Epic Franchise Time!

This time, I play the latest entries in three epic franchises that have been around almost as long as I have! One is no surprise, one is a great surprise, and the other, well, it's a surprise too, I guess. So turn on your grand, sweeping orchestral music and enjoy!

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

• Wii
• Release Date: 11/19/06 (4 years behind!)
• 1 Playthrough @ 50 hours
• Waggle Factor: Medium/High

Caveat: I lost all my notes on this game, so this may be shorter than it should be.

I beam with a bit of gamer self-satisfaction when I say that I've not only played every major Legend of Zelda game, but I remember when each of them came out. I even ate the LoZ breakfast cereal (and threw it up one morning on my way to school!) Of course, it's not long before I realize that this doesn't make me awesome, it just makes me old.

The games themselves, however, are indeed awesome, and Twilight Princess continues this and many of the franchise's other traditions. Twilight Princess has all the ingredients that we know and love from the series. All the characters are there, there's the Master Sword, bow and arrrow, bombs, a massive overworld, and huge sprawling dungeons. After 25 years, how do they keep the formula fresh? By altering and tweaking the role that each element plays. Twilight Princess is perhaps the most mature entry in the series. (At least the ESRB thought so, it got a T rating) Link is an adult, or close to one, and the story is arguable darker than the rest of the series. However, it's executed nearly perfectly. The world is beautiful (or was in 2006) and huge, and it's very easy to lose yourself in.

That is, once you've passed one of the series' more onerous staples, the far-too-long village intro sequence. It drove me nuts in Ocarina, it drove me nuts in Wind Waker, and it drove me nuts here. No, I don't want to find your cat or round up your stupid goats!

Another serious frustration has to do with the platform I played it on. At launch, Twilight Princess was released for both the GameCube and the brand new Wii. I imagine the controls for the GameCube version were alright having played Wind Waker, but the overly gimmicky and far too imprecise Wii controls cheapen a lot of the experience at best, and hinder the gameplay at their west. Emnara quit playing the game after dying three times in a row due to this issue.

I didn't however, and for the most part I'm glad I stuck with it. The game is fantastic, and certainly worthy of all the praise it's received over the years. Hopefully, the forthcoming Skyward Sword (due in November) will show improvement due to having been developed of the Wii instead of ported from a last gen system, and maybe Emnara will finish it, and I won't be yelling "******* Wii ****!" every half hour while playing it.


Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

• PS3
• Release Date: 10/5/2010  (4 months behind!)
• Playthroughs: 3@15 hours each
• Trophies: 100% (before DLC)

One of the big trends in gaming right now is franchise reinvention. Just one of the plethora of factors contributing to this: franchises in the gaming world tend to stick around a lot longer than a lot of their  film counterparts, so reinvention becomes absolutely necessary every other generation or so. Many recent examples of this went back to the franchises roots to rediscover what was fun about the game in its early days. Others make a radical departure, leaving nothing intact but it's surface elements. This latter approach is a big risk, and can wind up costing a series its fans forever.

Fortunately this is not the case with Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. Developer Mercury Steam, with the collaboration of Konami and the legendary Hideo Kojima, have changed Castlevania's fundamental formula from the accumulated legacy traits over the last 25 years to a God of War meets Lord of the Rings style epic. To be honest, I never expected to care about the series again. After the fantastic Symphony of the Night, still considered by many to be the pinnacle of the series, we were dealt a number of experiments in 3D on the Nintendo 64 and PS2, which ranged from the mediocre to downright horrific. Lords of Shadow is arguably the first 3D entry in the series to get it right, and it has done this by calling in all the favors the God of War series owes to it. This formula is very well traveled, but this skill of its implementation makes it noteworthy. Aesthetically, Lords of Shadow owes a debt to Lord of the Rings. The first third of the game finds protagonist Gabriel Belmont traveling a lush countryside through murky swamps dotted with crumbling, unbelievably ancient ruins. The level of detail is absolutely amazing and certainly worthy of comparison to the epic films. The soundtrack brings the epic feel even more in the art direction however. It feels more like a film score, and it does not like to sit unobtrusively in the background. While it is a bit heavy handed in the beginning, and even managed to epic me out at first, it grew on me, so much so I would go so far as to say it's my favorite game soundtrack of 2010, and that's not just my opinion. It won a BAFTA last year.

