The Wrath of MoHGoW!

MoHGoW, the dreaded beast of Acronymia strikes again! He is come, filled with wrath and the desire to reboot your stale franchise, or continue it if it doesn't suck yet! The result is a much shorter post than last week! Read on!

Medal of Honor

Call of....I mean, Medal of Honor!

 

• Platform: 360
• Release Date: 10/12/10 (2 months behind!) 
• Achievements: 500/1000
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 20+ hours

As I mentioned in a previous entry, I played my share of Medal of Honor back in the day, when WW2 shooters were still novel and cool (and before we'd been making them longer than the actual war went on), but lost interest after the excellent Frontline. After the success of Call of Duty (which, ironically enough, was made successful by the same guys that made the really good MoH games), EA decided to resurrect this series to do battle with the CoD juggernaut by setting it during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, 2002. The campaign is based around the idea of the scalpel and the sledgehammer. As the scalpel, a Tier 1 operative (are they Delta, SEALS, CIA? Who knows! They all have beards though!), you undertake clandestine missions to assess enemy strength, eliminate High Value Targets, kick Al Qaeda in the nuts, and rescue your buddies when they screw up. As the sledgehammer, an Army Ranger, you assault Taliban positions, try not to get shot, and rescue your buddies when they screw up.

I had a few technical gripes with MoH, mainly that as pretty as it is, it still only runs at 30 frames a second. I've come to regard the sense of realism that 60 frames provides as necessary for a military shooter, and I guess CoD has spoiled me in that way. This and the fact that MoH's default control scheme is practically identical to CoD's (who can blame them, it's a great setup) most likely led to to the campaign's dismissal by many critics, predisposing them against what, after a while, I came to regard as a very solid and occasionally memorable experience. Not so much in the way of providing anything new (CoD has pretty much taken all of that in the military shooter genre) but the occasional moment in the campaign (most notably part of the Ranger campaign) made me think : I've heard this story, from friends and relatives who were/are actually in this place, fighting this very real war, and that's a feeling I haven't gotten from CoD in a long time.

That's not to say the story is a masterpiece, in fact, as strong as the narrative is on the ground, the interstitial cinematics featuring bickering between the field commander and the general in Washington derails it considerably, and the story would have been far better without it. The Tier 1 guys occasionally come off as dorks, but I'd never tell that to any of their heavily armed and heavily bearded faces.

One thing I've always really liked about the Medal of Honor games is the reverence it has always held for the veterans, and this entry is no different. I come from a military family, so solemnly acknowledging the sacrifice of those who have served our country is an easy way to get in my good graces. If you're a fan of military FPS's other than CoD, I'd definitely give this a shot.

And before you ask, No, I didn't play multiplayer on this one.

God of War: Ghost of Sparta

A well deserved se-prequel, or is it a pre-sequel?

 

• Platform: PSP
• Release Date: 11/2/10 (2 weeks behind! Thanks job!)
• Trophies: None!
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 8 hours (will play again in the future)

It's a tough thing for developers to share a franchise. Just look at the bad vibes between Treyarch and the late Infinity Ward. A great deal of resentment came out of the fact that IW had to share (and by share I mean give away) an engine and assets they created to another studio so the publisher could count on steady, yearly releases.

Santa Monica Studio and Ready at Dawn don't seem to have this problem, and it shows in the latest from each of these developers, the grand epic God of War 3 from SM, and the excellent Ghost of Sparta from Ready at Dawn. Chains of Olympus (RaD's previous PSP GOW) was certainly surprising in its scope, grandeur, and quality of it's execution, and Ghost of Sparta builds upon that to an unprecedented degree (the jump from God of War 1 to 2 notwithstanding). It's important to note that during my playthrough, no less than 5 times did I hear myself say, “I didn't know the PSP could do that!”

Apart than and above from it's razor sharp graphics and gameplay, which we expect from this series, the greatest achievement of Ghost of Sparta is it's story. Ghost of Sparta takes place between GoW 1 and 2, and manages to incorporate some exciting ideas from 1's extras that I had given up on seeing.  Ready at Dawn gave us a great deal of insight into Kratos as a character during Chains of Olympus (some of which was actually incorporated into GoW3), but Ghost of Sparta ties up so many loose ends from the series that that alone makes it a must play. One of my biggest questions from 2 was if Kratos was made a god of Olympus, why is he still so pissed off at all the rest of them? Oh, you'll find out.

This deft handling of Kratos' fiction, as well as all of the epic scale of the God of War franchise in this HANDHELD title demand the attention of any serious gamer.

Next time! Wii Stab!

The CoDpiece!

Or CoDfish and chips! Or CoDswallop! (I can do this all day)

I hope you're sitting down, because this is easily one of the longest episodes of A Step Behind that I've done. This week we take a look at two entries in (whether you like it or not) what is possibly the biggest franchise in gaming right now, Call of Duty. I absolutely LOVED CoD 4, and sunk endless hours into both the single player campaign and multiplayer. It's successors, however, well, check out my review for Modern Warfare 2, and this week's entry. I bring up a few points later on that I'd like to hear from you, the reader about, so please, feel free to leave a comment here or on Facebook.

Call of Duty: World At War

• Platform: 360
• Release Date: 11/11/08 (2 years behind!) 
• Achievements: 1000/1500
• 2+ playthoughs @ 40+ hours
• I compare it to: It's Call of Duty, in World War 2! Again!

I really didn't want to play this game. Really. Modern Warfare was my first Call of Duty game; this was due to having played a lot of Medal of Honor back in the day, I was pretty burned out on WW2 as a game genre and setting as a result. So, after finding out that not only would the next Call of Duty not be developed by Infinity Ward, and on top of that would go BACK to the WW2 setting, I immediately set this entry to ignore.

A big part of that did have to do with the developer and the politics surrounding this franchise. If you follow gaming news like I do, feel free to skip to the next section. Sometime after Call of Duty 2, Activision (publisher) decided that to maximize the franchise's earning potential (at the time, CoD 2 was the best selling 360 launch game) they needed to maneuver it into a position that could facilitate yearly releases. The only real way to do this was concurrent development, split between Infinity Ward, the creator of the game's phenomenal engine, and Treyarch, who would use that engine and assets as they so chose. Infinity Ward has never been ok with this, and for a long time I was mad on their behalf.

So, I totally ignored World at War for about a year and a half after it released. The only reason it wound up in my queue was the fact that I enjoyed CoD2, and figured one more WW2 game couldn't hurt. And I wanted to see for myself what Treyarch did with the Modern Warfare engine. I'll just come right out and say it, I was pleasantly surprised. World at War is a great game. However, there are changes in the formula, that while I can understand the reasoning behind them, just don't sit well with me. And one change that I love and that will probably never die.

World at War re-adopts the multiple campaign model from the older CoDs, but limits it to 2. The first takes place during some of the most intense battles of the Pacific Theater, such as Makin Atoll, Peleliu, and Okinawa. You follow Sergeant Roebuck (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) through banzai ambushes, seemingly impossible assaults against hardened Japanese positions, and the terror of fighting an iron-willed foe who does not fear death.

Treyarch really ratchets up the story element for the Russian campaign however. You wake up, lying in a pile of dead, staying as still as you possibly can so the Nazi soldier finishing your friends off will pass you by. Once he's gone, you find you're not alone. This is where you meet Sgt. Reznov (the one and only Gary Oldman), the merciless, battle-hardened, nigh-insane survivor of the Nazi invasions. Starting by hunting down and assassinating a German general, Reznov leads you on a journey of pure revenge into the heart of the Reich itself.

The Russian campaign is much more powerful story-wise, but both are very strong in terms of gameplay, especially the breakout sequences. The tank level is great, but the Black Cat sequence is AWESOME. *SPOILER AHEAD* One great detail I have to mention: The end of most WW2 games I've played usually take place at the end of an advance, or particular part of the campaign, then have a short history lesson about how the war in Europe ended. Not World at War. The last two levels take place during the Russian assault on the Reichstag itself. No other game has given me the sense that I was fighting in the “final battle” of World War II, and it felt appropriately epic. This particular level was incredibly difficult on Normal, and took me a month's worth of attempts on Veteran. Not since Mile High Club in CoD4 have I been so happy to finally get past something. *END SPOILER*

The action and visuals in WaW are top notch, which is to be expected from this franchise. The trademark Call of Duty cinematic-style intensity is in place, supported by an excellent score by Sean Murray. The score, as exciting and booming as it is, does have its anachronistic moments, namely with some metal riffs, some electronic beats, and much darker orchestral movements. (as compared to Graeme Revell's seemingly period-appropriate score for Call of Duty 2) This got to me a bit on an intellectual level, however, while it doesn't fit the aesthetics of the period, it does fit the tone of the story, and I understand that it was created to heighten the drama and be relevant to contemporary audiences. Tiger Wife, however, would have a lot to say about it.

If there was anything I didn't like about WaW (other than the ridiculous tendency of every enemy onscreen to throw grenades at your exact position at once), it's certain little details that I feel compromise some of the “values” that the series has held. For instance, in previous games, the first of your bullets that goes astray and hits a friendly NPC forces a checkpoint restart, with the unambiguous declaration, “Friendly fire will NOT be tolerated!” Apparently, in WaW, it is tolerated, and your squadmates react to being shot as if you'd just given them dead-leg. I know, its a video game, and having to restart a checkpoint because the AI took a dive into your line of fire sucks, but there's just something about being able to plink your teammates with impunity that doesn't sit well with me. Another addition that Treyarch made to the engine seems like a natural element for a war game, but somehow misses the mark for me. Graphic dismemberment makes its series debut in WaW, with limbs flying through the air after a powerful enough explosive or big enough round. I'm well aware that this is part of war, but in this case, I'm not sure that it feels anything other than gratuitous. While I do understand that this could seem hypocritical coming from me, being a lifelong fan of gory franchises like Mortal Kombat and God of War, the real difference here is tone. MK and GoW are crazy, over the top experiences that couldn't ever be mistaken for reality. This boils down to a matter of personal opinion, but I think that the dismemberment in WaW still feels somewhat frivolous and unnecessary, and works against the respect for the soldier that I feel Infinity Ward was so good with. I'd love to hear some opinions on this, especially from service members.

One more note about World at War, aside from the main campaign and multiplayer (which actually includes campaign co-op), there is a mode that I have to recommend as a must play, and if you aren't thrilled just by hearing the name, then you're not a gamer. Nazi Zombies! Trapped in a house, killing a flood of the combination of the two things gamers love to kill. That is all.

Call of Duty: Black Ops

• Platform: 360 
• Release Date: 11/09/10 (Not behind! Thanks, TigerWife!)
• Achievements: 890/1000
• Playthroughs: 2+ @ 35+ hours
• I compare it to: The CoD franchise's application for membership in the SCA.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the series's largest grosser so far. Of course, with CoD, thats like saying its the first one since the last one. Huge sales numbers don't surprise me anymore for this franchise, but a decent story does, and I'm glad to say that Black Ops actually has a fairly long and enjoyable campaign.

Black Ops is pretty much what you'd expect from the title, namely focusing on the shady activities we're pretty sure the CIA undertook in Cuba, Vietnam, and Russia in the 60's, during the height of the Cold War. Centering on Alec Mason, or is it Mason Briggs, or Nick Mason? Ah, ok, ALEX Mason. Note to video game industry: Time to retire the name Mason. (10 bucks to anyone who can tell me which games the others are from without using the Internet) You play as Alex Mason (Sam Worthington, thoroughly enjoying his best year ever), a CIA operative who is captured by the Soviets after a botched (but action packed!) assassination misson. After being held captive for three years, he manages to escape the gulag in which he's imprisoned with the help of a familiar face, WWII veteran Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman, again), and returns to the CIA, which puts him right back to work alongside handler Jason Hudson (Ed Harris), despite the fact that Mason is still under the influence of Soviet brainwashing.

While Treyarch doesn't have the same flair for over-the-top set pieces as the late Infinity Ward, Black Ops makes up for it with an actual story with plot and character development, some neat twists, and a real ending. It's also nice that Mason isn't the standard issue silent protagonist, and while he's not the most compelling of characters, it does help to forge an stronger connection with the player. (Also, Treyarch doesn't seem to hate its player characters as much as Infinity Ward.) Black Ops also does a pretty good job of capturing the paranoia of this particular era, with its motifs of brainwashing, espionage, and the threat of WMDs, even if by the end it resembles a James Bond movie more than anything else.

Black Ops is a hotbed of anachronism, even more so than World at War. Some really good period classic rock tracks (Sympathy the Devil makes for a nice touch) occupy the soundtrack, along with returning composer Sean Murray's cinematic-style score. The testosterone milking metal chords are back, along with a heavy electronic bass beat running through one level. While it doesn't fit with the period aesthetics, like WaW, it works for the game. (the bass beat level gets particularly exciting) Murray also revisits some of his best motifs from World at War for a key character, and that really gets things going.

Black Ops takes a few liberties with the history of this period, besides not being based on real events, and I get why they do that. That doesn't bother me. (Besides, I've always said that playing Call of Duty to learn about history is like watching porn to learn anatomy, but I digress.) What does bother me is the blatant and constant weapon anachronisms that run throughout the entire game. I understand Treyarchs reluctance to downgrade the arsenal from Modern Warfare 2, which would have been fine if it was limited to multiplayer, but seeing weapons which are obviously not from the era they're portraying pulls me right out. For instance, not everyone knows that the G11 automatic long range rifle wasn't prototyped until 1992, but seeing an AKS-74 (made in, you guessed it, 1974) during a sequence that takes place in 1965 is just insulting to my intelligence. It's like seeing an AK-47 in a World War II game. (thankfully, the historical advisors for WaW didn't let that happen.)

After all that, one thing that I really have to give to Black Ops is that it's a LOT of content for the price of admission. In addition to the satisfyingly long campaign (which most welcome after the 4 ½ hour Modern Warfare 2,) there's several other game modes and a ton of easter eggs.

I'm sure you've heard plenty about multiplayer already, so I'll limit my thoughts to a few words: Yes, it's fun. No, I don't play it a lot. Why? Because I suck at it. Moving on.

The undead return in Black Ops in the form of the now sadly generic sounding Zombies mode. (I was very disappointed to find out that it would just be called Zombies. Commie Zombies would have given my heart nigh-eternal joy.) It's been expanded, with larger maps, objectives, etc. The problem is that the objectives (turning on the power) are practically impossible to find, requiring looking up online or playing with someone who's done it before. By the time you've killed enough zombies to afford some exploration, the zombies start coming with enough force to make sure you don't get far. This doesn't mean it's not a blast though, and playing with a group of friends is a perfectly acceptable way to kill an evening.

Another feature that I hope isn't getting overlooked by too many people is the ludicrously fun (and ludicrous) easter egg game, Dead Ops Arcade. This top down, Smash TV style dual stick shooter is retro to its core, the graphics engine notwithstanding. It hearkens back to the colorful arcade cabinets of the 80's, with their flashy concept art that may or may not have had anything to do with the game inside, if indeed that cabinet housed its original game.

It should be no surprise by now that Black Ops is easily one of the most polished games I've played. There is so much money behind this brand that it can't help but drip production value. With top notch voice actors (Gary Oldman, Ed Harris, Ice Cube, and others), and one of the most highly refined game engines on the market, Black Ops has been genetically engineered to be as successful as it is. We keep buying them, they keep making them. If you're sick of Call of Duty, you've only got yourself (and about 50 million other gamers) to blame.

Next time! Feel the wrath of MoHGoW!

Spartans Vs. Ninjas, err, Samurai

This time, a game that I actually play online! Incroyable! And a collection of games I used to play in the arcades when the Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter cabinets were full. Enjoy!

Halo: Reach

• Platform: Xbox 360
• Release Date: 9/14/10 (2 weeks behind!)
• Achievements: 1000/1000 Before DLC
• Playthroughs: 4+ @ 80+ hours
• I compare it to: Low Fat Halo (Now with Jetpacks!)
• Play it again? Yeah, too fun not to.

If you haven't already read about my history with the Halo franchise in the review for Halo 3: ODST, I'd suggest taking a quick look at that. Ok, so, Halo:Reach. I'm actually going to break with one of my conventions here and first, talk about *gasp!* multiplayer!

Aside from being the best free game I ever got (you'll have to ask me about this if you don't already know), Reach was remarkable in another sense: I've probably played more Reach online than any other game. Why? Several reasons. One, the Halo formula was extremely strong to begin with and it's only gotten better over the years. Reach actually incorporates some of the mechanics from Halo 2 (my previous multiplayer favorite) that I loved that were missing from Halo 3 (no more sword nerf!), along with the great addition of armor abilities, including, wait for it, the JETPACK! That + Rockets = Hours of Fun. And some other things too. (Play Firefight mode Gruntpocalypse. You won't be disappointed.)

Two: The credit system and daily/weekly challenges provide a lot of incentive to keep playing an already excellent game. Credits are earned for playing all modes of the game (including the now excellent co-op Firefight mode), and finally buying that Firefight voice (get Buck!) or Armor Effect you've been saving up for is a great feeling.

And Three: Halo is the franchise I'm probably best at online. In CoD, I die a LOT. I progress only through sheer attrition and only play team based games. In Halo, I often do free for all, and I often win. No other game gives me the sheer ego boost that comes with a 30+ kill count at the end of a match. Yes, I just said I like it because I'm good at it. At least I'm honest.

Now, the things I usually discuss.

The Reach campaign takes place on the doomed UNSC military base planet of, wait for it, Reach. Die hard Halo fans know this period in the Halo timeline as the events leading up to the first game, and those of us who read The Fall of Reach (or if you just read that book title) know that it will not end well.

You play as Noble Six, the FNG in a fireteam of Spartans. Thankfully, you're neither mute, nor a rookie. You're just new to this team and say little, which I'll gladly accept after a year of way too many laconic neophytes. Six joins Noble team right as the Covenant begin their invasion of the human population center / military stronghold planet (In retrospect, maybe we shouldn't have put those in the same place. Hmmmm. Live and learn). Fighting through the advance scouts, Noble team discovers that the Covenant is after something other than just the annihilation of the planet's population, and they're willing to launch a full scale invasion to get it.

Like multiplayer, the Reach campaign streamlines the established Halo formula, giving us more of the things that have been great about the series and less of what's been dragging it down. You won't find a single Flood spore in Reach, and I couldn't be happier about that. There's even a very well executed space combat sequence (I haven't loved it so much since Rogue Squadron), whose only real flaw lies in it's unfortunate brevity. Reach also has several great new weapons, some of which I think should have been around since the beginning. The needle rifle and grenade launcher are great fun, but none beat my personal favorite, the DMR, (I like to think that it stands for Deathifying Murdermachine Rifleocalypse, or even just Death Making Rifle, but I'm sure there's a more canon appropriate Back-ronym floating around out there.) a closed bolt, semi-automatic engine of optimal headshot production. Seriously, if you can't pull off a headshot with this thing, there is no hope for you.

After playing the campaign through a few missions, you will notice that the tone is far more serious than the rest of the series. Though Noble Six and his teammates score some significant victories against the alien invaders, the significance quickly dwindles as the odds become more and more overwhelming. Reach surprised me not only with the tone, but with the connection it manages to forge with it's characters. Six is about as developed as Master Chief ever was, but the time you spend around Carter, Kat, Jorge, Jun, and Emile (you do at least one mission fighting alongside each), and the feeling like you're beginning to know them makes the moment when each meets their fate almost devastating.

A quick note for the hardcore geeks out there. If you're wondering if Reach is unwaveringly true to the canon established in the book, don't worry, it ISN'T. So just accept that right now.

Between the darker tone, the multi-dimensional characters (some of the best in the series, IMHO), and the overall improvement in storytelling, Bungie has set a new bar for the series that made the Xbox and Xbox 360 as successful as they are. Too bad it's the developer's last Halo. Most likely, that means it will be mine too. I refuse to put money on that, however.

Samurai Shodown Anthology

• Platform: PSP
• Release Date: 3/10/09 (1 1/2 years behind!)
• Trophies: None!
• Playthoughs: >1 @ >1 hour
• I compare it to: That game I occasionally used to play. 6 times.
• Play it again: Nope, I've had my fill.

I have fond memories of Samurai Shodown. Between playing it for a few minutes at a time when I was tired of Mortal Kombat at the arcade and my friend's Super Nintendo, I had a lot of good times slicing and dicing as badass ninja Hanzo. No one else was really worth playing, I thought. So, it was with this same vibrant enthusiasm that I queued up Samurai Shodown Anthology. Not having a terribly compelling interest in the series as a whole, I decided to play my favorite character up as far as I could without losing in each iteration. 1 and 2 were about as fun as I remember (complete with 90's spraying blood if you score a lethal strike at the end of a match, and if you're REALLY awesome, cutting your opponent in two, although the level of detail was limited to a severed sprite which flashed into oblivion.), although nostalgia does tend to lose some of its color to the harsh bleach of reality. 3 onwards were simply exercises in repetition with minor tweaks, and no dismembered sprites. I lost interest and sent it back. If you lived and died for these games in the 90's, I'd buy this right now. Otherwise, a (short) rental will do you just fine.

Next Time! Cape CoD! 

A Week Without Trophies.....

My epic quest to get my write ups caught up continues! This time, I play two games with no periodic psychological validations (I also call them Trophies and Achievements) whatsoever! In fact, both of them even berated me, one with it's increasingly convoluted series canon, and the other with an actual psychiatrist! Read on!

Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker

• Platform: PSP
• Release Date: 6/8/10 (3 months behind!)
• Trophies: None!
• Playthroughs: 1@32 hours
• I compare it to: A REAL handheld Metal Gear Solid

Let me throw this out there right now: Loving a franchise doesn't necessarily mean you automatically love each entry. Portable Ops, the first Metal Gear on PSP, was a mess, story and gameplay wise. It was a pain to do just about anything, and after my one and only playthough, I pretty much regretted my 3-day valley-wide search for a used copy. I am very happy to say that its follow up, Peace Walker, is much easier to mistake for an actual Metal Gear Solid game.

Graphically, PW runs circles around it's predecessor. While PO fell far short of the high bar set by MGS2 in 2001(!), PW looks almost as good as Snake Eater and really pushes the limits of the PSP hardware. It's seriously gorgeous for a handheld game, especially the jungle environments.

As with pretty much any game with shooting on the PSP, the controls are an issue. The right-stick camera control that was used to great effect in MGS: Subsistence and MGS4 has been, like most PSP shooters, mapped to the face buttons, and I want to break the control scheme with my face every time I play one of these. However, MGS:PW does it better and less painfully than just about anything I've played. That doesn't make it right though.

One of the features in Portable Ops that I never got into was the soldier management system. Acquiring new recruits was so cumbersome that after the first three or so, I didn't even bother getting them from the field. Capturing mercs is SO much easier in this entry, thanks to the Fulton Recovery System (a balloon you attach to downed soldiers). No more dragging passed out men back to the shady truck for purposes unknown! This enables you to actually build a proper army of captured soldiers, and as a result, I got ridiculously involved in the mercenary combat mission mini-game. This, more than anything else, I what found myself addicted to during my time with Peace Walker. I caught myself saying things like “Oh, just one more sortie” and, “I really should send this back, but I don't want to just yet” that took me by surprise. The mini-game REALLY gets fun when you acquire a certain piece of hardware.

The story is told in the same animated graphic novel style cutscenes as PO, except this time, you may be surprised by the occasional integrated quick time event (usually resulting in surprise and death if you're not paying attention). This game is a far more important link in the chain, begun in Snake Eater, that sees the hero Naked Snake transform into the villain we know by the first Metal Gear as Big Boss. (In my opinion, as a character, Big Boss is arguably more dynamic and compelling than Solid Snake.) It's filled with more than its share of anime style ludicrosity (yeah, it's a word. MY word) and blatant technological anachronism, but its still a great look at the reasons why one of America's greatest Cold War heroes became a despotic warlord. And a whole bunch of other stuff that I don't even bother telling the wife about.

In short, if you're a fan of Hideo Kojima's continuing dude soap, Peace Walker is a must play. If not, go play something else. I don't have time to explain the backstory (and I can't risk Tiger Wife hearing me tell you).

What's that, Konami? You have another game from one of my legacy franchises for me to play?

 

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

• Platform: PS2
• Release Date: 1/19/10
• Playthrough: 1@10 hours
• Trophies: None!
• I compare it to: Silent Hill: Now with Waggle! But not, since it's on PS2.

It's pretty easy to tell when a game is designed for the Wii. When the graphics are PS2 quality, when there are extraneous minigames (like opening a cabinet and removing a key) that scream “MOTION CONTROL, COOL HUH!!!!” , and when said game is ported to PS2, that pretty much seals the case. And this begs the question from me, if a motion control game is ported to a non-motion control system, was it any more fun with the motion controls? In the case of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, probably not.

To be fair, the Silent Hill games have never been much “fun” in the traditional sense. The first one was a new level of unrelenting nightmare for me when I first played it on the PS1 in 1999, and I was so enthralled with its new type of atmospheric horror that I didn't really notice how shitty the controls were. (That happened a lot in those days) The controls have never been fluid and easy, but they've incrementally improved over the years. The franchise's shift to motion control, and the shift back for the port only tell me that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Shattered Memories is a reimagining (reboooooooot) of the original Silent Hill and still tells the story of Harry Mason and his search for his lost daughter Cheryl in the haunted resort town, but it has changed significantly. Instead of the hellish rusty/bloody chain-link, barbed wire, tar-drenched underworld that the dark side of the town transformed into for the original, it is now an equally hellish frozen graveyard, with every tree, building, person, blade of grass covered in a shroud of ice. Exploring doesn't ever reach the heights of dread that the previous entries did, but it's still kind of creepy and fun to look at.

Combat is plagued with game-breaking flaws, the most glaring of which is the fact that YOU DON'T EVER ACTUALLY FIGHT! Enemy encounters literally consist of “Run away, run through glowing door, jump to glowing edge, OMG you're caught mash some buttons!1!!!11! Run some more, hide for a second, OMG you're caught! Rinse, repeat until by an extremely frustrating process of trial and error, you finally arrive at your destination (and in one particularly infuriating example, you have to run back out to, I kid you not, look at the colors on a toucan's nose. No shit.). I've played games where your only option was to run, such as Clock Tower, and those can be fun/scary if they're well designed, and there's an eventual way to outwit and thwart your pursuer, such as a trap to lead it into, an environmental hazard to turn to your advantage, or a finding a big ass rocket launcher. However, Shattered Memories gives you no way to fight back, and as a gamer, this adds nothing to my experience but frustration. Maybe this makes me a dumb alpha male, but I like to confront my fears head on, and I don't like to run unless I'm running to get a better weapon to kick its ass with. Analyze that.

And that brings me to what I actually really like about Shattered Memories, and that's it's storytelling style. The game begins with a home video of the Mason family, at home, at an amusement park, etc. After the video has played, your psychiatrist ejects it, talks to you a bit, then has you fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire has several vanilla questions, then gets into what Captain Hammer would call the “weird stuff.” Questions about substance use, sexual proclivities, things I generally only talk about when I'm drunk. Your answers to these questions actually influence the game, and your further “sessions” with the psychiatrist (who really doesn't pull any punches, he's actually kind of a dick), which serve as bookends to the game's levels contribute to this along with (seemingly random) things you do during the game. In classic Silent Hill fashion, there are multiple endings, (Fun fact: I'm sure that EVERY guy that's played this has gotten the “perv” ending. Ask me why, I dare you.) and characters throughout the story adapt to your actions. I was also very happy to find that Shattered Memories has one of the best story twists since the end of Silent Hill 2.

The other thing I liked about Shattered Memories has probably been my favorite thing about every Silent Hill game, and that's the excellent soundtrack by series producer Akira Yamaoka. Ever since the first Silent Hill, the series has had some of the most distinctive tunes in the entire industry. I have most of the soundtrack albums. While he didn't compose all of the music in this entry, Yamaoka's tracks on the Shattered Memories soundtrack are just as powerful and emotive as they've always been. I'm trying to put together a two-hour “Best of Video Games” playlist right now, and what I'm stuck on is finding the “best” track to represent Silent Hill. There's too damn many.

Silent Hill is a franchise that has struggled to get it right and I'm not sure it ever will. Psychological horror is utterly defeated by the confidence of a gamer who has learned a well polished control scheme; that sense of empowerment is very difficult to shake and few games ever get there (a few newer franchises have, see Dead Space and Metro 2033). Will I keep playing Silent Hill? With Yamaoka's departure from the franchise (as well as his music), it doesn't look likely. But, who knows. Maybe a future entry will have something new to offer.

Next Time! 2 down, 16 to go!

The Sadly Forgotten

While sifting through the copious amount of games that I've played and have not yet written on, I found several games that I put a considerable amount of time into, yet somehow didn't make it onto the writing queue. One, you could argue that the oversight occurred simply because it was a forgettable game, the other, well, I've quit trying to make up excuses to you (now you get to feel like Tiger Wife!)

Halo 3: ODST

• Platform: Xbox 360
• Release Date: 9/22/09 - First Played: 6/12/10 (9 months behind!)
• Playthroughs: 3+
• Achievements: 860/1000
• I compare it to: A Firefly cast reunion with the Halo 3 engine
• Play it again?: I'll wait for the real Big Damn Game.

I used to be big into Halo. I mean BIG. I bought my Xbox specifically for Halo 2, and I thought it was worth it. I spent a whole weekend at a friend's place playing through Halo 3 because I couldn't afford a 360 at the time (and once I could, I borrowed a copy for like, 4 months). I beat all 3 of the first Halos on each difficulty, all the way to Legendary, simply because they were so fun. (Not to mention that Halo was the core of some of my best times with local multiplayer)

Then, I got sick of Halo. I don't know whether it was the deluge of spin offs in the years following, the fact that my son liked it more than Star Wars, or if Tiger Wife broke that part of my gaming spirit (dragon from FF12, baby), but sometime in 2009, I just stopped caring. I heard that Bungie was working on a new, budget priced campaign to tide us over until Reach, and thought, ok, whatever. Then it turned out that it was going to be a full priced retail campaign, and I pretty much lost interest.

Long story short, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention when it came out.

When I got around to it, my feelings about it were, complicated. During the opening cinematic, I was utterly thrilled to hear the dulcet tones of not only Tricia Helfer (6 from Battlestar Galactica), Adam Baldwin, and Alan Tudyk, but the Lord of the Geeks himself, Nathan Fillion! (Jayne, Wash, and Mal from Firefly, respectively) However, I was less enthused when I stepped into the shoes of the Rookie, another very compelling mute, faceless protagonist. (For the record, there's a BIG difference between men of few words, and men of no words.)

ODST continued to send me on the emotional rollercoaster throughout my experience with it. The cool night vision mode was offset by getting lost between missions. Being able to play as characters voiced by some of my favorite actors was offset by the excruciatingly boring and lame audiologs and the pain of having to collect them in a certain order. (Many, many games have audiologs nowadays; ODST has the distinction of being the first game where I dreaded picking them up) The lack of dual-wielding was made up for with the lack of Flood. The list goes on.

Overall, ODST was alright, but I wouldn't consider it a must-play for anyone but hardcore Halo geeks, or Firefly geeks. The characters are great, as are the performances, but the story is not. ODST has some nice add-ons though. It comes with a Halo 3 Multiplayer disc that contains all of the DLC maps, and also has the first iteration of Firefight (which officially became awesome in Reach). You could do worse, but you could do better too.

Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers  

• Platform: Xbox 360
• Release Date: 6/17/09 First Played: 7/1/10 (1 year behind!)
• Playthoughs: 4+
• Achievements: 215/300
• I compare it to:  One of the geekier things I did as a teen resurrected as the geekiest thing I do as an adult.
• Play It Again? It always comes back to haunt me, one way or another.

Yeah, you read that right. I played Magic: The Gathering as a teenager. And now I'm playing it again as an adult. My wife plays it, even my kid plays it now. He does so as a direct result of this infernally addictive video game adaptation of the card game that I spent a good chunk of my youth (and youthly money) on.

Magic utilizes the 15 year old system by way of pre-built decks with additional cards unlockable as you play the game. This formula actually works very, very well; it slowly adds new elements as you master the stratagems available in the base decks. Animations and sound effects are added for window dressing, but they add a surprising amount to the experience.

I'm not an expert on this particular subject, but the more games I play with a critical eye, the more I notice the AI. I kind of look at it the way moviegoers tend to look at sound design, meaning that if you don't notice it, the job has been done right. I did notice the Magic AI, however, but only because it's so damn smart! While somewhat forgiving on the early levels of the campaign, after a few rungs of the ladder, it doesn't miss a single opportunity to wrench your sweet, sweet tears from your eyes with it's ability to see what you're trying to do, and bring it to a screeching halt if at all possible. This, of course, makes every game unique, and gives Magic an almost infinite replay value.

This persistent freshness in the game also extends to online multiplayer, where, even I will admit, I had an absolute blast. One of my main gripes with the card game was that I could usually only find others to play with once or twice a month, and 3/4 of the time we'd spend on the game was getting the decks together. There is however, an epidemic of rage-quitting online. Every time I lost, I accepted my defeat with the same grace as a victory, which is simply staying for the whole game. Roughly one out of every two matches I played I won by forfeit, as the other took off once it became apparent they were going to lose. This is supremely frustrating while Achievement-whoring, because a win by forfeit doesn't count toward the number of wins required. (Fun fact: Magic is the only game I've found myself rating players. I avoided rage-quitters and preferred players who actually stayed to the bitter end)

My one big gripe with Magic is also the one thing that keeps it a balanced game. I really wish I could customize decks. I do understand why this can't happen however, having been beaten on several occasions by mediocre players that simply had more rare and powerful cards. The only way to truly ensure a "fair" game of Magic is with sealed, pre-built decks, which is how they do it in the tournaments. It would be nice to at least have more options with the decks in game, at least being able to adjust the number of land cards in a deck (to try to avoid the all-too-common problems my friends and I lovingly refer to as mana-rape and mana-drench).

This aside, I'd go as far as to say that anyone who ever even liked the card game should download this immediately. It's not as great as pulling out all the old cards and having a game on the table, but it's damn close.

Next Time! Will I ever catch up? Not bloody likely!

Retro Style!

So, in the course of my amateur hobby (which I am semi-serious about), namely writing about my other hobby (which I am VERY serious about), I try to push myself to play games from years ago that I never got to. I accept that the gaming world long ago got to the point that I would never be able to play EVERY game (there are over 10,000 for the PS2 alone, out of that I probably played 50, tops), but occasionally there are games that I feel bad about missing, so as part of A Step Behind, I try to incorporate those into my quota.


This week, I play 4 games from 2 different franchises from early last generation. One stands up quite well to the test of time. The other, well, doesn't. Read on!

Ratchet & Clank / Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando

 

• Platform: PS2
• Release Date: 10/14/2002, 11/11/2003 (8 years behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1 each @ 12-14 hours
• I compare it to: Invader Zim possesses Spyro The Dragon
  
  

If asked what longevity meant for a video game, I would have to give a very simple answer: If it's fun to play, regardless of how long it's been around. If the act of picking up the controller and running around is fun, a game will be relevant long after its run in the bargain bin and pawn shops. (see Super Mario Brothers) This is the case with the Ratchet & Clank series. 8 years after release, it's still fun to run around and jump on things. And shoot them with ridiculously overpowered weaponry.


Ratchet & Clank is based on this extremely solid gameplay mechanic, and it's no mistake that the series is still running strong after all these years with only minor tweaks in each iteration. This simple yet excellent mechanic was expertly crafted by developer Insomniac, whose Spyro the Dragon games were also infinitely playable. Add to this formula excellent graphics (that still hold up pretty well), a vibrant pallette & art style, a quirky sense of humor (inspired by in part by Invader Zim, a personal favorite of mine), character progression, and all the guns you could possibly shoot, and you have the formula for a franchise that will go on for YEARS. And it has.

This isn't to say that Ratchet & Clank is perfect, especially in the early games. Platforming in three dimensions is very difficult to get right, and it took a long time for games to figure out exactly how to do it. I still hate falling to my death , just because the camera was awkwardly placed and I ran off the platform in the wrong direction. This and several other frustrations are exacerbated by the truly awful checkpoint spacing. There's nothing that makes me switch a game off faster than having to replay the last ten minutes of a tough level, simply because my character walked off a platform in the wrong direction. (To be fair, Going Commando tries to rectify this, but does so unevenly.)

The thing that kept me going through frustrations like this, though, is the sheer variety in the gameplay. Almost every level has a minigame, or rail segment, or something to mix it up. Some of these are great, others border on godawful. However, it's this willingness to experiment that keeps the series going strong, with each entry combining the old, rock solid core gameplay with new twists.

A quick note for those of you thinking about giving these a shot on a backwards compatible PS3: Don't. The framerate staggers to the point of unplayability, and slowdown occurs at the drop of a hat (or additional enemy). I actually got out my old PS2 to play this, and I recommend you do the same.

It's nice to be able to play a game for the first time almost a decade after its release and still really enjoy it. On the other hand.......

Max Payne / Max Payne 2

 

• Platform: Xbox
• Release Date: 12/11/2001, 12/1/2003 (9 years behind!)
• Playthroughs: See Below. (aka Let's Talk)
• I compare it to: Film Noir takes a Bullet Time turn for the stupid.
  

Max Payne was a game that came very highly recommended to me as a breakthrough in gameplay, graphics, and storytelling in video games. I played about 30 minutes of it on a friends laptop, liked what I saw, a didn't play it again until a little while ago. What did I think? Well.....

