Royale, a tournament that takes place in Lumiose City after hours, where trainers start at Rank Z and have to work up to Rank A. These battles take place in makeshift battle zones, which are swarming with trainers looking to get a leg up on the competition.

Here, again, the real time nature of the battles allows for some really great tweaks to how trainer encounters traditionally play out with dynamic stealth and awareness mechanics interplaying with the series’ famed elemental type matchup system to allow for entirely new approaches to initiating battles. The actual battles are, again, chaotic, fun, and quick – but they are not as involved as I find the turn based ones to be.

The intriguing part here is that I have found battles to be sufficiently engaging and involved when it comes to certain boss encounters, which really involved needing to fully understand my attacks, cooldowns, and positioning to be able to get through. But typically, these encounters are very rare, and limited to very specific and usually telegraphed boss fights that necessarily involved utilizing every mechanic and system in the game. For regular old fights, however, I have found the new battle system to be a step down.

"On an artistic and purely aesthetic front, I would argue the visuals here are worse because the poor urban environments actively detracted from my immersion in the setting in a way that they did not in Arceus."

There is also the elephant in the room – like most new releases in the series in the last decade or so, Pokemon Legends ZA has drawn sharp criticism for its poor graphics and production. That criticism is well earned. Legends ZA is not a good looking game at all. From both, an artistic perspective as well as a technical one, I find it to be a mess, and plainly ugly. Buildings in Lumiose, for example, are giant walls with 2D PNGs of windows and balconies plastered on to them. Architecture and geometry is typically simplistic straight lines and right angles, and the mish mash between parts of the environment that are properly modelled and those that are not leads to an unsettlingly uncanny effect that can be quite disruptive to immersion a lot of the times.

It almost makes you wonder why Game Freak made the decision to set an entire game in one singular urban environment, when they very obviously lack the knowhow to make convincing urban environments in 3D to begin with. It’s especially frustrating because, as I said, the actual single city setting here is well realized and compelling – but the poor graphics are constantly letting it down.

Poor visuals were a criticism I also had for Legends Arceus and Scarlet and Violet, and here is how Legends ZA compares to those games on this front. With Legends Arceus, I criticized the game’s performance, as well as its shockingly low quality assets, rendering, and poor art style. Legends ZA is decidedly better at rendering and performance – on both Switch and Switch 2, the performance is steady, and on Switch 2, in fact, the game runs at a locked 60fps and 4K resolution. That 4K60 rendering and performance is for some really ugly visuals – but it’s nice to play a Pokemon game that performs well and has a clean image.

On an artistic and purely aesthetic front, I would argue the visuals here are worse because the poor urban environments actively detracted from my immersion in the setting in a way that they did not in Arceus. See, Arceus was basically set in wide open expanses of the wilderness – those are a lot easier to abstract, even with lower quality visuals, than urban environments can be. We all have very specific and defined ideas of what cities and streets and such are supposed to look like – and any divergence from that feels far more jarring than for more stylized natural environments.

Bafflingly, there are improvements to the graphics elsewhere too, but they all happen to be in areas that this game does not focus on. For example, the interior environments in this game look good! In fact, they are legitimately the best looking interiors the series has ever had. But of course, most of the game takes place outside, so that doesn’t quite matter. Character models are also great, with a shocking amount of artistic flair and polygonal detail poured into each human and Pokemon model (thankfully without the performance penalty that this series has traditionally accrued for things such as these).

So compared to Arceus, the visuals are a mixed bag. Compared to Scarlet and Violet, I would call them an all around improvement. That game looked legitimately unfinished – I don’t just mean that in terms of how poor the image quality was, or how awful the performance could be, but also in terms of the quality of assets and tech used, which legitimately looked like pre-alpha assets pushed into the final retail product at times. Literally none of that is an issue here. As I said, it looks and runs well, and while the graphics are ugly, I think there is at the very least a unified and consistent aesthetic here, which does come together in several places, and allows this game to occasionally look fairly okay. 

"Legends ZA is not as good as Arceus was. It is, however, still a very good outing for the series."

On the other hand, there is one area where this series has steadfastly refused to make a very necessary improvement, and that ends up being a big issue in this game. I am talking about the series’ baffling insistence on refusing to have any sort of voice acting whatsoever. Not only is that something that would work very well with the franchise’s focus on younger audiences (not all of whom can read), but it would also work with the anime, movies, and other trans media properties.