Several more elements one would not expect to find in castlevania games of yesteryear that Lords of Shadow has in spades are story and character. While the story seems like your basic video game plot at first, some truly inspired twists and turns begin to take their toll on Gabriel. Some excellent voice acting (including none other than the legendary Patrick Stewart!) fleshes out a story that truly redefines the Castlevania universe, and makes this a landmark for not just the series (which would not be that impressive), but gaming as well.

Lords of shadow could be called a God of War clone gameplay wise, but it doesn't clone it perfectly. Blocking and parrying is nowhere near as precise is it should be, especially given how many bonuses are tied to the action. With combat as unforgiving as Lords of Shadows', my recommendation for the first playthrough is dodge, dodge, dodge. However, as you buy more upgrades on subsequent playthroughs, you'll become so powerful as to negate the need to block. Mostly.

Lords of Shadow is easily the best Castlevania since Symphony of the Night. That title made the series relevant again by adopting many of the concepts that made Super Metroid a success. Lords of Shadow does the same thing. Story wise, if you're a fan of Castlevania, or non-sparkly vampires in general, (you can tell the devs are gamer geeks: I found references not only to Portal, but my old Vampire: The Dark Ages pen and paper RPG!) you owe it to yourself to give Lords of Shadow a shot.

Final Fantasy XIII

• PS3
• Release Date: 3/9/2010 (1 year behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 45 hours
• Trophies: 52%

When I was a little kid, I loved hot dogs. Like, eating them cold out of the fridge loved them. One year, I discovered pizza. I still like hot dogs, just not nearly as much as I used to. The same can be said of Final Fantasy, of course, I'm sure hot dogs haven't changed as much as Final Fantasy has in the last 20 years.

The latest entry in the most oxymoronically named series ever bears practically no resemblance to the Final Fantasy I grew up with, and just passing resemblances to the last several entries. While Final Fantasy games have always had that one character you couldn't stand, it seems like they comprise most of the cast in FF XIII. Some truly atrocious dialogue such as "Heroes don't need plans," and "heroes don't run from fight," greet you in the very first scene, which aside from the inane dialogue is just confusing and disorienting as hell, and really gives you no clue what's going on until hours into the game. This approach isn't always bad, unless the game assumes you already know what's going on.

It's not like the story gets better as it goes though. There is practically no complexity or depth to the characters, and a lot of the game's story plays out like some weird fan fic translated into Japanese then re-translated back into English, with heavy liberties taken on both sides.

One of the game's most glaring flaws is its tyrannical linearity. One of the best things about the series has always been its side quests and freedom to explore, and FFXIII gives NO chance for either until the penultimate chapter, and by then, you're so close to the end of the game you'll just want to power through and finish the final level.

On the plus side, combat isn't too bad. I'm still not a fan of real time battles and not being able to directly your party members, but the Paradigm system (a predefined set of AI behaviors/rules that you level with experience) is far more fluid and user friendly than XII's. (while that game had a lot more customization options, I felt like a programmer more than once) This makes combat very fast paced, sometimes too much so.

I've been asking myself, if I had played Final Fantasy VII for the first time at 30, would I be as critical of it as I am of XIII? Conversely, if I played XIII at 17, the age I was when I first played VII, would I feel the same way about it as I did about that game? No and no, for these reasons. 1. VII, I think , is not remembered as much for the game it is than the promise it showed of what games were becoming. 2. XIII lacks most of the things I loved about VII, which were exploration, complex characters (some of them, anyway) and a clear conflict and goal in the story. VII isn't the best Final Fantasy, but it's whole is far more than the sum of its parts. XIII is a clear victory of style over substance, and sadly, an indication of the direction the franchise is going. I won't be going with it, if that's the case, and with Final Fantasy XIII-2 just announced, yeah really, there's no reason for me to go there either.

By the way, Mass Effect is the pizza to the Final Fantasy hot dog. I'll bet no one else has ever put those words together before.

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!

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!

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Rip-Offs (or Homages)

For many years now, there has been an increasing dearth of new ideas in our mass media. At least, that's the perception. The truth is moneymen and cashwomen are terrified to let money go on an untested property. And so what we get is a glut of remakes, sequels, adaptations, and straight rip-offs. A lot of these are bad, or (as I am so fond of saying) worse, mediocre. Sometimes though, there's a couple that borrow things so well that they stand out on their own, and I played an example of each this month.

