Junch's Gaming Bites

News: It was fun but now bon voyage, and onwards to a new site

2011-09-16T00:13:00.003+10:00

One of the most horrible things about me is that I leave a trail of blogs behind me as bad as villains leave a trail of dead. It's not that I intentionally do this, most of the time it's cause I lose interest, I grow tired, or I just don't have the time.

But sometimes, it's a positive thing, it's a change. Like this time, I'm not leaving the blogosphere of gaming forever. Nay, I'm moving over to a new place, a new site, somewhere I will continue doing what I did here.

The only difference now being - I have a partner in crime, a friend who's just as interested to speak her mind as I am, about my first love - video games.

So it is with bittersweetness I announce the closure of Junch for Gaming, and the opening of The Big Gap. Do visit, it's exactly the same as here, only now with two writers for twice the content.

Au revoir and good luck y'all.

Review: Realm of the Mad God

2011-07-18T15:45:00.006+10:00

'Ello there!

It's been awhile. Yes it has indeed. But I've come out from hiding (yes, that's exactly what I have been doing) to talk about Realm of the Mad God, which is maddeningly good. Maddening because you'll hate it. And good because you'll love it.

Yes that makes a lot of sense. Read on for more of this maddening writing (and game)!

---

Realm of the Mad God is at its simplest an MMORPG. You traverse an 8-bit world as one of a whole slew of classes pounding the hurt on various monsters, collecting lots of loot, upgrading your character and then taking on the big overlord boss of the entire realm in an epic fashion: that is, the entire cohort of gamers on the server at one time gets transported to this big boss Oryx and everyone works together to take him down.

Here's where it gets interesting:

1. Realm of the Mad God is free to play in your browser (with non-compulsory micro-transactions). So maybe you were doing research for a thesis paper, or at work sending some emails, and feel like a little break. So jump straight into the game. Very convenient. Until you realize you've been playing for 5 hours straight OMFGWHEREHASMYTIMEGONESHITMUSTPLAYSOMEMORE

2. It's persistent, it's an RPG so you get to save your character. Your very own little being in this great big dangerous world that levels up the more you play, and the more loot you bestow on it.

3. Heck there's a lot of lewt. Every other monster is dropping this or that thing and shit, your inventory space is only 8 boxes big, so you can only carry 8 things. And the crazy thing is, in just a short 20 minutes, you'd have come across some of the game's best items and your inventory will be crammed with all sorts of goodies. And more keep pouring out! Aaargh not enough inventory space what do I do!??! Do I drop behind this top-tier staff for this other top-tier shield even though I don't play this class? But I don't want the asshole tagging along behind me to pick it up! I want it all!!!!

4. And that's not even the end of your worries. The game is crazy fast-paced, more akin to a twin stick bullet hell game than your classic dungeon-crawling RPG. Bullets are flying left right centre, and you're actually dodging it at a neck-breaking speed while dealing your own pew pews of death. Maybe you're level 19, about to hit 20 and carrying all this good gear, looking forward to taking on the big boss of doom when suddenly, a stray bullet hits you and your screen fades to black.

5. Oh no! WTF you died! And guess what, your entire character wipes. Yessiree, it's hardcore mode from Diablo 2. All that lewt, all that great treasures of the realm you hoard all gone. Your hard work getting to level 20 all gone! RAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHH mega-rage, and then you play again.

Then a realization hits you, that Realm of the Mad God is a truly maddening and sadistic game. There's a reason why there is only so much inventory and stash box space. You just won't have enough space to collect all the l33t gear (unless you pay for more space and I'm trying very hard to fight the temptation because heck, the convenience would really help). And on top of that, death is always just around the corner. Get your guard down just so you can lewt that poor sod who died before you and some monster's going to breathe down your neck and kill you. Think you're invincible with high level gear? Some monster better than you is going to kill you all the same. Want to play this top-tier class? You're going to have to get several lower level classes to 20 before you can. So you keep playing.

It's the classic RPG at its most distilled. There are no NPCs in this world, no shops to buy anything from. Everything you'll need, everything you'll want can either be gained from killing monsters or found when other players with too little inventory space drop stuff. Half the game is spent running around Nexus (the safe zone in the game), jammed to the rafters with other players, picking up dropped lewt bags left by other people who couldn't carry anymore. And the other half of the game is spent killing monsters for no real narrative reason at all.

Then combat is the simplest thing. You can press T and have your character continually fire a stream of bullets at the enemy, all you have to do is point your cursor at the enemy till its dead. And press space bar on occasion to use your class' special ability. The problem of course is that there'll be plenty more monsters pointing their bullets right back at you.