The games seem to continue to emphasize increasingly more cinematic cutscenes for their storytelling aspirations, and that’s great – but it stands out as really weird when those cinematic cutscenes, complete with lip flap animations, lack any voice acting. The cutscenes are obviously directed with the experience ration of voice acting, but there’s nothing there. Even having grunts and yelps, like so many other Nintendo games do, would be better than nothing. But nothing is exactly what we have now, and it’s just… weird. It doesn’t work well, and it feels actively detrimental to the storytelling segments when they happen.

It’s a shame too, because the actual writing and storytelling is interesting! Legends ZA, like Arceus, is divorced from the structural expectations of the rest of the series, and is able to explore some interesting themes and developments that the main series shies away from. The writing is legitimately clever too, and there’s some unexpectedly sharp and witty dialog – if only the storytelling didn’t feel so hollow because of the lack of voice acting.

The soundtrack, on the other hand, is great without any qualifiers necessary. The music is great, the renderings are catchy and upbeat, and it all flows into and from each other very well. The areas where it has issues mostly come down to repetition, which is down to the structure of the game more than any failing of the music itself. 

Game Freak deserves credit here. It would have been extremely easy for them to simply do more of what had worked well in the past. Certainly it would have been safer in terms of keeping their fanbase happy. But they chose to do something completely different, and completely new and challenging. A lot of what they tried here doesn’t work as well for me as their previous experiments have, but the value of continually trying new things itself cannot be overstated.

Then, too, the core gameplay loop remains incredibly compelling and fun, and the playground of Lumiose City is incredibly fun to explore, and a surprisingly fleshed out setting. There are things that work here, and things that don’t, which unfortunately means that the game is, by definition not as great as its predecessor was, which hit it out of the park on most things.

But there are gambles here that really pay off – the single setting allows for Game Freak to have the most realized setting they have had in any of their games yet, the writing is sharp, the exploration remains incredibly compelling, the core loop is as addictive and delightful as ever. Even the battle system, though it didn’t click for me as much, will probably be thrilling for a lot of people who have been waiting for a real time Pokemon game.

This game was reviewed on the Nintendo Switch 2.

Now, four and a half years later, we are getting a full follow-up to that game. But where it would have been very easy for Game Freak and The Pokemon Company to simply reskin Arceus and push out more of what players already loved, they have taken a very different tac with Legends ZA, which seems to be following in Arceus’ footsteps by keeping alive its spirit of experimentation and shaking things up, but going in completely different directions in the process. Here are ten critical differences between Legends ZA, and Legends Arceus. 

THE SETTING

The most obvious and immediate difference between Legends Arceus and ZA is the setting – in that the two games go in entirely diametrically opposite directions with their respective settings. Arceus was set in the wilderness, in the untamed expanses of the Sinnoh region, and had players struggling to survive for themselves as they tried to explore, understand, and tame the wildlife. Legends ZA on the other hand is set entirely in one city – Lumiose City from 2013’s Pokemon X and Y. This makes this the first Pokemon game ever to take place in an entirely urban expanse, and makes ZA instantly different from its predecessor.

FOCUS ON TRAINER BATTLES

The other big difference – where Legends Arceus emphasized capturing Pokemon, to the extent that catching Pokemon was built into the main story of that game, ZA focuses on battling. One of the main objectives in the story is to climb the battle ranks as a trainer, from Z rank all the way up to A rank – and the way you do that is by getting into lots and lots of trainer battles throughout Lumiose City, and winning. You will still be catching Pokemon, of course – there are whole wild zones set up within Lumiose for that exact purpose – but it no longer appears to be the central, overarching goal for players like it was in Arceus.

MULTIPLAYER

This focus on trainer battles also means that ZA is far more focused on multiplayer than Legends Arceus ever was. Fans of that game may remember that while it did technically include online functionality, it was restricted mostly to trades with friends (which tied in well with that game’s focus on catching and completing the Pokedex). ZA is going to be more robust with its multiplayer functionality, with full support for PvP battles, for 2-4 players, including ranked and unranked modes. In fact, as of right now, there appear to be at least some key Pokemon that are impossible to access unless you participate in the multiplayer battles – so it is decidedly a bigger focus this time around.

BATTLE SYSTEM

We’ve spoken so much about the emphasis on trainer battles, but we haven’t actually talked about how the battles will work. Just like Legends Arceus represented the biggest shake up for the series’ longstanding battle system to date, with its blend of real time and turn based elements, as well as the addition of Agile and Strong styles, ZA represents an even bigger departure from the norm. The game, for the first time in the series’ history, ditches turn based battles entirely, instead embracing real time fights, with individual attacks mapped to cooldowns. This represents a complete reconcepting of the central conceit of how Pokemon games are supposed to play for the first time in, well, ever.

SET AFTER X AND Y

Speaking of the differences in setting, they extend not only to geography but also to chronology. You see, Legends Arceus was a prequel, taking place hundreds of years before any mainline Pokemon game, and following the early establishment of the Sinnoh region. Legends ZA on the other hand appears to be a sequel to X and Y and the very first adventures we had in the Kalos region. While this won’t be possible to be completely sure on until after the game is out and has been played, there are several characters in the game who appear to be returning from X and Y – and who are looking way older now than they did then, implying this game is set after those ones.

MEGA EVOLUTIONS

Taking place in Kalos also means the return of the signature mechanic that Pokemon X and Y, the first games set in the Kalos region, introduced – Mega Evolutions. The fan favorite mechanic, which sees Pokemon temporarily achieve a stronger, more powerful enhanced state in battles, returns for the very first time in almost a decade. Legends Arceus obviously lacked Mega Evolutions entirely, so their presence in ZA will make for an instant change in how players approach team building this time around.

DLC

The first Legends game was a big success – as evidenced by the fact that it is getting a direct follow-up, which is getting placement as the prime Holiday release, unlike the first game which was unceremoniously shoved out the door in an awkward release spot in the middle of two other games. The success of the first game caught both Nintendo and The Pokemon Company off guard, and they both mentioned how they had not expected it to be as popular as it turned out to be. This was best evidenced by the fact that the game, which players loved, and which had so many obvious hooks to be expanded with post-launch content, never quite got any real meaningful DLC. Legends ZA on the other hand will be getting DLC – it’s already been announced in fact, a whole month before the game is even out.

SWITCH 2

The original Legends, launching in early 2022, was a Nintendo Switch game. It ran fairly poorly on the system – not as bad as Pokemon Scarlet and Violet would, just under a year later, but still fairly poorly. When the Switch 2 came out earlier this year, Legends Arceus did not get any free or paid upgrades for Switch 2 enhancements either. That is not going to be the case for Legends ZA, which is Switch 2 enhanced, and is getting a whole Switch 2 Edition release alongside its regular Switch version; in fact, Legends ZA is going to be the next bundled game to come with the Switch 2 starting this October, replacing Mario Kart World. Running the game on the Switch 2 will make Legends ZA the first Pokemon game to run in full 60 frames per second at launch in over a decade – the last time a Pokemon game ran at a constant 60fps was Pokemon Emerald on the GBA in 2005.

THE STARTERS

Every Pokemon game sees you picking from one of three starters when you set out on your journey – and the trio you pick from changes in every game too, although of course, each game sticks to the Fire-Water-Grass typing triangle. Legends Arceus had you start out with either Oshawott, Cyndaquil, or Rowlett; in ZA, you pick between Chikorita, Totodile, and Tepig. It remains to be seen whether those Pokemon will get any new exclusive regional forms or Mega Evolutions in ZA, like Oshawott, Cyndaquil, and Rowlett’s final evolutions did in Legends Arceus.

POKEMON HOME

Like every other Pokemon game released since the Switch era, Legends ZA will support Pokemon Home – but there are several catches, for the first time since the service’s introduction. For starters, much like happens with pretty much every new Pokemon release, Home support will not be present at launch, but will be added some time after – currently promised for 2026. But the new caveat is that Pokemon that are sent from Home into ZA may not be possible to retrieve back. Nintendo and Game Freak warn that the data structure of the Pokemon will change upon being sent into ZA, presumably because of the completely new battle and stat systems being used, and this may break compatibility with the other Pokemon games as a result. So if you are choosing to bring in any Pokemon into ZA, beware of the risks involved.

