Pac-Man CE?

[forgeforsaken]

So I grabbed the demo off of live and it does seem rather cool. Not quite sure if it's $10 cool or not yet though. For $5 I'd definitely grab it. Anyone get the full version and have some thoughts?

For those that haven't played it or don't have a 360 it's a new version of Pac-Man designed with wide screen tvs in mind. The play mechanics have changed in that you're now playing against a clock and the maze is ever evolving. It starts out with a maze and a set of dots on the left and right sides of the maze. When you clear one side completely a fruit appears on the opposite side. When you get the fruit the cleard side morphs into a new maze with more dots. You can also keep chaining power pellets for some pretty huge ghost combos it seems.

[Coca Cola Zero]

I haven't bought the full version, but IMO this is way too expensive, especially in light of Pac Man and then Ms Pac Man already being foisted onto XBLA.

[Kaigen]

I was pretty pissed about it, already having bought the original game. I skipped on Ms. Pac-Man because I didn't see the need for both, even though I a preferred it over the original game. But I played the demo and found it to be pretty god damn fun. I went ahead and bought it, though I haven't played it a lot. It definitely seems like the first genuine improvement on the Pac-Man formula since Ms. Pac-Man.

[Ryan Markel]

It's an amazing game. Well worth the $10.

I would say this is the best graphical and gameplay update to a retro game I've seen since maybe Tempest 2000.

It's also unbelievably difficult, but that's a part of the draw for me.

[forgeforsaken]

I would say this is the best graphical and gameplay update to a retro game I've seen since maybe Tempest 2000.


I really liked the Jetpack upgrade quite a bit as well.

[Vesper]

I'm in the too expensive boat. I really liked the trial, but am having a hard time convincing myself of spending $10 on it.

On the other hand, Prince of Persia:Classic next week could be $20 and I'd still buy it. I (heart) PoP 1 & 2.

[Moore]

I really liked the Jetpack upgrade quite a bit as well.


IMO thats the gold standard for xbla retro, 400 points, swanky remake AND the classic version nicely rebuilt or emulated.

[Ryan Markel]

IMO thats the gold standard for xbla retro, 400 points, swanky remake AND the classic version nicely rebuilt or emulated.

This is, importantly, much more than a remake. There are changes to the gameplay here that significantly alter the strategies needed to complete a level (which in this case means running out the clock).

It really is a successor to Pac-Man.

[Rock8man]

This game is just amazingly good. I absolutely love it. I always loved the idea of Pacman more than the game itself. I loved watching other people play who knew what they were doing, but I hated playing it myself because the controls were never as responsive as they should be, and the whole gameplay experience has always been very awkward and not as fun as it could be.

But this truly feels like a real Pacman sequel. I know its hard to get excited about the sequel to a game that's over a quarter century old, but this is definitely a very nice game.

They've divided up the maze into two halves, and when you get all the dots on one half, a fruit appears on the other half. When you eat the fruit, it changes the empty half into something else. It changes the shape of the maze and puts new dots in it. It keeps the gameplay flowing in one continuous sequence instead of dividing up into levels. Plus the controls are super responsive, and Pacman's speed has been seriously pumped up. Whoever did this sequel really did a superlative job. They kept the classic gameplay, but really and truly improved on it.

Good job.

I bought it, but it did feel horrible playing $10 for it. I love the game and everything, but come on, that's a little much. That's the same price as Catan, for god's sake.

[forgeforsaken]

Whoever did this sequel really did a superlative job. They kept the classic gameplay, but really and truly improved on it.


It was actually done by the guy that created Pac-Man Toru Iwatani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toru_Iwatani)

[Rock8man]

Here's a really nice article about the Pac-Man world championship. Don't be fooled by the fact that its on Joystiq, this is a long but well-written piece.

Chasing Pellets: Pac-man Tries To Make History Again (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/07/chasing-pellets-pac-man-tries-to-make-history-again/).

[Angrycoder]

Best xbox live game since Geometry Wars.

Is it worth the 10 bucks? For me, most definitely. Sure it could use a few extra frills, but the core game play is solid and the 5:00 time limit give it a highly addicting just one of game kind of vibe. But for those of you who like to compare the value of your games against amortized price of a cheeseburger or movie, its probably not worth it.