First, the bad!

(I know that none of you are wondering where At A Glance is, but it'll be back once I'm caught up. Word.)


My Dante's Inferno Stats

• Platform: PS3
• Playthroughs: 3 @ 25 - 28 hours
• Trophies: 43/55 (Platinum # 11!)
• I compare it to: Kratos Goes To Hell! No, not Hades, the other one!
• Play it again?: I've had enough silliness, thanks.
• Urgency: Wait for at least the 7th circle of the bargain bin, or just read the damn thing instead.

It's an established fact in the film and game worlds that if it's good, its an homage. If it's bad, its a rip-off. So, what's the rule for mediocre? I'm going with rip-off, and that's a title I will gladly bestow upon Dante's Inferno, or at least its gameplay and story. 

As I'm sure you've surmised already, Dante's Inferno is based upon the first part of Dante Aligheri's epic Divine Comedy. As a poet taking a guided tour through Hell isn't a terribly compelling device to drive gameplay, a slight few "liberties" were taken with the story. Dante is now a crusader, a "complex" figure, which means he did a lot of terrible things seemingly on a whim (although there is the fact that he committed these atrocities believing he was protected under a universal indulgence).  Instead of a virtuous outsider witnessing the sinners' torments, Dante is now in danger of residing in each of the nine circles, should his quest to rescue the soul of his murdered wife from the clutches of (the oddly smarmy and lecherous) Lucifer fail. Yes, it's kind of dumb, but so far, I've been unable to come up with a better way to adapt Inferno into a game. I'll bet I could if I tried for like, 5 minutes though, and so could you.

No such creativity was applied to the gameplay, sadly. All of the taglines DI has garnered labeling it a "God of War clone" are well deserved. Granted, it works, and combat has a decent flow, but it owes everything to Kratos, up to and including its combos, air combat, quick time events, and wall traversal (of which there is far too much here). The only thing it has that Kratos doesn't is the magic ranged cross attack. Yes, really. The ability to choose whether to "Punish" or "Absolve" enemies is inconsequential beyond what type of XP it yields, and your choice to upgrade "Good" or "Evil" abilities has no bearing on the story and little on the gameplay itself. However, an "Absolution" move made me absolutely giggle with glee and produced this catchphrase listed below (which I proceeded to use EVERY time):

"The light of Christ, IN YOUR FACE!"

The one real highlight of Dante's Inferno, and yes, there is one, is the Inferno itself. Hell is AMAZING. With the exception of a single level (which I will tear apart below), each level is amazingly detailed, and ripped straight from the cantos of the Inferno. Most levels, some more subtly than others, evoke the sins of its resident penitents. For instance, in Lust, you battle your way up a huge tower, full to the brim of phalli and lotus, that thrusts forth from the depths of one of the outer circles. Greed is a boiling gold foundry, and the City of Dis (another reason for a old handle of mine) is utterly massive, a Cyclopean citadel of furnaces and cages. The bosses, in general, are worthy of this thematic cohesion.

One exception which I must expound upon is the Malebolge, or the 8th circle, that of deceivers.  My strongest impression here is that the team just ran out of ideas. While the structure of this circle in the poem may seem like it lends itself to what's actually in the game, namely, ten gameplay challenges (ala, what else, God of War's post game challenges) that have nothing to do with deception, it is nothing if not generic and repetitive. It is literally, boss taunt, challenge arena, hallway, elevator, save point, repeat. That's it. It's not only the integration of what works very well as post game content into the main flow of the game that bothers me, but the absence of any real level design in a setting that had a lot of potential, and doesn't come close to meeting, let alone raising, the bar set by the rest of the game.

The final boss, and I don't consider it a spoiler for anyone who even knows about the Inferno, is Satan, and while cool-looking, he is rather silly. It wouldn't be a video game without a diabolical plot to take over the world, and that's what's going on here. I'm very critical of any depiction of Old Scratch, and while I thought he was kind of fun (if, as previously mentioned, smarmy and lecherous) at the beginning,  at the end, unfortunately, he fails in his quest to be Best Satan Ever. Sorry, better luck next time.