THE GAME WILL HIT NINTENDO SWITCH AND SWITCH 2

Marking the very firs time that a mainline Pokemongame hasreleased on multiple platforms on the same day, PokemonLegendsZA is launching day and date with native versions for both, the original Nintendo Switch, and the Switch 2. The Switch 2 version will be $10 more expensive than the Switch version, but thankfully enough, you can upgrade your Switch version to the Switch 2 version at any time, so you’e not stuck with the version you bought.

THE GAME SUPPORTS NINTENDO’S VOUCHERS

This here is arguably the most important pricing “hack” for PokemonLegends; while Nintendo hasannounced the discontinuation of the Switch vouchers for their first party game in the coming months, till such time that happens, their games are still covered by the program – at the very least on the Switch 1. This means that you can effectively get the Switch 1 version for $10 off with the vouchers, and then upgrade it to Switch 2 for $10, in turn leading to you getting the Switch 2 version of the game for the same price that you would otherwise only be able to get the original Switch version for.

60FPS ON SWITCH 2!

Being on Switch 2 day and date means we are getting a Pokemon game enhanced for a new system very early on in a new platform’s life; in this case, having a Switch 2 version of PokemonLegendsZA means that we actually get the first Pokemon game that runs in 60fps at all times sincePokemonEmerald on the GameBoy Advance in 2005 – 20 years ago!

BUNDLED WITH SWITCH 2

If you are hoping to play this game on the Switch 2, but you haven’t actually bought one yet, you may want to hold off just a little more. Nintendo hasconfirmed that PokemonLegendsZAwill be bundled with Switch 2 systems starting this October, meaning if you are a Pokemonfan who wants to play ZAin the best way possible, and you haven’t upgraded to Nintendo’s newest system yet, then you have a chance to save yourself some money by getting the bundle. The Switch 2 system itself will be a regular Switch 2, though – so you’re not getting any special edition dock or system with the bundle or anything. Best to keep that in mind!

REAL-TIME BATTLES 

This is one of the big selling points for PokemonLegendsZA – the entirely new battle system that is even more ambitious than the changes to battling that the original PokemonLegends had introduced. In LegendsZA, fights are no longer turn based, and are instead real-time, utilizing a style system of attacks tied to cooldowns, and a brand new stat system, compared to the strictly turn based affairs that the serieshasadhered to so far.

CUSTOMIZE YOUR CHARACTER AND POKEMON

PokemonLegendsZA is set in Lumiose City in the Kalos region; Kalos region debuted in PokemonX and Y, and was actually the first instalment in the seriesthat introduced the ability to customize your trainers, a feature that hassincegone on to become a mainstay in the franchise. That means that it is returning in ZA as well, where, in fact, players will find Lumiose City full of parlours and boutiques to customize not just their own look and style, but also that of their Pokemon.

SIDE QUESTS 

PokemonLegendsArceus introduced a seriesof side quests for players to focus on while they explored that game’s wilderness; it was the most elaborate quest system that the serieshad featured until then. PokemonLegendsZA will also be doubling down on this aspect, with Lumiose City populated with all manner of side quests, some that tie into your main objectives and goals, and others that take you out of the way and have you getting more and more involved with the colourful cast of characters that you will be interacting with over the course of the game.

POKEMONHOME COMPATIBILITY

One of the critical things that hardcore Pokemon fans rely on is the ability to bring their Pokemon team from game to game, a feature that hasbeen facilitated for over two decades, and for the present batch of Pokemon games, is handled by the PokemonHOME app. LegendsZA will also be getting support for PokemonHOME, albeit it won’t be added until next year. Nintendo and Game Freak also caution against importing your older Pokemoninto ZA indiscriminately – as they point out, while you can bring your Pokemoninto ZA just fine, the game’s overhauled stat system does mean that they lose compatibility with other games in the process. In other words, there’s a high chance that if you bring your Pokemoninto ZA, you can’t bring them into other games from then on. Beware!

