Arc the Lad: End of Darkness

We say change is good. [July 2005, p.78]

Crippled by poor gameplay, redeemed at times by enjoyable dialogue and decent aesthetic qualities, Arc the Lad: End of Darkness ends up being a mediocre game.

End of Darkness needs the online mode to stay fresh, without which it will be left as nothing more then a boring and repetitive experience garnished with a few notable features.

The simple combat system works really well for the game and the storyline for me was really interesting. I would have liked more diversity in the single player mode, but the online mode really helped out its cause.

A serviceable and accessible action-RPG with a solid storyline, mad replay value and a number of clever and unique game mechanics that do outweigh the barebones combat system and the remarkably dated production values.

A unique upgrade system, online competitive modes, and semi-linear mission structure can't shine the way they're supposed to if they're supplemented by poor AI, repetitive progression, and a storyline that's nowhere near as powerful as its predecessor.

The action-based battles are not well thought out and are almost rudimentary compared to other superior action-based RPG games like "Kingdom Hearts," a game that came out almost 3 years ago.

Repetitive button-mashing gameplay and recycled graphics and music keep Arc the Lad: End of Darkness from being on the A-list, but the online multiplayer modes are enough fun to give this game a try.

It is a semi-lengthy RPG, as the adventure clocks in roughly around 20 hours, and the online portions are pretty entertaining.

There are just simply too many things done completely wrong with this game. They need to take a step back and remember how the true Arc the Lad games were like.

The slow single player mode along with unimpressive graphics, and a bad soundtrack really hurt this game. What helps it are the good online play, along with the easy controlls.

In the end though, this game feels like a throwback, or an experiment gone wrong. Die-hard ATL fans should rent this first.

It's doubtful that it will spawn any new recruits.

A well-crafted game, but it's so by the books in so many ways that it never really gets off the ground.

Combat just plain sucks. [July 2005, p.120]

Too convoluted and mechanically routine to recommend to anyone except the most subbornly devoted. [Aug 2005, p.84]

The new battle system is mindless and repetitive, and the online multiplayer does nothing to mitigate the weak single-player campaign, lifeless characters, and dull presentation of the game.

Darkness' molasses pace, cut-rate presentation, and simplistic throwaway quests leech any sense of drama or importance. [Aug 2005, p.113]

This isn't quite an awful game; stick around long enough and the story picks up. But it's too bland to be worth more than a rental unless you're a hard-core fan.

I'm not much of a cook, but I do know how to make a mediocre game. You toss in some bland graphics, ridiculously boring combat, and then top that off with an atrocious story.

An above-average RPG experience loses all the things that made it entertaining and in the process makes it purely average in nearly every way. This is a horrible way to reuse the assets from a game that was legitimately entertaining.

Everything is passable--no aspects of the game are missing, nothing's technically wrong. It's just that it doesn't strive above any of the old, established conventions of the genre. It has an average overwrought RPG story line, average graphics, and an average (to poor) combat system that has shifted from turn-based combat to real-time combat.