And in typical MMO fashion, XP is equally shared across all people fighting the same monsters. You don't even need to be in the same party; so long as you teleport to a group of players fighting high level monsters, you don't have to lift a finger to level up continually. It's brilliant, and sometimes you'll see these massive trains of players just wiping a realm clean. All these green numbers denoting the amount of XP you're gaining just continually climbing. Also means you don't have to play the game 24/7 in order to get to the highest level. In just 30 minutes or so, you should reach level 20 - if you haven't died yet.

Death is the worst though. It's the absolute worst. All your hard work leveling your character to 20, all your careful lewt collecting, all that wiped completely clean in an instant because you were careless with a stray bullet or failed to defend yourself from a huge swarm of high level monsters. It's sickening because there is nothing else to do in the game other than keep fighting (or grinding, for the cynical) so when you die, you start straight from level 1 and get right back out there. Only to die again.

In fact, the only way you can survive the meta-game of Realm of the Mad God is to not let it get to you. Not let it make you feel the most utter hatred for the game developers, not let it get to you that they sucked your life and soul for a measly little browser MMO that is somehow also seemingly one of the most compulsively brilliant games of the year. Damn... because after awhile, you'll know that all you're doing is the same thing over and over with little reprieve or enlightenment. There is no enlightenment, this is the role-playing gamer's personal hell and heck, they love it. I love it.

It certainly trains you to realize the transient nature of every RPG game, of loot-hoarding compulsions, of the pointlessness of fighting. It really all doesn't matter. But you keep coming back for more anyway.

Nice one Oryx. Well played. Sure, we can kill you over and over and keep farming your nice lewt. As long as you're keeping us in the realm forever, you win.

News: Awesome blog update of awesomeness

2011-05-30T15:15:00.004+10:00

Hello y'all. Been awhile since my last post. And I figured this would be an apt time to revive this wondrous blog to talk about several awesome things related to my adventures in this crazy thing we call gaming. This includes getting a new gaming rig, playing several awesome games, and most importantly, going to e3.

THAT'S RIGHT. GOING TO e3.

---

I probably should talk about that last bit first, seeing as it is most likely the thing that has grabbed your attention. But nay, I'll get to that in a bit.

FIRST. I got myself a new computer. (I'll put up photos in soon)

Intel i7-2600 3.4Ghz
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD6950 2GB
Seasonic 660W Power
8GB DDR5
1TB HDD
23" LCD monitor

This purchase was most definitely motivated by the upcoming slew of releases planned. Getting ready for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Rage, and definitely Battlefield 3. Hopefully it'll last a good few years before upgrade. By then I'll get dual cards, and three monitors for ATI Eyefinity awesomeness.

My former gaming wonder The Beast, a notebook from Asus, is still more than capable currently but it has had trouble running Crysis 2 and Witcher 2. It is time to put it to greener pastures i.e. running my word processing (har har).

SECOND. Games I've been playing.

WITCHER 2

I'm not far enough to give an absolute final verdict, but of the fair bit I've played of this seriously epic long RPG - this may be for me, the RPG of the year. Bioware botched that up with Dragon Age 2 which left me very disappointed at the lacklustre scope and poor writing compared to the first. Taking David Gaider off the script was a stupid idea, and rushing the whole damn development to cash in was not right either. Dragon Age 2 could've been the magnus opus to build on the awesomeness that was DA, but whatever.

Whereas Dragon Age 2 was not taking enough risks and not giving its dialogue enough punch for us to care, Witcher 2 has cocks, cunts, and all manners of grit in their speech. Which is not to say that that's what it takes to impress me, but there is certainly a deeper level of maturity and naturalness to the dialogue. And that extends to the entire design of the world of Witcher 2. It friggin' lives and breathes. People walk about, you can talk to all of 'em, and they appropriately respond to you. Day and night cycle, houses can be entered, and there is just a rich variety of things to do and see. On top of the badassery that is Geralt.

Combat is no walk in the park even on Normal difficulty. There's a bit of Assassin's Creed in there in the need to time your attacks and be positioned correctly. No enemy is too easy, you always have to be on your toes and to me, that's what real combat should feel like. It reduces the grindy element too.

Needless to say, this is really great and everyone should be playing it. The graphics are really sparkly too.

Crysis 2

I finally got around to playing this properly. It didn't run so well on my notebook so I put it aside until I could get my PC. And boy, is this game actually pretty fun. Shooting games has been getting rather tired of late, but Crytek injected an element of brains into the proceedings by opening up multiple paths to an objective, vertical as well as horizontal gameplay, and firepower that packs decent punches. Yeah, all the suit powers are there, but it never feels like you're too imba, which is always important. Challenge in a game.

And shit, New York City burned to ashes is so morbidly beautiful. The graphics are really stellar in this as well. And all super shiny on my new computer! LOVE IT.