ZYGARDE

PokemonLegendsZA is also going to be righting a wrong, a decade in the making. When PokemonX and Y came out in 2013, fans around the world expected an enhanced version to follow up on those; the mythical PokemonZ was expected, which would flesh out the often barebones framework of the base game, polish up the rough edges, and perhaps most importantly, focus on Zygarde, similar to how PokemonEmerald had focused on Rayquaza, and Platinum focused on Giratina. Unfortunately, PokemonZ never materialized, and Zygarde never got itsown starring adventure as had been expected. LegendsZA is promising to fix that, with a focus on Zygarde through itsentire story. Feel happy for the guy who hasbeen waiting so long for his time in the sun!

MEGA EVOLUTIONS

It goes without saying, but with this game being set in the Kalos region, and as a follow up to PokemonX and Y, it will be bringing back the signature feature that debuted in those games and that region – Mega Evolution, the fan favorite feature that lets your Pokemontemporarily evolve into a super powerful state. Not only are existing Mega Evolutions returning in ZA, but there have also been entirely new Mega Evolutions announced, from Mega Dragonite to Mega Victreebell, and more.

DLC

PokemonLegendsArceus famously got no post-launch content, which was viewed as a missed opportunity by fans at the time; LegendsZA is not only going to get proper DLC, that DLC has already been announced a month ahead of the games release. Among other things, the DLC is going to introduce even more Mega Evolutions, so fans of that mechanic probably want to keep an eye out for it, if nothing else.

Put simply, this collection brings two games that people have been hoping to have modern versions and access for, to the Switch and Switch 2, making them widely available for the first time since the 2010s – addressing that scarcity alone would count as a worthy enough reason for this re-release, especially given their aforementioned revered and celebrated status.

"The incredible thing about both Mario Galaxy and its sequel is that they hold up flawlessly and impeccably well today."

That scarcity may also have created a scenario where, especially with Super Mario Galaxy 2, which is being re-released for the very first time ever, this release is functionally acting as the first time these games will be played by an entirely new generation of players. Essentially, for those who didn’t play these games back when they came out – and that was so long ago now that there are probably millions, if not tens of millions, who will be among that number – and for them, something like Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a brand new 3D Mario release in 2025.

The incredible thing about both Mario Galaxy and its sequel is that they hold up flawlessly and impeccably well today. They were considered as the peak of the platformer genre back in the Wii era when they first released… and they still count as that today, almost two decades later. Even in spite of the resurgence that 3D platformers have seen of late, and the excellent titles we have seen releasing in the genre in the last few years, there is a very compelling argument to be made that Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are both better than those all.

Their core design is spectacular – though they strip away a lot of Mario’s expressive move set from the earlier 3D games, they expand the directions that the level design expands into in literal 360 degrees, leading to some of the most remarkably well designed and playing levels in gaming history. With these games also eschewing the free form sandbox nature of previous 3D Mario games, they instead rely on developer-driven pacing and spectacle.

And what spectacle it is! Super Mario Galaxy, in particular, has a sense of pomp and occasion and the appropriate reverence that should come when dealing with subject matter and vast and infinite as outer space. The game relies not only on its spectacular core design, but also a surprising emphasis on characterization, storytelling, pathos, and a sense of place, to create an incredibly moving experience, one that leaves an indelible mark based on not just the gameplay and design – as all Mario titles are won’t to – but also story and narrative.

"Mario Galaxy 2 sacrifices a lot of the thematic and narrative cohesion the first game brought to the table."

Galaxy’s focus on creating a broader world and a story within it is one of the reasons the game looms so large in the imaginations of so many to this day – this is a game abundant with gameplay riches and narrative weight in a way that the series simply did not attempt after this game, and it expands and adds to the series’ iconography and repertoire so thoroughly that even 20 years later, Mario taps into Galaxy’s lore and world often.

Where the first Mario Galaxy is a tour de force of spectacle, narrative, and gameplay alike, however, Galaxy 2 goes in a decidedly different direction. The game started life as an expansion pack for the first title, and you can definitely see it when you play it – I don’t mean this in a bad way, mind you. What I mean is that wit that game, it is clear that the developers now have the confidence in the new framework for movement and design that the first game established, and therefore, they go literally nuts with the levels and content.

Mario Galaxy 2 is wild – its levels are extremely creative, wildly inventive, almost never repeating, and constantly in a state of one upping themselves with each new area’s brand new gimmick that is used once thoroughly and then almost never again as the game moves on to am entirely new central idea and plays with it instead.