[DennyA]

I've known about this for while because we had to set up the top-secret reveal for the website. But honestly, my reaction from the screens and videos was "yawn, widescreen, glowing Pac-Man."

Then I played it today. Holy crap, this game is surprisingly addictive. The new gameplay modes are a blast, the music's cool, and the controls are great. I never got much into the original LIVE Arcade Pac-Man because I found it too hard to control with the analog stick or d-pad. They've nailed it here, though. After a few minutes of play, wrong turns or directional reverses back into ghosts were completely my fault, not the controller's.

(Not that I don't still wish MS would do an Arcade joystick...)

[GregB]

This is the best thing Namco has done with the Pac-Man franchise in years. A well conceived update of what made the original game so addictive. It's pretty easy to stay alive for 5 minutes, but getting major points takes a fair bit of planning. I'm still trying to crack 200k. Almost did it last night.

The other modes are worth playing too as they have different maze configurations and the availability of power pellets during each phase of the game is different.

Special thumbs up for the music. It's a 5 minute techno piece that gradually gets more urgent. It's a great way to gauge how much time you have left without having to look at the clock.

[forgeforsaken]

I grabbed it and I really like it. It's impressive how they can can take something as old an tired and copied so extensively as Pac-Man and with just a few tweaks make it fresh and fun. They didn't add a jump button, or guns, or a new power pellet, they just modified the scoring put it on a time limit and changed level progression. Kind of surprising no one ever thought of doing that before in all these years of clones and bad sequels.

The one thing I wish they did have was an infinite random mode where the maze didn't evolve on a set path. I kind of understand why they don't have a random mode though, where they want to maintain a level scoring playfield for all players, as some of the mazes are far more conducive to ghost comboing.

The one other thing is there seems to be missed opportunity for cool achievements. Kind of surprised there isn't one for an X level disparity in sides of the maze for instance.

[Jason Cross]

I picked this up tonight, and it's freaking great. I agree with the stuff I've read elsewhere - they really shouldn't have named this "Championship Edition" because it's honestly the first true sequel to Pac-Man yet. It's Pac-Man 2.

Much like Geometry Wars, it's a game about beating your last score and getting just that much further, and it's pretty hard to put down. They really made something recognizably pac-man, but still fresh and unique. I was kinda iffy on getting it for $10, but I think I already got my money's worth. I just wish I was better at it. :P

[Andrew Mayer]

Penny Arcade seems ready to have its babies.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Penny Arcade seems ready to have its babies.
Them, and everyone else who's tried it.

[Ben Sones]

Except Gamespot! Warning: pointless rant about review scoring follows.

Gamespot needs to write some sort of disclaimer that Xbox Live Arcade games are on a different scoring system than other games--the 6-8 scale rather than the 7-9 scale. I swear, Xbox Live Arcade games never score much higher than 8 on their site, no matter how good they are. Castlevania is their highest rated Live Arcade game, and it got an 8.5. I guess they feared a riot by that game's legion of diehard fans. Most of them score in the sevens or lower.

Pac-Man CE got a 7.9, despite the fact that they basically had nothing bad to say about it, other than that $10 is a little steep. I mean, you know you're reaching for criticism when you have to put comments like "every mode has a time limit, so you're always racing against the clock" under the cons section in your pros and cons blurb. Which is sort of like criticizing a shooter by saying "you're always losing health, so it's a constant fight to stay alive." Well, DUH.

I mean, they spend an entire paragraph paraising the graphics and saying how they manage to look fresh but remain true to the original, and even put a comment in the "pros" blurb ("cool graphics"), and then give graphics a score of 7. Which is the same score they gave to value, the one thing the reviewer wasn't happy about. Which is pretty much proof positive that review scores are just so much meaningless noise--Gamespot review scores doubly so.

Personally, I agree with the other posters here: Pac-Man CE is pretty damn slick.

[forgeforsaken]

Here's the 1up review to counter the gspot one. They loved it.
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3160197&sec=REVIEWS

[Moore]

I thought this was retarded.

I was wrong, love it.

[bigdruid]

I love it too, but I can't pry myself away from Geometry Wars to play it as much as I should.

I mean, I've got Gears of War sitting right on my desk unopened, I'm only like 2 hours into S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and yet I can't stop playing Geometry Wars.