Dirt 3

I've always said that I'm not a big fan of racing games, and I'm just not that good at it. But in recent times, racing games have been reaching out to non-racing people like me more and more, and I'm increasingly coming to like the genre. Need for Speed started it with Most Wanted and then waned with Carbon and Underground, but brought it back with Hot Pursuit which is just a full-on awesome Michael Bay experience of racing. But now that I've got my new PC, I need a new kind of driving experience.

An immersive one. And Codemasters' new game is absolutely perfect for this. Switch to in-car view and tackle the rough terrain, intense weather, and aggressive opponents as if you were right there in the thick of the action. The graphics are mind-blowingly hyper-realistic and the driving hits the line perfectly between exciting simulation and heart-pumping arcade entertainment. Driving is challenging and not for the faint of the heart. And the Flashback feature that started in Race Driver: Grid and carried over to their newer titles is just the most genius thing a racing game can ever have. It stops you from restarting races over and over just to get it perfect. Instead you rewind time and keep going thereby minimizing disruption of flow. Like Prince of Persia. And boy, what a creative game title menu presentation.

THIRD. Going to e3

Yes siree. I think it's time I let on that I'm going to e3 in LA for Razer with a couple of my colleagues. For those who know me, or have been following my blog for sometime, you'll know that games are pretty much the greatest thing to me. And when I got to join Razer, I was over the moon that I was closer to games that I ever thought I'd be for a career. And now, I'm going to e3.

It's so unbelievably crazy that I have to control myself writing this and careful not to gush too much. Making the trip to e3 is an honor, a mecca to the holy place of games that I know I will savor every second of. I'm such a fanboy, but I don't care.

It's from the 7th to the 9th of June but I'll be leaving for LA from Singapore on the 4th. Haven't been to the States either since I was 7, and what I remember are recollections from my parents. This time I'll be going back armed with a hunger to do proper coverage on games, with photos to boot. I promise to try and bring back a chock full of info so it'll almost be like you guys were right there with me. Also going to represent Razer and make some exciting announcements and show off a line-up of sexy new products.

LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

Review: Portal 2

2011-04-25T11:47:00.015+10:00

This was a triumph... for gamers and gaming alike. That is all.

---

Valve has gone off the grid for the longest time. Of course, not literally. They've released Left 4 Dead 2 most recently, and have been providing steady stream of content to TF2. But their last emotionally-riveting, high-octane other-world adventure in the Half-Life universe was in 2007. That's four long years we've been waiting.

In that time, Call of Duty had been released several times over, Minecraft stole the hearts and minds of many gamers, and Blizzard initiated world domination with Starcraft II. Then there was Bioshock, Dead Space, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age for people to turn to for their absorbing single-playering fix.

But everyone who appreciates games knows the sheer importance of the Half-Life franchise. Each release can be likened to a season of Lost that is fanatically anticipated and continually succeeds to tops its predecessor. And when it was revealed that the Portalverse, and everything Aperture Science had major tie-ins to Black Mesa and the world of our favorite mute hero Gordon Freeman, our minds melted at such holy revelations.

I hope I've managed to introduce you to the sheer significance that Portal 2 represents, for me personally at least. It's not only an exciting game in itself, but surely Valve's teaser for our most awaited title, the one that will change the world of gaming - the game they'll either call Half-Life 2: Episode 3 or Half-Life 3.

But let's look at Portal 2 as a standalone title.

Portal was a highly refreshing title back in '07, in a market of oversaturated hyper-testosterone shooters and short attention-spanned gameplay. I was afraid Portal 2 would suffer from sequel-litis, bog down what made the original title such a breath of fresh air - but instead of trying to broaden the world of Aperture Science which is a nigh impossible task given its narrow focus on the concept of science, test chambers and laboratories - Valve both metaphorically and literally deepened the world.

What do I mean by this?

Given the minimalistic approach of Portal with its small cast of two characters, GLaDOS and you, Portal 2 adds just two more to the mix, Wheatley and Cave Johnson - enough to be a catalyst to drive the plot forward whilst maintaining the Zen and solitary sensibilities of the Portalverse. Wheatley, voiced by Stephen Merchant is a powerhouse of comedy. His bumbling, moronic ways is such a stark contrast to the cold, intelligence of GLaDOS (voiced by the ever wondrous Ellen Mclain) that it works perfectly and brings a new dimension to the world of Aperture Science.