Mario Galaxy 2 sacrifices a lot of the thematic and narrative cohesion the first game brought to the table. In fact, narratively, Galaxy 2 is a deliberate step back from the aspirations of the original game. Gone is the grand, sweeping story (and storytelling) of the first game, stripping the tale down instead to the bare minimum motivation necessary to justify the psychedelic lunacy that are the levels that you will be going through.

Gone is that sense of place and the surprising emotional heft of Galaxy 1 – this is a purely gameplay driven experience through and through, and with its wilder swings, and greatly expanded movement options thanks to Yoshi joining you along for the ride, it runs circles (or spheres…) around the first game when it comes to actually being played.

"Where these games really shine, however, is on the Switch 2, where they run in a native 4K at all times, while maintaining that 60 frames per second frame rate."

But I do think there is something to be said for Galaxy 1’s incredible merits when it comes to the narrative and contextualization – I think those are what gave it a special sauce and made it stand out compared to pretty much every other game in the series. The sequel giving up on that does allow it to be even more memorable as far as the design and gameplay goes, but I feel like something was definitely lost in the process.

Regardless of which you prefer, though, the good news is that – finally – they are both here and available. And this is a great package they are both available in as well. While both games, even in their original form, still look and sound great, this release really cleans them up and polishes them to a shine.

On the original Switch, they run at a near constant 1080p in docked mode and 720p in handheld mode, and, like the Wii originals, a locked 60 frames per second. While the games use the work done for 2020’s Super Mario 3D All Stars’ update of the first Galaxy as a base, they do improve a lot of the texture work, making it more tactile and less blurry.

Where these games really shine, however, is on the Switch 2, where they run in a native 4K at all times, while maintaining that 60 frames per second frame rate. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 are gorgeous games. These are games that do not look like they are nearly 20 years old, with their timeless art style – an art style that sings like never before in 4K resolution.

There are some shortcomings – for example, those great cutscenes in the original Galaxy I was talking about? Those are pre-rendered, in 1080p, and running in a pretty low bit rate. So those look noticeably lower quality than the surrounding game (or its sequel).

Then too, is there something to be said about how these games translate Wii inputs to the Switch. Both games relied on the Wii’s pointer remote very extensively for gameplay, Galaxy 2 even more so, with a lot of Yoshi’s move mapped to the pointer. The Switch and Switch 2 both lack a pointer, so these versions make do by mapping the pointer to gyro controls in docked, console mode, and touch screen in handheld mode.

"But honestly, Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are so spectacular as games, that simply being able to play them again, and in a better and more definitive form than ever before, is still more than worth it."

It… works, although in both cases, it is not quite as precise or elegant as the original games were. It’s unfortunate the Switch 2’s vaunted mouse controls aren’t used to replicate the pointer functionality either – they only work in co-op mode, with a second player independently controlling the pointer, and being able to use mouse controls if they want, but not otherwise. It’s an understandable, if unfortunate, omission.

In terms of this new release, that is pretty much all there is on offer. These two games, taken pretty much as-is, and updated to run in stunning 4K. Both games offer their entire soundtracks to players who want to check them out (and they should, these soundtracks are amazing), and they also both add an easy mode for gameplay that you can switch to any time. There is also some new story content added, particularly to Galaxy 2, focusing on fan-favourite character Rosalina, whose role in the sequel was originally pared back. But other than that, it’s the original two Galaxy games that were celebrated as among the best ever, now available in modern presentation and on modern consoles.

You can argue that there should have been more extras included with the package, especially with how much these games cost ($70 for the pack with both included, or $40 for each individually), and because this is, after all, an anniversary release. And sure, there’s a case to be made for that.

But honestly, Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are so spectacular as games, that simply being able to play them again, and in a better and more definitive form than ever before, is still more than worth it. Whether you are a long time fan wanting to revisit these formative experiences, or a newcomer wanting to see what all the hubbub is about, Super Mario Galaxy 1 + 2 on the Switch and Switch 2 is a must have purchase for anyone who likes 3D platformers… or good games in general.

Welcome back to the Galaxy, Mario.

This game was reviewed on the Nintendo Switch 2.