[forgeforsaken]

Woo! 218,460 just edged out Capt Donut for the top of my friends leaderboard.

[Reldan]

Pac-Man CE got a 7.9, despite the fact that they basically had nothing bad to say about it, other than that $10 is a little steep. I mean, you know you're reaching for criticism when you have to put comments like "every mode has a time limit, so you're always racing against the clock" under the cons section in your pros and cons blurb. Which is sort of like criticizing a shooter by saying "you're always losing health, so it's a constant fight to stay alive." Well, DUH.


Wow. Sounds like Shadowrun. Apparently the price of something is a direct measure of how critically good it is.

I heard that Ebert originally gave Lost in Translation a Thumbs Down because while it was a good movie, the $11 ticket price was just too much. Then when it hit the dollar theater it became a Thumbs Up. However, later when it first came out on DVD for $20 it was Thumbs Down again, until it hit the bargain bin where it was a Thumbs Up movie once more.

[Crater]

I bought it as well. Playing the demo for a few minutes, I was amazed at how fresh pac man felt with the changes they made.

My only gripe is how slow the game goes (on the championship mode) in the very beginning. Although I'll counter that gripe by saying that this is one of the few games that I'll probably get all the acheivements for.

[Fuzzydevil]

For me and all non-millionaires, I'm pretty sure the price of something affects how likely we are to buy it. I, at least, would quite like to know whether it's worth the money.

Of course, at $10, it's no Steel Battalion, so I'm not overly convinced that price has any real place being in that review.

[Reldan]

For me and all non-millionaires, I'm pretty sure the price of something affects how likely we are to buy it. I, at least, would quite like to know whether it's worth the money.

Of course, at $10, it's no Steel Battalion, so I'm not overly convinced that price has any real place being in that review.

So in addition to letting you know if something is good, you need reviewers to explain to you whether or not it's worth X dollars to you personally?

You can't just take an objective description of the quality of the product, and then consider the cost and your economic circumstance to make the decision yourself? Is that how far we've fallen as a nation of consumers, that we've lost the ability to judge for ourselves how to spend our money and need other people to tell us what to do with our earnings?

Cost is such a subjective value that it should not be impacting scores. While a $60 game might be one college student's food budget for a month, for another person it's an hour of work and disposable on a whim. While cost may deserve a mention, especially in the context of giving actual examples of how a similar game costs less and is therefore a better value, mentioning cost without providing a relevant basis of comparison is meaningless.

Whether a game is good or not is something fairly concrete that a review can impart. Whether that experience is worth the asking price is my call. Having that factored into the score is useless.

[Talisker]

I heard that Ebert originally gave Lost in Translation a Thumbs Down because while it was a good movie, the $11 ticket price was just too much. Then when it hit the dollar theater it became a Thumbs Up. However, later when it first came out on DVD for $20 it was Thumbs Down again, until it hit the bargain bin where it was a Thumbs Up movie once more.
You heard a bunch of baloney, then -- he gushed all over it (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030912/REVIEWS/309120302/1023) from the very beginning. I read his stuff all the time, and I've never seen or heard him wavering based on ticket price.

[Reldan]

You heard a bunch of baloney, then -- he gushed all over it (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030912/REVIEWS/309120302/1023) from the very beginning. I read his stuff all the time, and I've never seen or heard him wavering based on ticket price.

I was trying to use an absurd argument to make a point. Apparently I didn't make it absurd enough.

However, you still figured out my point, which is that the price of something has little or nothing to do with it's quality in the grand scheme of things, and a review should focus on relative quality.

[Talisker]

Ah, gotcha. I'm prone to reading things way more literally when I'm super-tired :)

[Fuzzydevil]

To an extent, yes, though I'm going to have to backtrack a bit because I used a bit of hyperbole.

If a game costs an exorbiant amount, then I'd expect on a reviewer to touch on it. Perhaps it shouldn't affect the score, but then I don't pay much attention to scores anyway; I have far more grievances with them than I'd like to admit, regardless of the relative use of them, especially now that I generally know - based on who the reviewer is and what they say - how much I'm likely to enjoy something. To me, the text is the most important part, which is how it probably should be, though I admit the Gamespot scores are faulty enough on these aspects that I sit up and take notice.