You will joyfully relish the chance to learn more about GLaDOS, her inception and of her even larger role in the world. Cave Johnson, voiced by a kickass J.K. Simmons reminiscent of his Jonah Jameson character in the Spiderman movie, is introduced as the CEO and founder to this mega-mysterious corporation. His left-behind audio recordings to motivate test subjects are profound relics to a bygone era of uninhibited pursuits for scientific progress, and how one man's dreams for humanity's greatness can have such widespread repercussions into the future. Valve's favored style of storytelling shines through here, minimizing exposition and emphasizing plot-reveals through gameplay. It's a bit like Bioshock also in that you're dropped in a world after it has gone to the dogs, is deserted, and all that is left, is for you to explore it and get a sense of what had gone on before through tapes and pictures.

All I can say is that the story, the writing is so much deeper, more riveting, and darkly funnier than Portal, and I have no doubt on that front alone, Portal 2 will garner many awards.

But more importantly, let's look at gameplay.

Portal 2 is all about shooting portals. Simple enough? Apparently so. And yet so deliciously challenging. In the same way that conducting and solving tests creates euphoria in the artificial intelligence in Aperture Science, you'll be pushed just enough so that it frustrates, but not so much that you want to turn off the game. And that's important - if a puzzle game makes you want to turn it off, that defeats the purpose entirely and as a game it would fail. But with Portal 2, you just want to keep trying until you succeed, lest you are beholden to the dripping poison that is GLaDOS' voice. Even more so, you just want to keep going to see how the fantastic story unfolds.

The puzzles are not overtly difficult. They pose enough of a challenge in the ways you need to think about solving them; the first answer that comes to mind is never always the right one but I can guarantee most people will get it. But it's amazing that Valve has managed to create a butter smooth difficulty curve that never feels too easy or too hard at any time. It's a testament to their endless gameplay testing over and over till they hit pitch perfect note for a puzzle; I'm sure they have it down to a science as it were - very scary, I just realized that Aperture Science's obsession for testing is just a reflection of Valve's. They must have their own test lab rats tucked away somewhere in Seattle.

As a whole, the game is definitely more challenging than the original Portal, which is a plus for content-hungry gamers. There are a few new obstacles, or ways to solve puzzles, in the multi-colored gels, faith plates, light bridges and tunnels. Now, instead of just shooting portals, you'll have to manipulate surfaces to do more, whether it's to jump further, run faster, or be able to shoot portals through surfaces that you were previously unable to. The faith plates, light bridges and tunnels offer new forms of transportation of self or objects. Safe to say, none of it are bloatware, definitely worthy additions that maintain the tight and fun nature of gameplay for Portal 2 so by the time you get to the final boss fight, everything you've experienced and learned up till then becomes a necessary tool in your arsenal.

Here are a couple of criticisms I have for the game. One, Valve favors a hunt-for-a-portal-shootable-surface instead of always laying out an entirely solvable puzzle in front of us. Of course, when we're in the test chambers, everything is self-contained. But when we traverse the parts of Aperture Science outside the labs, it's as if Valve's idea of a "puzzle" then is to look for an obscure, hidden wall that we can shoot a portal through otherwise we cannot progress.

Two, whilst the game clocks in at between 8 - 10 hours of gameplay, which is a decent length, 2/3rds of the way through, it feels slightly draggy and that's probably Valve's well-intentioned attempt to plump out the content by way of more puzzles; but perhaps there were one or two too many. This is because the story drops off for a bit, we hear nothing for an entire section before being brought back into the fold of narrative awesomeness. It's not a huge dealbreaker, just something that Valve could tighten up and the game would be perfect.

Graphically, it is clear the Source Engine cannot compete with the likes of CryEngine or the hotly anticipated upcoming Frostbite 2 engine. Then again, the Source Engine has never been the most shiny or glistening, but Valve manages time and time again to build immersive worlds dripping with charm and lore. The animations of Wheatley, GLaDOS, and the test labs that shift and transform according to the needs of the A.I. are so amazing, so life-like and natural it's almost like Valve hired some Pixar people to work on Portal 2. That's probably not true, but is my comparison for how great it all looks.

The other big thing with Portal 2 is the inclusion of cooperative gameplay. Two people can team up to take on new puzzles plumping out the amount of content you get in an awesome way. But for those used to solving puzzles on their own, cooperative puzzle-solving will be a challenge in itself. Sure, two brains should help to solve puzzles faster, but having another person along could be a hindrance to your efficiency, and it'll take patience and supporting one another to succeed. All to beloved GLaDOS' sneering judgment. The cooperative bots also have their own narrative which should be exciting - I've yet to play it fully myself. Will cover that in a separate post in due time.

In glorious conclusion, Portal 2 is that game. That game that isn't so high-brow that only puzzle snobs or gaming purists will get, and isn't so low-brow that it feels like yet another money-making scheme churned out by a huge game developer year after year. It's a game game. It's a gamer's game. It's a game built to be enjoyed, tickling you at the right times and poking you at others. It's a self-contained addiction with huge implications on a larger narrative that Valve appears to be perpetuating. It's a game that's so well-crafted that it can be viewed as a near-perfect model for game development. Take all of that and what you get is a masterpiece. This is a masterpiece. And when the extremely climactic ending rolls around, the music and the audio escalating, the euphoria you experience is not only because what you're playing is awesome, but that you are privileged to be playing such a game at all. And it'll convince you that your pursuit for utter gaming enjoyment is the right one.

Well done Valve, well done.

Thinky stuff: If She Dies, You Die

2011-02-28T12:33:00.002+11:00

I just came across this blog post this morning and I thought you should read it too. It's really quite good. The writer Jason Killingsworth, features editor for Edge, laments about the temporary separation from his wife. This leads to a discussion of how games like Enslaved and Ico are very good at emphasizing overtly or subtly the idea of bonding with that special someone in your life, about what it means to be married, and what it means to lose the person you love.

Read it. Good advice on marriage too.

News: Draguns! Manshooting! And more Manshooting!

2011-02-25T12:23:00.003+11:00

You know why I love games? It's not just the actual act of playing them, but it's the trailers and the various screenshots to get you hyped up before the actual game launch. It's like ohmygod-I'm-going-to-get-to-do-that? or ohmygod-that's-the-world-I'm-going-to-be-in?

No doubt there's a lot of value in the film business in affecting people emotionally, and engaging educationally, but no one can doubt the awesome hype that video games are now capable of. Just look at the Dead Island trailer I posted a little while ago.

Now MORE AWESOME TRAILERS below.

---

Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

I can't even find it in myself to make fun of this video. How can you make fun of shouting at dragons? How can you make fun of wide roaming vistas and beautiful graphics? How can you make fun of sneaking about catacombs and fighting large spiders?

You can't, you just can't. And boy, that music.

Crysis 2

I'm starting to think now that there's a serious glut of trailers being released about this game, a bit overwhelming if you ask me. But now I can say with certainty what the game is about. Some aliens attack New York and some dude in a suit has to kick ass. Old man talks. Black guy talks. More ass kicking.

But one thing I don't get... who the fuck is Alcatraz?!?

Battlefield 3

So EA wants to take on the big bad boy Activision with their own epic man-war-shootery. Yeah, their last game Bad Company 2 was really horrible, at least story-wise. Multiplayer was not too bad, but it couldn't really take on the Call of Duties.

But this BF3 trailer looks ... alright. I'm not particularly super excited because teasing us with some footage intended to say, "Hey check out how hyper realistic this game looks, with the falling soldier, the proning on top of a building with another building opposite exploding" has really all be done before. And they had to have a flash of some insurgent smacking us in the face.

I'm not complaining though. I like man-war-shootery games. Bring 'em all on.

News: Dead Island screenshots

2011-02-21T13:07:00.003+11:00

Hot on the heels of the popular Dead Island trailer, Techland has released some screenies of the game itself. Which is good. So people know what the game is really like.

See shiny shots fired off below.

---

Apparently the game will have role-playing leanings, four player coop, so kinda' Left 4 Dead, kinda' Far Cry. All about scrounging around the island for supplies, whilst finding away to escape. And keeping true to some semblance of realism, there will be minimal firearms because that's not how real-world islands are like (apparently). So lots of melee combat, zombie head bashing. Sounds like fun.

Oh, and Techland are tag-teaming with Deep Silver. For those who don't know, Deep Silver did Sacred 2 which was a truly awesome RPG. So yeah, the role-playing bit could be pretty good. The graphics look positively shiny and keeping true to the mood they had in mind for the trailer.

News: Videos say WHUT?

2011-02-21T12:28:00.003+11:00

Finally, game releases are picking up the pace again. So many glorious yum yums coming out in a little bit.

See below for them yum yums.

---

Dead Island

It's funny to think that this game was first announced in 2007 as an exciting sandbox title featuring zombies and yet no one could give a rat's as about it then. Fast forward to 2011, and just because of one admittedly awesome, emotionally-moving trailer that is probably not indicative of actual gameplay, gamers and even non-gamers the world over are going apeshit over it. Let's hope the game itself lives up to the hype.

Crysis 2

Just a week or so ago, the whole games industry went apeshit when news broke that Crysis 2's beta (which was essentially an unpolished version of the full game) had leaked onto the Internet long before the official launch date. This clearly is some sad news for Crytek who I'm sure have been working on this project for a long time, and judging from the slew of gameplay trailers released in recent months, it is going to be an epic good time.

So, I'm fighting the temptation to "check out" the beta and wait till the full game in all its polished glory is officially released. Then it'll be awesome.

Rage

Here's a title from id coming out a bit further down the line. If you ask me honestly, I'm a bit skeptical about this - only because it really looks like Fallout 3, except with less role-playing and more shooting. Which is not to say it won't be fun, but I honestly would've expected a mega company like id to come up with something more fresh and innovative. But I'm of the mind that id isn't really all that imaginative - they've got great tech, but look at Doom 3; that was hardly a revolution in gaming, it was just good fun in a solid engine.

Review: Dead Space 2

2011-02-17T17:04:00.012+11:00

Alright people. I've been on a long haul hiatus for no reason whatsoever, but now that I've finished Dead Space 2 (yes I've still been playing games, just not writing about them), I have to bring this blog out of hiatus to talk about it.

I have to tell you how amazing this game is.

---

If I had to sum up the game in one phrase: "relentlessly stressful" would be it. Dead Space 2 is a constant struggle against terrifying creatures out to tear you apart, and your constantly dwindling supply of ammo and health. It doesn't help either that your dead ex-girlfriend is telling you all sorts of random shit and you can't shut her the hell up.

But let me back up for a moment and recount the events leading up to Dead Space 2: Isaac Clarke is your average Joe, a talented but nevertheless ordinary engineer who was sent to investigate the mysterious stationary USS Ishimura out in space. Then he unfortunately got tangled up in some bad ass shit with some crazy mofo aliens who liked guts and gore. An entire video game later, Isaac Clarke survives that shit only to go batshit crazy himself from an encounter with a hallucination of his dead ex-girlfriend.

Then Dead Space 2 begins with you waking in an asylum with the shit hitting the fan again, this time on some massive colony known as the Sprawl. Someone's released the Kraken - I mean, Marker (the artifact that basically acts as a magnet for alien mofos - otherwise known as Necromorphs). Fuck humans, they are seriously retarded. No one ever learns, and it's up to half-mad poor Isaac to fix shit with his handiness and varied arsenal of cutting and blowing up tools.

Gameplay is largely the same as the original game but as EA and Visceral Games promised, they threw in more Hollywood explosive action, from set pieces like exploding glass windows that cause shit to be sucked out into space, flying jetpack bits, to cinematic moments with lots of dramatic talky characters to well-loved quick time events like wrestling large monsters in outer space. I was concerned before playing the game that the devs injecting more explosions was going to make the game lose its survival horror focus, but thankfully I was proven wrong.

Action was amped up but the survival horror remained intact, and surprisingly the coupling resulted in many a tense moment of running away in panic from monsters in cinematic awesomeness. The most important difference coming out of this Hollywood injection is that this game is a lot faster paced than the original, but thankfully, it doesn't reach to Call of Duty brainless whizbang heights, instead maintaining a very well-crafted vibe - at no point in the game do you go, "Well, this is silly". Instead it's more like "OMFG I'm floating in outer space and I have to attach some massive thing to that massive thing??! OMFG is that a monster shooting weird shit at me?" Needless to say, the production values are stellar.

It is interesting to note that in the original Dead Space, a lot of emphasis was given on Isaac's suit being heavy and clunky which added to the horror. It was hard to maneuver in the thing despite it being a safe respite as armor (ableit minimal) from Necromorph death. In Dead Space 2, Isaac is a more agile, lithe hero as if he'd packed on enough muscle and strength to wear his suits as if they were just a second skin. The horror didn't come from the difficulty of movement anymore, but the external threats in the world which were just as horrifying.

The graphics of DS2 is beyond awesome. The level of detailing has increased immensely from the first, and Isaac's character animations were naturally realistic. The way he flexes his muscles in exhaustion, or limps forward on low health, or his constant alertness to his surroundings made gameplay a lot more immersive. And Visceral Games has to be commended on the monster design, they really went balls out to create some of the worst looking mofos in the entire universe. I mean Giger's Aliens have nothing on Necromorphs. It is the fact that these were once humans that had been mutilated in order to fit the shape of aliens that makes them seriously scary. I would really take zombies over Necromorphs any day. Those crying babies with explosive stomachs or infant children scurrying about like vicious monkeys give me nightmares. Some real creepypasta.

One of the biggest changes in Dead Space 2 that has been on everybody's minds, is the inclusion of Isaac Clarke's voice. When a game dev gives their protagonist a voice, it is reason to believe they have grand ambitions for awesome franchising and icon-creation. Sure, everyone knows Nathan Drake even if they've never played Uncharted, and his lovable wry tone that's always a little bit cocky but always Alpha-Male cool.

Isaac's on the other hand is slightly frantic, fearful, and definitely weary of his unlucky plight these past two games. But some people think it was better to have left him voiceless so that we may impose our own personalities on him thereby drawing us closer into the world (ala Half-Life). I disagree. We want to root for Isaac, but we don't to necessarily need to be him. It was a good idea to give him a voice because I felt more related to this heroic average Joe who has to fix shit with his hands and beat back the monsters even though his own life was at stake. He was no action hero, he could die anytime.