While many games age well thanks to solid core gameplay, Max Payne's gameplay shows its considerable age quite roughly, and to be honest, it isn't much fun to play nowadays. The camera is awful, I mean really, really bad, requiring constant babysitting, and sometimes even that doesn't help. It's also terribly obvious that the controls were designed for a mouse and keyboard, and not a controller, making the vaunted bullet time combat a very clunky and frustrating experience on a console.

Graphically, let's be fair and realize that this is an early Xbox game, and would have a hard time impressing anyone this generation. I can get past that. However, what I cannot forgive is the story. I was expecting a riveting neo-film noir story, a la Sin City. This game won a BAFTA award for writing, so I was expecting something more than what appears to be an attempt by freshman English majors to mash up Chandler and The Crow, and instead of being a classing video game mind bender, winds up being confusing and pretentious today.


I was having so little fun with Max Payne that I sent it back mid-way through the game, which as longtime readers know, is not something I do often, and never lightly. I was interested enough in the plot to look it up, (and was even disappointed by that) but not to suffer my way through the rest of the game. I sent off for Max Payne 2, just to give it a chance. The sequel, while prettier, suffers from the exact some gameplay and story issues. I quit after about an hour.

Max Payne 3 is coming sometime in the next year or two, and hopefully, with this generation's gameplay and storytelling advances, I may play it through to the end. As far as the first two, yes, I know some of you remember them fondly, but they just didn't age well. I really tried.

Next time! Prequel-icious!

Vault Over This!

So, last time I wrote one of these, I promised that I would have something next week. It's pretty obvious by now that I didn't deliver. Well, I've been busy, and you'll just have to get over it. Don't hate the player, hate the game, baby.

Moving on.

As a gamer, I like not having to pay a ton of money for games. I have a three-way (huh huh) approach to avoiding paying more than I have to, and I'll go into a little detail here.

1. GameFly. It may sound like a shameless plug, but there is no better way to save money on gaming than renting online. This is the primary reason I get to play so many games (and wind up playing the occasional stinker). Less than half the price of one new game a month.
2. Buying Used. Games that I don't absolutely love, or came to love through #1 are so much better when they're cheap(er). In general, I don't do Gamestop. I prefer to buy from individuals when I can, they get more and I pay less.
3. Careful Choices. When I do pay full price for a game, a lot has gone into that decision. Checking advance reviews, playing the demo if one is available, or taking recommendations from like minded friends. Usually new entries in a well loved franchise are safe bets, but not always (see Devil May Cry 2). Examples this year include God of War III, Mass Effect 3, and this little number right here:

My Borderlands Stats 

• Platform: 360
• Release Date: 11/27/09 (2 months Behind, or at least I was when I started playing)
• Playthroughs: 3+ @ 120 hours
• Achievements: 1500/1750
• I compare it to: WoW with guns
• Play it again?: Depends on what you're doing tomorrow.

Last year, I played Fallout 3 from January all the way to November. No matter how good a game is, that type of longevity is rare for me, and when I find a game the has that type of staying power, it's pretty easy for me to justify dropping $60 on it. Such was the case with Borderlands. It came highly recommended to me by some friends of mine (you know who you are) and I decided to give it a try.

Something you should know about me: I don't like World of Warcraft. I just don't. Now, this isn't because it's a bad game, not at all. It's actually a great game. However, the time investment involved is just ridiculous, (back when I played, it took something like 600 hours for me to level one character to 60, which was the cap back then) especially compared to console games. 

So, with that said, the most surprising thing about Borderlands to me was that I eventually found that it resembled nothing so much as a miniature, less populated World of Warcraft. The quest structure and loot absolutely has its root in Blizzard's criminally addictive MMO, but has something that WoW will never have, a pause button! In fact, Borderlands has a lot of things that I liked about WoW, such as new gear drops, an open quest structure, and RP character progression; and few if any of the things I didn't (massive required time investment, restrictive end-game content). 

Even apart from that, Borderlands definitely stands on its own merits as a great game. It's a very tight shooter (especially when you get the awesome end-game guns), and is a ton of fun to just pick up and play, especially with friends. The art style of the world and characters is unique as well, and along with it's awesomely sardonic sense of humor sets it apart from other entries in the genre.

I usually don't blog about a game until I finish it, sometimes a month or more after (hey, the blog is called A Step Behind after all) the fact, and I still have one DLC pack to play through. However, since it's been over a year since I got it, I figured I should write it up now. If you haven't played it, do so before the sequel comes out.

My Aliens Vs. Predator Stats

• Platform: 360 
• Release Date: 2/16/10 (6 months behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 10 hours
• Achievements:  525/1000 
• I compare it to: The first two, not as fun, but with fatalities!
• Play it again?: No, fun gave way to frustration

 It's easy to be a fan of some franchises. With consistent quality and better delivery with each iteration, it's no wonder they invariably develop a rabid, dedicated fan base. Alien Vs. Predator is not one of these. The PC games of 1999 and 2001 were engaging, well crafted, and a blast to play. However, the movies of 2004 and 2007 were forgettable at best, and franchise killing trainwrecks at worst. Lifelong Aliens and Predator fans like myself have had a rough go of it the last few years. I haven't seen Predators yet, but if  2010's Aliens vs. Predator is any indication, it doesn't appear that this trend is coming to an end anytime soon.

AvP takes the expected graphical steps into this generation, but it seems the gameplay has actually taken steps backward from 2001's AvP2.  On the other hand, maybe I've become spoiled with all of the excellent narrative based FPS's of this generation. AvP actually has a decent story, it takes place in the future Aliens timeframe (which is the setting I like best), and incorporates some of the newer concepts from the AvP movies. All in all, it's serviceable. Each of the three campaigns (Alien, Predator, and marine) are part of the same story arc, and occasionally intersect, much like the two earlier PC games. However, it just doesn't reach the same peaks as those games do, and occasionally wanders into the domain of the farfetched. (Yes, I know its a game about humans battling two species of terrifying alien monsters, but still.....)

The one standout that AvP has to its name are trophy kills. These awesomely gory finishers capture the spirit of the old school Alien and Predator that nothing in the last 9 years has been able to. Sneaking up behind an unsuspecting enemy and ripping their head off, or giving them tender little headbite was easily the highlight of this otherwise lackluster game.

I broke one of my rules with AvP and gave multiplayer a shot. This I chalk up to the old days of the PC game, which was one of my very first online multiplayer experiences. As expected, this one didn't live up to the great times I had back then, but that was mostly because when I got on, only 10 people were still playing it. >(  Another victim of the Multiplayer Effect.

I only recommend Aliens Vs. Predator if you're a diehard masochist, er, fan of the franchise. It's not as hard as sitting through the AvP movies or Alien: Resurrection, but it's still not Aliens, or even Alien 3. Keep the facehugging faith, my brothers, things will get better, eventually....(Prometheus, Prometheus........)

Mega HD Replay!

Metal Gear Solid 4 

• Platform:PS3
• Release Date 6/12/08 (Not Behind!)
• Trophies: None! Still! Damn You Kojima!
• Playthroughs: 6 to date
• I compare it to: Everything I've ever wanted from Metal Gear
• Play it again? When we get trophies!

Metal Gear Solid is one of gaming's most enduring, most endearing, but possibly least accessible franchises. Case in point, my darling wife's reaction to my attempt to sum up the story so far: "What? That sounds stupid!" Yeah, it's a male soap opera, but I still love it.

And Metal Gear Solid 4 is pure, pure fan service. It's wraps up the story of one of my very favorite video game protagonists with a nice neat bow, bringing back some of my favorite players from the whole series, and giving me the chance to do something I've always wanted to do in a Metal Gear game. (REX vs. RAY FTW!) And, even better, it stands on its own as an awesome game. If you're a MGS fan and you haven't played this, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???? If you're not, it's still a solid game, but prepare to be confused, especially because this game has over 6 hours of cutscenes.

Oh, and it's gorgeous in HD.

That's this year's blog post, enjoy! Alright, alright, I'll try to post one next week. But no promises!

A Good Problem to Have

2010 has been an excellent gear for gaming. Like 2004 and 2007, there has been a veritable flood of high quality titles and, unlike those years, I have had the good fortune to be able to play a good chunk of them (I'll detail just how next week). It's been a good year for me as well, and in addition to having a great amount of work (awesome work, at that), I've been able to keep the gaming/blogging flow going, and have taken a systematic approach to doing both. I take my notes when I play a game, I write an outline, put in the "to be blogged" queue, and use my notes and outline to provide you with an entertaining, informative, and occasionally sarcastic review of said game. Even with this system, there were a couple of games that fell through the cracks in my new system and now deserve a look. This week, here's a game to remember, and another to forget. (I'm not just being poetic, until the other day I had totally forgotten I'd played it!)

My Red Dead Redemption Stats

• Platform: PS3
• Release Date: 5/18/10 (less than 1 month behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1+ @ 50 hours, plus 10 hours MP
• Trophies: 42/69
• I compare it to: Grand Theft Auto: The Old West (but it's so much more really)
• Play it again? Of course! There's still more YoSaffBridge's* to lasso. 
• Urgency: Buy, Borrow, or Beg!

Honestly, I've never been a fan of Westerns. Maybe it had something to do with growing up in a town where some of the biggest jerks I knew fancied themselves cowboys (of the Brokeback variety, I always thought), but that was one piece of Americana I just never got into. That all changed about a year ago, thanks to a certain gunslinger of the Midworld variety, and since then, I've had an almost relentless appetite for Leone Westerns and Clint Eastwood movies (especially Unforgiven, when he shows up in the saloon at the end looking like a demon straight from hell set on bloody murder....anyway). Even then, I still had doubts about Red Dead Redemption. I wasn't sure if I was ready to let this "new" archetype mix with my beloved hobby, but I took a chance.

Red Dead Redemption is the sequel to Rockstar's Red Dead Revolver, a game that I never checked out for reasons I've listed above. If it's half as good as Redemption though, I may have to include it in my Playback feature sometime in the future. The story of RDR is above and beyond anything Rockstar has done to date, and I include GTA4. Set in 1912, in the fading days of the Old West, you play as John Marston, a former outlaw who has tried to go straight, but has been coerced into hunting his old gang, who left him for dead during their last job, by the U.S. Government. What follows is a long, strange trip through the southwest border states and Mexico, filled with interesting and bizarre characters, all of which evoke Western classics without stooping to outright cliches. Fair warning: Hanging out with Seth will change you as a person.

As a player, I developed such a strong connection to John Marston that my image of who he was supposed to be dictated my interactions with the game world. In most games that give you good guy/bad guy choices, I tend to play through all the way in one alignment then the other. The rarity is a game like this (the other being Mass Effect), where I play a certain way because I believe that's who the character really is. While you have the option of shooting lawmen, putting damsels in distress, cheating at cards, starting bar brawls, and robbing banks, stagecoaches, trains, townsfolk, (robbing just about anything really) and all around hellraising, none of these really felt right for the character I was playing. My John Marston really was trying to make things right from his past, and helping folks out was one of the ways I did that. That doesn't mean he was one to be trifled with though, not at all. Beating a lady in front of us earned you a bullet in the head, no discussion. Horse thieves got shot off their ill-gotten mounts, right before we'd calm it down, jump on and ride it back to the rightful owner. Sorry about the mess!

All of the heroic, and not-so-heroic, things you can do in RDR come from a game engine chock full of awesome. Did I ever think that riding a horse in RDR would be more fun than driving a car in GTA? Not really, but it is. The period weaponry may seem limited, but man is it polished and solid. I'll take Marston's Winchester over any of the generic FPS assault rifles any day of the week. One thing RDR has that nothing else does is the oh-so-addictive lasso. The first time you lasso and hogtie the town bully is nothing short of priceless, especially once you figure out how to drag him around from your horse.

In a game full of great accomplishments, it's hard to say which is the greatest, but high in the running is the world itself. It's absolutely huge, and gorgeous. Red Dead Redemption is another of those open world games that makes me enjoy the genre again by doing something different. Breathtaking sunsets that are never the same twice are simply the icing on the cake here, as every type of terrain you traverse from wide open plains, vast, scorching deserts, deep forests to snowy mountain peaks, is beautifully rendered. Each is also filled with wildlife; almost 30 species of animal exist in the world, and you can hunt them if you choose. Seriously though, watch out for cougars. And bears. They want your head in their mouth. I can't tell you how many times I was lining up a shot, picking flowers, or just staring off into the distance when something leaped up and knocked me off my horse, and hit me again and killed me. The only thing worse than cougars would be zombie cougars, but I think we're safe from those in RDR. Perfectly safe.

RDR has also become a decent multiplayer hit, and honestly, it's pretty fun. Co-op missions are a blast, and nothing compares to being Most Wanted and riding around the world, shooting it out with everyone else on the server that wants to collect on your bounty (and seeing them coming a mile off, and shooting them right off their horse with a sniper rifle. Hee hee.).

In a year full of must-plays, Red Dead Redemption is easily one of the, uh, mustiest. All of its elements combine to make one awesome video game Western, and I thought I would never say that.

*If you get this in-joke, you are automatically awesome.

My Killzone 2 Stats

• Platform: PS3 (Exclusive)
• Release Date: 2/27/09 (1 year and a half behind! New ASBGB record!)
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 10 hours
• Trophies: 29/84
• I compare it to: Every shooter out there. Seriously.
• Play it again?: One and Done!
• Urgency: None, unless you are dying to kill people online, only have a PS3 and don't play Call of Duty on principle.

This may make me sound all kinds of bad, but until a few days ago, I totally forgot that I played this game. At least until I looked at my PS3 Trophy collection (which has sadly been collecting dust, and now my main competitor is substantially ahead). How's that for a ringing endorsement of Sony's flagship shooter series?

With a plot I can only describe as a vapid casserole of FPS cliches masquerading as gritty sci-fi drama, truly stupid supporting characters (or one at least, the forgiving would describe him as "impulsive"), and gameplay that may stand up to, but in no way out from, the Call of Dutys and Halos of the world, it's no wonder that Killzone 2 has gotten buried in the avalanche of quality (and not-so-quality) titles from this year and last that I've written about this summer.

First, let me say this. Killzone 2 is pretty. Damn pretty. At least as pretty as an invasion of the polluted Helghast (Space Nazi) homeworld could be, anyway. It is a very good looking game. Judicious use of motion blur, dynamic lighting, and the occasional in-game event really work to pull the player in visually, and generally does a good job. Killzone 1 was one of the best looking games on the PS2, especially when it was released, and so was Killzone 2 on the PS3. However, compared to later releases like Uncharted 2 and God of War 3, KZ2 fails to impress somewhat, but that's what happens when you play a game a year and a half after it's initial release.

My first, and lasting impression with gameplay was that the developer switched around certain buttons on the control scheme for the sole purpose of not being like Call of Duty. But, they seem to know that the default scheme wouldnt make sense to experienced shooter players (which is certainly their target audience), so a very CoD-like control scheme is available. Once I figured this out, I was off and running.

Another thing KZ2 has going for it is its selection of fun and awesome weapons, which make up only about a third of the total arsenal, sadly. The highpoint of the game for me was nailing Space Nazis (I don't care if they're called the Helghast, they're Space Nazis) to the wall with a spike-loaded sniper rifle(the Boltgun), and frying a crowd of Galactic Socialists with a lightning gun. I know there were some high points of the game other than this, but, as I said, I just don't remember. Certainly nothing like the mile-long sniper shot in CoD 4 or storming the Scarab in Halo 2.