And that brings us to the inevitable sequel possibility. DI did well enough in sales (about half a million) to warrant discussion of a sequel, and as we know, Inferno is part one of a three part story. However, what would the gameplay in Purgatory or Paradise be like? Obviously, there's lost souls and demon tormentors aplenty to fight in Inferno, but what will have to change to make the other two interesting? My guess? Ruining good literature to make bad games. Or more of it, anyway.

Final word, if you can't get enough of God of War, and you're desperate for more GoW style action before Ghost of Sparta comes out, or if you just want to see a neat vision of (most of) Hell, give this a look. Otherwise, give a hoot and read the book. I'll even give you a link.

Now, the good!


My Darksiders Stats

• Platform: PS3
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 32 hours
• Trophies: 43/43 (Platinum # 12!)
• I compare it to: Aperture Science crossbreeds Link, Raziel, and Kratos.
• Play it again?: Played it out, but give me another one!
• Urgency: Add it to your queue or buy used, its worth it.

In general, we all tend to respond to borrowed narrative or gameplay conventions negatively. We like innovation in the gaming world, and we have a converse (and almost instinctive) dislike toward imitation. This tendency sometimes keeps us from checking out games that get a bad rap for "ripping off" gameplay conventions, but in reality synthesize disparate gameplay elements into a wholly enjoyable experience, Such is the case with Darksiders. 

A word before we go on. I don't really care for, or about, Darksiders' story. I don't say that very often, as frequent readers know, I'm a sucker for story. However, after Dante's Inferno, I wasn't expecting too much. To paraphrase Samwise, it's something about a seal, a horseman, and something about the end of the world. Seriously, it's serviceable, and definitely more interesting than the story contortions of DI, but thats not what I enjoyed about this game.

Darksiders combines several very solid elements from some classic game franchises. While most would say the one it draws the most from is Legend of Zelda, with its exploration, puzzle solving, and unlockable abilities (and "z-targeting"), I actually found it evoking one of my very favorite games, Soul Reaver. Perhaps it's the atmosphere and darker subject matter, but that feeling instantly endeared Darksiders to me. It's combat and weapon upgrades are very similar to, what else, God of War, but I found a lot more of Devil May Cry in Darksiders than I saw in Inferno. Most surprisingly, there is an item which, let's not mince words here, is nothing less than a portal gun. Yes, like Portal. There are some very satisfyingly clever challenges built around this item however, and that kept the "imitation indignation" away. A quick note that will save you some time, you can shoot through your own portals with this gun. You'll understand when the time comes.

Ultimately, with its well crafted boss fights (represented on the map by a big red skull) and skillful (if not exactly innovative) level design, Darksiders managed to entertain me quite a bit, and while it it true that I have a deep and abiding love for games like this, Zelda and Soul Reaver, Darksiders does have its own distinct flavor after you've been playing it a while, you'll find it hard to stop, like I did. Just don't ask me for any story details, I wasn't paying that much attention to it.

Next week: Who you gonna call?

Even More Behind!

So, to all those of you who do not believe I can go any length of time with playing video games, I submit this! I've been away working for two months and haven't so much as picked up a controller. So there. That said, I'm back and the game is on again! Oh, and by the way, I decided to sell out. Should you feel a burning desire to purchase anything I may mention or recommend (or anything I implore you not to just to stick it to me, in which case I guess the jokes on you), just click the picture next to the review. Please do. I like money.


6/13 to 7/13 At a glance
Currently Playing:


Borderlands (360)
Halo 3: ODST (360)
Red Dead Redemption (PS3)
Rock Band 2 (PS3),
Dante's Inferno (PS3)


Recently Finished:
Mass Effect 2 (360) Completed #11!

My Mass Effect 2 Stats:

• Platform: 360
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 60+ hours     
• Achievements: 1055/1055 (Completed #11, and keeping up with DLC!)
•  I compare it to: Chapter 2 of the best sci-fi story ever!
• Play it again?: Lair of the Shadow Broker comes out soon!!
• Urgency: Buy, Borrow or Beg! (New if you want DLC, see below)

I have this weird relationship with midnight releases. On one hand, when I'm excited enough for a title, I have no compunctions about going to the Gamestop two hours before midnight and hanging out to wait for it. On the other, I know that I'm going to spend the entire time surrounded by sad, agoraphobic introverts who'll discuss nothing other than games. In other words, my people. Really though its not so bad. It's fun to talk games with other people and enjoy the excited atmosphere at these things, and even better to grab the game and get the hell out. 


