Lost in Blue 3 for Nintendo DS Reviews & Ratings by IGN

Maybe Konami never heard the old cliché about the third attempt and its charming qualities. After two Nintendo DS games of the same tedious babysitting gameplay mechanics (based on an actually fun Game Boy Color game), Lost in Blue 3 washes ashore with a heaping helping of more-of-the-same. Sure, there are a couple new features, but they actually manage to make the game even more frustrating. Lost in Blue 3? More like Lost Interest 3 Games Ago.



In Lost in Blue fashion, the player takes the role of a boy or girl, in this case Sam or Claire, whom washes ashore on a deserted island. They find a companion of the opposite gender, and then set to work balancing exploration with constant feeding.



If you were hoping the gameplay got less punishing, you're out of luck. Lost in Blue still requires the player to constantly find sustenance for both members of their party. We get that this is the style of the game, but how many times do we have to say that leading a ditzy girl by the hand to water that is only 10 feet away is not fun? It makes no sense that we can tell Claire to make a meal and she becomes a culinary McGyver, but if we're not right in front of her she starves to death. It certainly isn't a good statement for women's independence.



The most noticeable difference is simple a presentation one. The characters have become more stylized now, with big eyes and sweeping anime hair. It does make them match their 3D models more closely than in previous games.



The biggest new feature however is the addition of multiple storylines and additional characters. The story for Lost in Blue 3 is actually pretty interesting. It involves a sunken ship, amnesia, mysterious villains, and super powers. It takes hours of barely managing to survive to figure any of this out, though. As the player progresses through the island they meet up with other survivors whom know more about what happened. They join the group to help out. Guess what that means?



Yep, we get to babysit them, too.



We mentioned how annoying it is to have to constantly drag some brain-dead fool to fresh water, right? Now imagine doing it twice because you have two idiots to take care of, and you can't lead them both at the same time. Taking the worst part of the game and multiplying it just makes the game even worse. If we dislike tomatoes, we're not going to order a hamburger with extra tomatoes to see if that somehow makes this experience more enjoyable.



There are some benefits to not letting your new friends die of dehydration. For instance, James has a backpack like Sam, so he can hold more items than Claire, and thus makes for a better travel companion. Claire is way better at cooking, so meals turn out better. But these differences don't make it necessary, or enjoyable, to have extra characters to deal with. It just ends up hindering the exploration, which is the best part of the game. The developer is handicapping you by giving you companions that very well might be handicapped. Plus it doesn't make sense that two people by themselves can't take care of each other when that seemed to be the only prerequisite to survival mere moments before.



There are a number of fairly interesting minigame for cooking and hunting, but these are almost identical to the ones in the prequel. Likewise, the tools and furniture are pretty much the same, too. Add on the nearly identical environments and music, and it really feels like we're playing the same game.



They are the best portions of the game, so it's good that they made it in, but really, the people that are going to be picking Lost in Blue 3 up are probably people that played a previous game, and they're going to find a game that starts off exactly the same.

©2008-04-04, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved