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!