So by the end of the game, where in your breathtaking climatic battle against the evil boss character (which I won't go into detail lest I spoil the game for those who have yet to play it), Isaac screams out, "Fuck you... and fuck you marker!" That truly was a necessary utterance; as if Isaac himself was saying what was exactly on every gamer's mind who've had to survive two games worth of Necromorphs and human insanity in outer space. So, yes, it was important to me that Isaac had a voice. And now, I'd pick Isaac Clarke over Nathan Drake to save humanity any day. He might not jump like a monkey from platform to platform, but at least he's got the resolve to see shit through to the end.

The other interesting thing about the game worth mentioning would be the deeper look into Unitology. For those not in the know, Unitology is a religion in the Dead Space universe that is built around the belief that the Marker is the great artifact that would lead to salvation for all mankind. That it would lead humans to "converge" into one unified ultimate being and be at complete peace.

In English, this translates to: getting transformed into mofo aliens because they are all unified by a single Hivemind, and apparently it's better to be a badass alien of disgustingness rather than a human being. Needless to say, not every Unitologist is privy to this information, and it's kept from them intentionally so. The idea of blind faith is a scary one, but more so is the institutionalization of religion as is the commentary put forth by this game. The frightening thing about Scientology (notice how I am now referring to the real world religion Dead Space is criticizing) is that no one really knows what the fuck it's all about, and how on earth something so absurd can captivate so many. And that money can truly buy you a seat of power in such a phony religion. I hope to hell that one day, Scientologists don't decide that they too, like Unitologists, need to liberate their original alien lifeforms from their human husks thereby unleashing an alien apocalypse of epic proportions. We don't have the awesome engineering weaponry that Isaac is privy to just yet, to fight back with. But sign me up for a badass suit if it ever does become reality.

Dead Space 2 in conclusion, is the best thing I've played in a long while, so enrapturing at every turn. Visceral Games have built a universe that could easily match any sci-fi horror movie out there. I like how they've got stories intersecting and filling in the gaps between the two games, through other smaller downloadable games or animated movies and tie-in novels. It's a rich universe to say the least and one I hope they deepen with the next Dead Space. And as stressful as it was at certain moments, as scary as the game was at times, I am, like Isaac, compelled to continue till I saw the mission through to the end. And if a game can hold my attention like that, it's worth getting immediately.

News: Video games trailers GALORE [Bumper Edition] Part 2

2010-12-29T09:41:00.002+11:00

It's not my birthday anymore ): sadface, but that doesn't mean I can't send my love out into the world in the form of VIDEO GAME TRAILERS.

---

Natural Selection 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IznYWy3aR0

I honestly never played much of the first Natural Selection (which was a Half-Life mod). But the idea of melding RTS with team-focused FPS sounds like good fun. Provided people listen to the commander or whatever.

Also, I like games that have humans vs monsters. Aliens vs Predator was supposed to be the game to do that, but it was disappointingly bad. As opposed to entertainingly bad, which would be tolerable but not horrific. Anyway, this is definitely one to look out for. The graphics are nice.

Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQaG20mWlAA

Oh noes! Of course, Dice had this planned for awhile now, and nooo, its release had nothing to do with Black Ops which is also set in Vietnam. BF Bad Company 2 Mouthful was not bad for an epic scale war shooter, but running to your death every so often and not having that individualized competitive feel that Call of Duty taps into so well meant I stopped playing after awhile.

The Vietnam expansion pack essentially reskins the game plus throws in some new maps which look more jungley. But an epic scale war in Vietnam sounds like a good time (not the real war of course, because that was not fun for a lot of people).

PS. Unlike the other games in this post, BFBC2: Vietnam is already out.

Dragon Age 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ojefQlGTzE&feature=player_embedded

Dragon AGEEEE! DRAAAGOONNNNN AGEEEEE!!!! 222222222222

Yes. I'm excited for this. IN THE SAME WAY I AM FOR MASS EFFECT 3. So yeah, I'm totally Bioware's bitch right now.

Only thing that I'm a bit wary of is DA2's new art direction, which is supposedly a lot simpler and stylistic as compared to the heavy duty detail of Dragon Age 1. Also apparently, fully voice acted characters. As long as I get to fool around with different girls, make them angry, and then instantly happy again with gifts, then this game will win.

Batman: Arkham City

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muCtJsy-d9w

Grouchyman is back. He's tearing his hair out that no matter how many bad guys he puts away, they keep breaking out of jail and his life is one big never-ending vicious cycle. One day, he will realize this and go away to the mountains to meditate. Screw Arkham City, it can ROT for all he cares.