Regardless, 7th Guest retailed for £70 over here. Steel Battalion was, what, over £100? The price has an impact on my purchase, and is part of the relative merits. As has been stated a number of times, Shadowrun is an acceptable game, but most people I know won't buy it at the price it's at. The scores reflect this, somewhat - if it were $30 (apologies for the changing of currencies, here) then I imagine it would've scored a fair bit higher as it would be a fun little budget game. Note the review scores that things like Peggle are getting. Would I pay £30 for that? Fuck, no. But that's not the price range or the competition it was ever aimed at. Would it still have received high scores at that price? No.

There's a standard price-range for commercial games. If it's much less or much more than that standard, then yeah, I guess I do expect reviews to take that into account somewhat. Games are frequently compared to their brethren, and if the price varies drastically between them, then that should probably be taken into account.

If I've still missed your point, then I apologise. Honestly, I've never really thought about this in depth before - it's something I suppose I've always assumed has been taken into account, even since the late 80s and early 90s, and it's always seemed to be represented even way back then. I can almost certainly dig up and quote a load of reviews, but this isn't anything new, at least for me. I suppose different places and different reviewers vary on this.

Apologies if this makes little sense or seems to ramble, too. I'm far too tired for this sort of argument at this time of the morning.

[DennyA]

To bitch about a $10 price for Pac-Man CE is to miss the big picture.

Pac-Man Arcade: Adapt an ancient game to run on new hardware, primarily through emulation, with a bit of tuning and tweaking to adapt to the new control scheme. $5 is fair.

Pac-Man CE: An entirely new arcade game based on the same gameplay fundamentals, but with new levels, new rules, new AI, and brought to you not by a small developer specializing in emulated ports but by a development team led by the guy who created the original game way back when. How can you demand this be sold for $5?

[Reldan]

To an extent, yes, though I'm going to have to backtrack a bit because I used a bit of hyperbole.

If a game costs an exorbiant amount, then I'd expect on a reviewer to touch on it. Perhaps it shouldn't affect the score, but then I don't pay much attention to scores anyway; I have far more grievances with them than I'd like to admit, regardless of the relative use of them, especially now that I generally know - based on who the reviewer is and what they say - how much I'm likely to enjoy something. To me, the text is the most important part, which is how it probably should be, though I admit the Gamespot scores are faulty enough on these aspects that I sit up and take notice.

Regardless, 7th Guest retailed for £70 over here. Steel Battalion was, what, over £100? The price has an impact on my purchase, and is part of the relative merits. As has been stated a number of times, Shadowrun is an acceptable game, but most people I know won't buy it at the price it's at. The scores reflect this, somewhat - if it were $30 (apologies for the changing of currencies, here) then I imagine it would've scored a fair bit higher as it would be a fun little budget game. Note the review scores that things like Peggle are getting. Would I pay £30 for that? Fuck, no. But that's not the price range or the competition it was ever aimed at. Would it still have received high scores at that price? No.

There's a standard price-range for commercial games. If it's much less or much more than that standard, then yeah, I guess I do expect reviews to take that into account somewhat. Games are frequently compared to their brethren, and if the price varies drastically between them, then that should probably be taken into account.

If I've still missed your point, then I apologise. Honestly, I've never really thought about this in depth before - it's something I suppose I've always assumed has been taken into account, even since the late 80s and early 90s, and it's always seemed to be represented even way back then. I can almost certainly dig up and quote a load of reviews, but this isn't anything new, at least for me. I suppose different places and different reviewers vary on this.

Apologies if this makes little sense or seems to ramble, too. I'm far too tired for this sort of argument at this time of the morning.

I think we're on the same page here. I'd expect a reviewer to mention price if it was out of kilter compared to other similar games.

That might be useful information for some people, and that's what the body of a written review is for. Making a game sound like it's a 9.0 in the body of the review, and then giving it a 7.9 based on cost is not reasonable. If MS had subsidized the game and sold it for 100 points would it have gotten a 9.8? It's a more attractive purchase perhaps, but it's still going to be the exact same game at any price.

[GregB]

218,460 just edged out Capt Donut for the top of my friends leaderboard.

You bastard! I busted my Pac-Ass to get that score.

[Ryan Markel]

You bastard! I busted my Pac-Ass to get that score.

I would love to see video of the top leaderboard score. Last time I checked, it was well over 600k.