My point: Mass Effect is one of the few franchises I'll hit a midnight for, and I did. (There's a reason Exploding Saren has been my XBL profile pic for so long) I have to say, it was very encouraging for the future of one of my very favorite franchises to see so many people lined up, waiting to take home a copy of its latest installment. 


So, what's so great about Mass Effect? Well, it's only one of the most fully realized and compelling sci-fi universes out there today. In my humble opinion, it rivals such giants as Star Trek and Dune, and completely blows away Star Wars. Yeah, it does. Everything other than Empire anyway. Go ahead and nerd rage, those of you that are prone to it. Shepard > Skywalkers.


Those of you that haven't yet had the privilege of playing the first Mass Effect, I highly recommend you do so. I would go as far as to say it is a definite prerequisite to playing Mass Effect 2. Unlike some other sequels, ME2 not only continues the storyline of its predecessor, but decisions you make in ME1 have ramifications in ME2. Playing 2 without having played 1 would be like seeing Empire before New Hope.


Now that you've played ME1 and come back, let me first assure you that a lot of the stuff that just bugged you about ME1 is no longer a problem in ME2. The crazy amount of inventory you had to sort through? Gone. The seemingly featherweighted and nigh undrivable Mako? Gone. The gross texture pop-in? Gone, mostly. Weapons that overheat instead of requiring ammunition? Gone, sadly. (fire in short controlled bursts, and you can firing a LONG time) BioWare has put a lot of work into streamlining the Mass Effect experience, improving the action, and removing barriers to enjoying the story. 


And the story, of course, is what this is all about. BioWare has always been one of the foremost companies for storytelling, and Mass Effect 2 not only continues this long and proud tradition, but elevates it. (SPOILERS FOR ME1 FOLLOW) ME2's story continues the adventure of Shepard and his crew after defeating Saren and the Reaper Sovereign at the Citadel. Shepard finds himself seriously indebted to pro-human extremist group Cerberus, (and not because he killed a small army of Cerberus agents in ME1) who enlists him to stop the Collectors, mysterious abductors who have recently begun targeting human colonies in the lawless Terminus Systems. Shepard knows from the beginning that his path must eventually take him into the Omega-4 relay, from beyond which no ship, other than those of the Collectors, has ever returned.  Shepard builds his team, meeting new allies and old friends, and prepares to engage the Collectors in what can only be called a suicide mission. 


It's just as badass as I tried to make it sound. ME2's narrative reaches some incredible heights, and unlike other  "moral choices" some other games try to present you with (Kill random dude or don't), I actually found myself agonizing over certain choices before I made them, then silently arguing with the game over its categorization of these choices. (Is it more morally correct to force someone to accept your viewpoint, or destroy them?) Also, how well you prepare bears directly on what happens to your teammates. Forget a vital upgrade, and your team could pay with their lives. Neglect to gain a specialist's loyalty, and you may find your fireteam dead as a result. And of course, everything you do will carry over to  Mass Effect 3. That is, if Shepard doesn't die. This is a very possible outcome.


As I'm sure I've made very clear, The Empire Strikes Back is my very favorite Star Wars movie. Mass Effect 2 is the series' ESB.  Yes, it's that good. The conclusion of this story, if it lives up to its foundation, will be nothing short of a phenomenon. Unfortunately that's a year or two off. In the meantime, may I recommend:

• Kasumi's Stolen Memory - 560pts (about $7)
• Overlord - 560pts (about $7)
• Lair of the Shadow Broker - 800pts (about $10)
  

These paid DLC packs are all worth the price of admission, and continue the story of ME2. BioWare has already announced its intention that ME2 DLC will continue to be developed and released all the way up to ME3.

NOTE ON DLC: If you buy ME2, be sure to get a new copy if you intend to download these content packs. A new copy of the game includes a Cerberus Network code, which allows you to download these in addition to a good chunk of free content. Without a code CN access costs about $15. It's part of the industry's War on Used, which I won't soapbox about here except to say,  No, I don't like it either.

If you're a hardcore ME junkie like me, you can also read the excellent novels by ME lead writer Drew Karpyshyn.

 

• Mass Effect: Revelation sheds light on Anderson's tantalizing hint in ME1: "I was once being considered to be a Spectre, but Saren made sure that didn't happen."
• Mass Effect: Ascension is set after the end of ME1, and introduces us in advance to some ME2 locales, including the chaotic space station Omega.
• Mass Effect: Retribution shows us what happens when we piss off the Illusive Man. Not pretty.

 
Also, bridging the gap between 1 and 2 (or the beginning of 2 and the rest of 2) is:

• Mass Effect Volume 1: Redemption - While Shepard is, um, away, Liara T'Soni digs around in the Shadow Broker's, um, shadowy world, and may not like what she finds. (Be gentle, it's been a while since I read it.)

 Finally, if you're just plain obsessive (also like me), you can also get one of these:

 Yep, that's a Shepard action figure. No, I don't have one yet, but I'm sure I will when they come out. I'm now going to cry my nerd tears onto my nerd pillow. *Sniff* More next week. *Sniff*

Majini, Lightning and Nazis, Oh My!

There's nothing quite like the feeling of finishing a game, and sending it packing back to GameFly. Of course, it's an extra bonus when I get a Platinum trophy or Completed game out of the equation, and this time, I managed get two! Two Platinums, and one hideous, glaring hole in my completion record. Read on!

 My Resident Evil 5 Stats:

 

• Platform:  PS3
• Playthroughs: 6+ @ 45+ hours     
•  Trophies: 51/51 before DLC (Platinum #9!)      /
•  I compare it to: Resident Evil 4, 2
• Play it again?:If not playing the DLC comes back to haunt me.
• Urgency: Gamefly or Used Section

Resident Evil is one of those franchises that I've been playing almost since game one. I haven't played any of the many spinoffs, however, I have played every main game in the series, and when Resident Evil 4 revitalized the series (and the genre), I was actually excited about it again. Resident Evil 5 takes the formula that RE4 utilized to such great effect (over the shoulder aiming, intense action, and upgrades upgrades upgrades!) and amps it up a bit. And, for the most part, it works.

The visuals, as I've expected from every new RE game, are fantastic. Top notch production value is one of RE5s real strengths. It's also the first RE set in bright sunlight, proving scary isn't just for the dark. The sound also keeps up with RE's stellar track record. But, these are all things we expect from AAA titles nowadays. When we consider the gameplay....

My first reaction after playing the demo was not excitement, but frustration. I had just played Dead Space, and while that game is just as terrifying and gripping (ok, maybe more so) than RE5, it has one important feature that RE5 did not. STRAFING! The ability to move sideways (or to move at all while you aim), Capcom argued, diminished the tension in this environment, which I think was just a lame cover for the real reason, which I think sounds something like, "Why didn't we think of that? Well, it's too late to put it in now, just make something up to cover for us, would you?"

One thing I noticed about this game and its predecessor is that it's not very fun the first time through. It's intense, it's taut, you're always fighting or running for your life (and not always succeeding). In other words, survival horror. However, on your second playthrough, you've fully powered up a weapon or two, and you tear through subsequent playthroughs, plural, like an unholy badass. This is where the new RE games get fun to play, and they are. It's also nice that you get to keep your equipment on higher difficulties, which makes them bearable.

A major new component in the RE formula is the inclusion of co-op. Having a partner, while one might think would lessen the intensity of a survival horror experience, actually provides some new thrills for the genre. Covering your partner as he/she runs across a catwalk crawling with Lickers (I'm so happy they're back!) is almost as intense as doing the running, hoping your trust in your partner is well founded.

Now, I haven't said much about the story. There's really not much to say, except that despite all of the improvements to the presentation, Resident Evil's story is a special type of ridiculousness that you can't find just anywhere. On the first playthrough, it's kind of fun to watch the cutscenes to attempt to figure out whats going on, but skip them thereafter. The game flows better without them, and they're not worth taking seriously. And, I do have to say, even though the lines haven't improved too much, lets give it to the voice actors for doing a decent job. And no one asks, "Where's Barry?"

If you're a RE veteran, definitely check this out. Not so bad for the general public, either, but no need to rush out the store.

My Infamous Stats:

• Platform:  PS3
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 35-38 hours     
•  Trophies: 50/50 (Platinum #10!)      
•  I compare it to: Supercharged Sandbox Superhero!       
• Play it again?: If it showed up orphaned on my doorstep. Otherwise I'll wait for the sequel.
• Urgency: Gamefly or Used Section.

Moment of Complete Honesty: I'm sick to death of sandbox games. Seriously. Yeah, ok, immersive worlds are fun, but it's hard to get this stuff right anymore. I HATE taking forever to get where I'm going, and sometimes I just get sick of wandering around. Infamous, I am glad to say, has refreshed my taste for these types of games, because it has shown me what they need: SOMETHING DIFFERENT! And, in Infamous' case, its superpowers! Sweet!


Infamous really did an excellent job of creating a city that was fun to traverse, and entertaining powers to wreak havoc with (and traverse said city, love you Rail Grind!). The game's morality system, while at times black and white, actually has a bearing on the gameplay, with each path directly affecting your selection of powers, as well as the city around you, with an altruistic play style inspiring the citizens to clean up the streets and cheer you on, while those of a more malevolent bent will notice neighborhoods falling deeper into ruin, and trash and insults being thrown your way.  


Honestly, I didn't get Infamous' story at first. I thought the tone was bizarre and confusing, however, when I thought of it as more of a comic book tale than other open world games, then I really was able to kick back and enjoy it. There are some bizarre and borderline ridiculous happenings, but in the context of a superhero comic, they all work just fine.


I have to recommend Infamous highly for anyone, but especially those burned out on open world games. It uses a lot of those conventions we know so well, but mixes up the formula just enough to make it a blast to play.

My Call of Duty 2 Stats:

 

• Platform: 360
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 10-12 hours     
•  Achievements: 200/1000 (really? See below)
•  I compare it to: WWII as you've never seen it before....as of 5 years ago.     
• Play it again?: Perhaps, that 200/1000 mocks me every time I see it.
• Urgency: For archival purposes only

A lot has changed in the gaming world since 2005. We're used to iron sight aiming, regenerating health, and Hollywood quality cinematic action. In other words, Call of Duty. After Modern Warfare, we've come to expect these features in a triple-A FPS.  So, I suppose it's no surprise that Call of Duty 2 was somewhat underwhelming for me. But, I could definitely see why it was such a big deal at the time.

A month or so after the Xbox 360 debuted, I saw CoD2 playing at a kiosk somewhere. I was instantly impressed by the level of detail on display, to say nothing of the utter chaos of battle. All running at 60 frames per second as well (my favorite framerate!). I was impressed and made it a point to play it someday. 

And 5 years later, I did. While some of the level design is pretty dated, it's very easy to pick out the conventions that made Modern Warfare such a resounding success 2 years later. The campaigns are interspersed with unforgettable "water-cooler" moments, the two that come to mind right this second are crawling through a trench while enemy tanks roll overhead, and gunning a tank over sand dunes taking out Rommel's Afrika Corps. And of course, there is the requisite D-Day level, though this one is certainly one of the best. 

Call of Duty 2 is also interesting in that it presents an example of developer's thinking toward achievements in their inception. While most games now have 40-50 achievements, with a very defined plan about when they are unlocked, Call of Duty 2 has only 13. I unlocked 2 on my Normal playthrough. 2. 50pts for finishing the tutorial, and another 150 chunk for beating the game. All the rest are for beating levels on Hardened or Veteran. While I just wasn't interested enough to keep going through Hardened and Veteran on this one, I may just get it again to do so, because looking at that 200/1000 feels like a stain on my GPA, er, completion record. Yeah.

From a historical perspective (and I mean gaming history, I'll leave the historical accuracy of the game to others), Call of Duty 2 is an important title that features many design staples that we take for granted today in their infancy. If you're interested for this reason, or if you're a World War 2 buff, CoD 2 may be worth taking a look at. Otherwise, just recognize this as a stepping stone to the games of today.

Next Time! Almost Caught Up! Hooray!

Wet With Sewage!