The original Killzone was one of the only online shooters on the PS2, and thus multiplayer is truly this franchises legacy. It shows in the sequel, as after playing the campaign through once, I only have 29% of the available trophies. The vast majority are for multiplayer, and you all know how enthusiastic I am about multiplayer, especially for online PS3 shooters. Yeah, didn't even bother.

If you actually like playing shooters on the PS3 (I don't, I think the 360 controller is much better suited to the task, though I prefer the PS controller for just about everything else), I guess I could recommend Killzone 2 to you. Killzone 3 comes out in a few months, and if you're caught up in the story (in which case I don't get you) or loved the old school online multiplayer (which is more likely), then you probably have this. If not, give it a try, or don't. I won't remember in either case.



Next Week! Something! For Sure!

Sequelicious

Given my rant last week about the glut, worse in games than movies, of remakes, reboots, and sequels, I thought I'd highlight a couple of games that, while they may be part of this trend, at least aren't examples of what make it a bad thing.

New Feature! How long did it take me to get to a game? Release Date will tell you how far behind I actually am!



My BioShock 2 Stats

• Platform: 360
• Release Date: 2/9/10 (5 months behind!)
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 25 hours, 3 hours MP
• Achievements: 910/1000 (Before DLC)
• I compare it to: BioShock, Again (hence the 2)!
• Play it again?: There may be a BioShock marathon before Infinite comes out.
• Urgency: Used or queue, prices are good.

I hate to admit it, but I tend to rely strongly on Metacritic scores and Game Informer reviews. Less so lately, but a low score (or a mediocre score from a generally high scoring franchise) will usually keep me from playing a game, simply because who wants to waste their time with a game that isn't fun? (Granted, I sometimes will just for some more interesting material for the blog, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, a somewhat lukewarm critical reception for BioShock 2, a sequel with impossibly big shoes to fill, kept me from checking it out right away, and now, I kind of regret that.

After finally playing BioShock 2, I really think the only thing that kept it from getting the good press it deserved was the fact that it wasn't BioShock 1. All of the elements that made the first BS great are here, the immersive (in more ways than one) atmosphere of Rapture, the power-infused gameplay, upgradable pwers and weapons, philosophical conflict, Big Daddies and Little Sisters, pretty much everything. The only thing BS2 doesn't have is the feeling of entering a completely new world, one that had never been seen before. Sadly, it seems that for many, this was the crowning achievement of the new franchise, and no subsequent entry could ever be more than the sum of its parts.

I must strongly disagree with this perspective. BioShock 2 is another part of the story of Rapture, and it follows that as a second entry (if not second act, as it more or less stands alone), the setting is already established. An excellent story awaits those willing to return to Rapture, featuring some truly intriguing insights into Rapture's history, the development of the class warfare its founders sought to escape, and a new antagonist, Andrew Ryan's intellectual equal, and philosophical opposite.
Much of this story is told in the fast-becoming ubiquitous audio logs. They may be in just about every game nowadays, but BioShock is still king of of this particular expositionary device.  

Fun fact: I recorded an audio log with my notes on this game for some random protagonist to find later.

BioShock's "Genetically Enhanced Shooter" formula has been streamlined for the sequel, and is as good as ever. The ability to use plasmids and weapons without having to switch is great, and will definitely make things more difficult when I replay the first one. There's not a lot of new weapons or plasmids, but the classics have been tweaked, and combat is finely tuned. 

Though I was most certainly not one of them, many apparently clamored for a multiplayer component after the first BS. Granted, I thought BioShock's unique power/gunplay could make an interesting multiplayer game, but I really wasn't terribly interested. BioShock 2 included this multiplayer component, and to its credit, it doesn't feel shoehorned in. It even has a narrative setup (you play as a citizen of Rapture during its fall fighting for Atlas or Andrew Ryan), thin as it is. It's fun, sure, but far from revolutionary.

I'm all about giving bad and mediocre games the bad press they deserve, but it makes me mad when a great game gets bad press for not being absolutely perfect. It makes me even more mad when I listen to said bad press and deprive myself of a great game experience. Don't make my mistake.

My Ghostbusters Stats 

• Platform: PS3
• Release Date: 6/16/09 (1 year behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1+ @ 15 hours
• Trophies: 39/52
• I compare it to: Ghostbusters 3
• Play it again?: All done thanks.
• Urgency: It's cheaper than the movies now, and fairly easy to find.

Did it feel to anyone else that there was a piece missing from the Ghostbusters franchise? Ok, well, not really. The Ghostbusters movies were made in a time where not every sequel had to be part of a trilogy (or endlessly, needlessly continuing franchise). Nonetheless, I loved the Ghostbusters as a kid, and always did want to see more of them. So, imagine my delight when I read the GB cover story in the December 2007 issue of GI, then my disappointment when the game went into publishing hell (another victim, like Brutal Legend, of Kotick/Activision's new Yearly or Bust policy).  But, any franchise that could have potential life in it is still valuable to publishers (especially when the game is already finished), and Ghostbusters did eventually come to us.

The highlight of Ghostbusters is the script, penned by OGBs Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis. This, more than any other feature in the game, makes it feel like the third Ghostbusters movie. Granted, it does retread some material from the movies, ok, a lot actually, but more often than not, it comes off more nostalgic than anything else, and still feels like the real deal.

Much to my pleasant surprise, the cast is back as well! Akroyd and Ramis are here of course, along with Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, and even supporting characters like constant antagonist bureaucrat Walter Peck (William Atherton, who was one of the leads in a movie I shot B-camera on last year) are voiced by their original actors. If you look around carefully, you might even find a certain painting with a voice that sounds a lot like Max Von Sydow! Ok, I know, I'm geeking out. Just go with it. Alyssa Milano (the lead in the other movie I worked on last year) joins the cast this time, as Venkman's sexual-harrassment-suit-or-serious-relationship-waiting-to-happen. You play the Rookie, a capable but apparently mute new character who has no real connection to any of the others. (the third I've played this year, by the way).

While fairly odd and clunky at first, Ghostbusters' gameplay develops a rather smooth rhythm after a little while, and what at first seemed counterintuitive and frustrating becomes very playable and, dare I say it, fun. The first time you really get how to grab a ghost and slam it into the trap is very, very satisfying. The basic proton pack is upgradable, and joined by three other types of streams (don't cross them!) which, along with varied enemy types with weaknesses to specific energy, mixes up the gameplay more than enough to keep it interesting. Some truly spectacular bosses (including the unexpected return of a GB classic) top off a thoroughly solid gameplay experience.

This is not to say that Ghostbusters is without its flaws, however. No matter how well you may dodge or find cover, there always seems to be a teammate standing right in front of a ghost getting pummeled. The teammate AI isn't nearly as smart as the dialogue, and very often, you'll find yourself running into danger to revive a fallen Ghostbuster, if only because if all of you get knocked down, the game is over. More often than one should like, this frequent babysitting actually causes this outcome, as many boss and mini-boss attacks are powerful enough to kill with one hit, and they're just waiting for you to break cover.

A word about multiplayer: I never played it. Not for lack of trying, but no one plays it anymore, and I couldn't get into a game. Sad face. Another victim of the Multiplayer Effect. 

These grumblings aside, I'm very glad that I got to spend some more time with Ray, Egon, Peter, Winston, and whatever my character's name was. Ghostbusters is a lot of fun once you get into it, and if you have a "No Ghosts" sticker on your car and still occasionally wear a brown jumpsuit with a homemade proton pack some Halloweens, you need to play this game.


By the way, Bill Murray would win.


Next Week: Game Over Man!