[LionelThompson]

Is there a strategy you all use to get such high scores (if you are willing to share such secrets)? I have been generally working both sides of the board at the same time and use the early game to keep the ghosts blue as long as possible to keep eating them at the 3k score over and over, but I run out of time on that by the 3rd map usually.

I was wondering if it might be wiser to focus just on one side of the board so that you can keep the fruit score on it higher.

[forgeforsaken]

I saw a vid of a 300K+ and I kind of follow that. Chain as much as you can in the beginning then race for the key focusing on clearing over ghosts taking ghosts as opportunity presents itself. When the Key spawns you'll get 3 pellets really close together on that side where you'll be able to mass chain ghosts again.

[forgeforsaken]

Also, one of the reasons I posted the 1up review compared to gamespots was Mr. Davidson's take on price.

In early feedback, the gaming community has made a number of negative comments about the game's price. The argument goes that "classic" arcade games are 400-500 points a pop, and that the 800-point price ($10) for Pac-Man Championship Edition is a little steep. To that, I present the following two arguments:

1) Championship Edition is a lot more than just a tarted-up Pac-Man and certainly warrants more of a premium on its price, especially in light of the fact that...

2) "Casual" games are not as cheap as we all like to think they are. If you look at the true classics, games that offer endless fun thanks to simple challenges, like Zuma, Bejweled, or Bookworm, you're looking at a $20 price point. Don't believe me? Just go check out the PopCap site. The trials are free (just like there's a free demo for Pac-Man CE), but the full "unlimited" versions are $19.95.

[Ben Sones]

I don't have a problem with a $10 price point for a new, original game. Sure, there are a lot of $5 games on Live Arcade, but those are just ports/emulators of classic games. The 1Up reviewer is right--casual games on the PC almost always sell for $20. Just browse through PopCap's site, or Reflexive arcade, or the Garage Games site, or any other casual game site you can name and you'll find that $20 is the magic price point. Bejewelled? $20. Peggle? $20. Marble Blast? $20. Phil Steinmeyer's game (Bonnie's Bookstore)? $20.

Given that, the Live Arcade games are really pretty good values. I think that $10 is a perfectly fair price for an all-new, original game (and more specifically, a fair price for this game). It's cheaper than most casual games, and on par with the rest of the original content on Live Arcade. So while I don't have a problem with reviewers pointing out that a game represents a particularly bad value, I'm not sure what line of reasoning led them to think that was the case here. It's sort of analogous to complaining that $40 is a lot to pay for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Except that it's not--it's exactly what you'd expect to pay. A little less, even.


edted for typod

[Fuzzydevil]

I think we're on the same page here. I'd expect a reviewer to mention price if it was out of kilter compared to other similar games.

That might be useful information for some people, and that's what the body of a written review is for. Making a game sound like it's a 9.0 in the body of the review, and then giving it a 7.9 based on cost is not reasonable. If MS had subsidized the game and sold it for 100 points would it have gotten a 9.8? It's a more attractive purchase perhaps, but it's still going to be the exact same game at any price.

Yeah, you're quite right. Funnily enough I do agree that the price should have no bearing on score for this game, at least, because for something like this I can't see anything wrong with the price at all. But then as has been said, there seem to be more issues than just price with that review.

[bigdruid]

The problem with not reflecting the price in the score is that it's hard to differentiate between a score of 7 meaning "it's tons of fun, but has little staying power" (which probably means "buy" at a $10 price point) and a score of 7 meaning "the game itself just isn't that much fun".

For me, it just reinforces the fact that numbers <<<< words.

[slantz]

I love this game. I agree that $10 is a bit steep, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth. More than anything, I think MS/Namco missed an opportunity by not pricing it at $5. Geometry Wars developed a lot of good will and console sales, and I honestly believe this game could have done the same at $5. But I still think it's worth $10.

And my score on main mode is currently 323k or so. My brain melted out of my ears immediately after.

[Chuck Jordan]

And my score on main mode is currently 323k or so. My brain melted out of my ears immediately after.
On the 5 minute mode? Seriously, how is this even possible? My "perfect" game so far, where I kept clearing the board and eating all the ghosts in succession, only got me to 90k before time ran out.

(And for the main thread, I don't get the complaint about pricing at all. If it were just another Pac-Man port, then it wouldn't be worth over $5, but it really does play like an entirely new game.)