It's not often that I give a game its own blog entry. (Yes, I know I gave God of War 3 its own last week.) As I am fairly selective in the games I play, I generally have mostly good things to say with some minor complaints, which is informative but not all that fun to read. However, sometimes I do come across a game that I think will be good, and turns out so bad that at the end I have enough animosity towards on it to create an unrelentingly scathing review that's not only fun to read, but cathartic to write. This week's victim is Wet. Enjoy.


My Wet Stats

• Platform: PS3
  
• Playthroughs: 1 @ 8-9 hours
• Trophies: 22/41
  
• I compare it to: Enter The Matrix meets Kill Bill, except not any fun
  
• Play it again?: I will cut you if you make me.
• Urgency: Don't Waste Your Time.

As frequent readers of my blog know, I am a sucker for story. A good, or even halfway decent story will keep me chugging along through an otherwise bad game (See Matt Hazard). This aspect of myself was sorely tested today as I played Wet, a game I queued up based on the demo I played last year, based itself on Bethesda's excellent track record. Aesthetically, Wet rips off Quentin Tarantino's movies (most notably Kill Bill and Grindhouse) so hard I'm surprised he hasn't sued. Then again, it also rips off all of the old exploitation flicks he ripped off, so I guess that would be a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black. So, instead of saying "rip off," I'm going to use the phrase "pays homage to," which is the same thing when the rip-ee either approves or doesn't care, and Tarantino doesn't even play games, let alone one as infuriatingly inconsistent as Wet, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a damn. Anyway.

The worn-out film print look is complete with deep runs and heavy grain (a great joke for a different, current title out there at the moment), and, at least for the first two hours, complements the ultraviolence nicely. The story was definitely written as an homage to QT, just read and tell me if you disagree. Rubi Malone, a fixer for hire, undertakes a routine job to deliver a person back to her employer, who frames her for murder and leaves her for dead. After recovering, she sets out to perforate and dismember her betrayer and all of his allies. I knew you'd think so too.

Not that it does it badly. The look and feel of Wet (along with its fun psycho-billy soundtrack) is actually pretty unique for the game world. Which is why it's such a shame that the gameplay is so bad. The first game I thought of when I first played the Wet demo was, of course, Enter the Matrix (some will say Max Payne, but as I haven't played those, EtM is my frame of reference), with its slo-mo diving and shooting, superhuman feats of agility, etc. The problem with this is that it takes a lot of polish to get right. EtM's wasn't perfect by any means, but it was more polished than Wet. It is just downright tough to line up a shot while Ruby is pulling off these acrobatic stunts, and not once during the course of the game did I feel like a badass, like I'm sure the devs hoped I would. While it's an interesting idea to have one manual target reticule and an auto-target, the enemies just soak too many bullets for this to feel as cool as it should.

It really seems like the mark developer A2M missed here was that feeling of empowerment for the player. The one aspect of combat I did enjoy was using the sword, as it was pretty well engineered, powerful, and I usually hit the guy I wanted to hit. However, you actually get LESS style points at the end of the level for using your sword as opposed to "acrobatic kills" during which you can only use guns. So, not only did the gunplay actually make me feel more vulnerable than melee, as a player, I am actually DOCKED for using the sole aspect of combat that I thought really worked well!
 
I expect to die a few times during my first playthrough of a game. I expect a few combat deaths, and one or two "testing the waters" platforming deaths. I died more often just by accidentally falling off of ledges than I have in any other game in years. If the gunplay in Wet lacks a certain element of polish, the platforming didn't even bother with it. I cannot tell how many times I made a seemingly simple jump to the obviously correct spot and fell to my death, frequently necessitating a restart much earlier in the level. This also happened while I was climbing, fighting (rolled off a ledge at least 4 times), and, inexplicably, climbing up a ladder. This, more than any other single factor, was the source of my frustration with Wet.

In my Matt Hazard review, I lamented that such an awful game surrounded a story I thought any gamer would appreciate. Here, there is no such conflict. The story, while fun and decently written (with great voice acting by Eliza Dushku, Malcolm McDowell, and Alan Cumming), is not worth suffering through the subpar gameplay for. Watch a Tarantino flick instead. Very rarely do I slap a game back in the GameFly envelope as soon as (or before) the credits roll, but Wet is definitely an exception. The most telling review I can give of this game: I got a headache ten minutes in, and it didn't stop until I was done.

-B. Hunt