[forgeforsaken]

Not mine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w43GpBXAbSI&mode=related&search=

I'm stuck just over 200k.

[Chuck Jordan]

Not mine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w43GpBXAbSI&mode=related&search=

I'm stuck just over 200k.
Ah, it looks like after a minute or so, you just concentrate on clearing the board and stop messing with the ghosts entirely.

Which flies in the face of everything the cartoon taught me.

[slantz]

On the 5 minute mode? Seriously, how is this even possible? My "perfect" game so far, where I kept clearing the board and eating all the ghosts in succession, only got me to 90k before time ran out.

Yeah, main 5-minute mode.

I've basically learned a pattern. I start off eating most/all of the ghosts each time I eat a pellet while also cleaning out all of the dots. But after clearing each side 3 times or so, I switch to just clearing dots as quickly as possible, though I'll take small detours to eat all the ghosts if it's not a big deal.

Eventually, you get to really annoying board layouts, which end when you get to the Key 'fruit'. Once I get the key board on each side (3 power pellets, and virtually no dots), I die on purpose in a specific spot. This resets all the ghosts into the starting area. I eat a power pellet, eat all 4 ghosts right outside their pen, and repeat as often as I can manage (6-10 times or so). After the key level, the level progression resets to the fast early levels, and you can continue to keep your ghost combo going for a while while getting massive fruit points.

At the end, I'm typically at the hamburger 'fruit', and I'm averaging around 230k pts or so each game now. My 321k was a bit of an in-the-zone fluke. My next highest was 280k-ish.

[Andrew Mayer]

At the end, I'm typically at the hamburger 'fruit', and I'm averaging around 230k pts or so each game now. My 321k was a bit of an in-the-zone fluke. My next highest was 280k-ish.

I applaud your run.

I'm using it to show some folks at the office how the game works.

[Rock8man]

Thanks Hiro. My maximum last night was 176k, but after following your advice today, I've been able to reach over 250k and I'm now ranked at 151 overall on the main Championship mode! Woohoo!

This game is so addictive. All my reservations from last week are gone since I've been constantly playing it between Forza races. I've definitely gotten my money's worth out of the game already, and I'm still hooked.

[Ryan Markel]

I'm going to have to give this strategy a try.

[Chuck Jordan]

massive fruit points.
Awesome.

And using your strategy got me up to 110k tonight, so thanks for the tips!

[Ryan Markel]

I'm going to have to give this strategy a try.

Broke 200k the second time I tried it. New plateau.

[Prodigy]

Damn, this IS fun.

[Reldan]

I've finally broken 200k myself. There's a lot of strategy and technical execution in this game - right now my main lament is that this game really shows the inadequacy of the 360 D-Pad.

Fortunately I've got a 360 DoA Hori, which I find works pretty well for this game.

I read that you can get speed boosts going around corners by turning "early" so that you build up sparks. In a game where every little advantage counts, that seems like something it'd be good to master.

It amazes me that people complain that this game isn't worth $10.

[Rock8man]

I agree about the inadequacy of the 360 d-pad for other games, but you don't really need the d-pad for this game, which is one of the reasons I like it so much. The controls are really well done for the left thumbstick. The sparks and the turning "early" is a big part of what makes the game feel so fluid, like pac-man is turning and going the speed you want him to go.

[bigdruid]

Finally broke 200K last night myself, which is good, because I was getting seriously obsessed with hitting that goal.

I have no complaints about the thumbpad controls, although I've taken a few wrong turns during marathon sessions because my thumb gets tired and slips.

They've definitely captured the pac-man feel, though, but have sped it up for modern audiences.

They've also handled something that I *hate* about geometry wars - the first 60 seconds of geometry wars is just mind-blowingly tedious until you hit 10K points. While the first 60 seconds of Pac-Man CE is actually fairly challenging if you try to get four or 5 ghost combos in a row, even though you aren't moving that fast, and by the time you get the last combo, the game has sped up to a reasonable level.

[Gary Whitta]

I've been itching to download some new stuff from XBLA, I think I'm going to get this and Prince of Persia 2007. Any other winners I should be looking at?

[DanielElliot]

Catan, definitely. Band of Bugs seems like it could be good, but I'm waiting for reviews.