But not Batman. He just keeps going. He's cooler than everybody, richer than everybody and beefier than everybody.

I like Batman Arkham Asylum, the combat system was slick and fluid, and dropping down on bad guys from gargoyle statues never gets old. Now we're letting the Bat out in the big city. Then we'll have a surprise reveal to find that Christopher Nolan is directing this game. That would rock.

News: Video games trailers GALORE [Bumper Edition] Part 1 + My birthday

2010-12-28T14:22:00.009+11:00

Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday to me! Yes, I'm shameless but it is my birthday today, it only comes once a year so I get to joyously announce it wherever I please.

Also, please take a look below at some sweet trailers for games coming out in 2011. If my birthday won't get you excited, at least these videos will.

---

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGMOMkACtn4

Who doesn't like Oblivion? It's such an awesome game. Free-roaming beautiful lands in search of adventures, NPCs to mess with and loot to steal. Now we can do more of that in Skyrim, the only difference being it's set up in the Nordic frigid highlands where people be ugly and coats fur-lined.

And dragons. No surprise there though, it seems we're having dragons make a comeback (read: unimaginative) in a big way. WoW's done it with Cataclysm, Guild Wars 2 is doing it, Dragon Age 2... (duh), and now Skyrim. As long as I get to fight a big, bony, fire-breathing lizard sometime, I'm not complaining.

Crysis 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyD7SoY7LU

Crysis was a decent game. Sure, the graphics were mind-blowing but the gameplay was alright. There was some sense of choice thanks to your nanosuit powers, but the environments were pretty linear.

Now Crysis 2 looks to open up that linearity with a massive, sprawling, highly detailed New York city which lets you approach objectives from any angles. That's exciting. Plus the new Cryengine 3 is going to kick some serious graphical ass. And the trailer is well made. So much chest-beating and man-ness.

Mass Effect 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnEej1RfqTs

Mass Effecttttt 3... MAAASS EFFECTTT 3 .... MAAAAASSSSS EFFEEECTTTTT 3333

I loved Mass Effect 2 to bits, and Bioware's done good so far. So yeah, Mass Effect 3 will rule. 'Nuff said.

Homefront

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhJfzejPyOM

It's a tad bit prophetic, if not inappropriate that Homefront is developed and announced around the time when North Korea decided to start shelling the South, with talks of war possibly breaking out.

Regardless of what's happening in the real world, countless uninformed gamers worldwide will sit in their basements and live out fantastical stories like if North Korea really DID invade the rest of the world. Because them be evil, tyrannical communists, and the only appropriate country left for game developers and Hollywood execs to use as villains for their stories.

Looks like a bit of good shooting fun though.

[Part 2 to go up in a bit]

Review: Minecraft

2010-12-23T07:31:00.018+11:00

You know that moment in the movie Castaway when Tom Hanks makes an imaginary friend out of an old, washed-up football? It's such a heartbreaking moment, the realization that Hanks has gone loony from being utterly alone on an island.

And now you can have that feeling too with Minecraft.

---

I know I'm late to the Minecraft party. So, so very late when countless people have already waxed lyrical about this ultimate sandbox game that throws you in the deep end from the get-go.

The notion of leaving players defenseless, unknowing in a procedurally and randomly generated world is frightening, and one that many modern big-name developers just don't have the balls to attempt. It's gaming excellence for the very concept of letting us discover for ourselves what we are capable of, kinda' like letting a baby figure out which building blocks go where if left alone long enough. It's a very simple form of play and yet capable of such complexity.

In Minecraft, you start with nothing, possibly on a beach somewhere, or in the middle of the woods, or even by a cave, but you have this realization that this endless world is laid out before you. You start exploring, and explore some more, and come across some charming lo-fi graphics cutesy pigs or cows that hop about the landscape. Then you notice the sun come down over the horizon, and then it is soon dark. Pitch black even. Your heart rate quickens, uh oh, it's pretty scary out here with no lights and no sense of orientation.

Then you hear the twang of some bow, some arrows fly in your direction. Or maybe a blood-curdling groan or hiss. You fumble around in the dark and then boom! Something hits you. Your life depletes. What the hell is going on!? And then you DIE a horrible death.

You learn the hard way that by nightfall, this peaceful and cutesy blocky land turns evil with all sorts of ghouls out to feast. That you're completely and utterly alone makes it even more frightening, and so your first objective is organically realized. To find or build shelter for the night.

Everything in Minecraft is breakable, from the trees, to the dirt, to every block of stone in the mountainside. And then they are all reformable into various objects/tools/furniture that will make your life easier in the world of Minecraft. Need a shovel? Simple, just join some planks of wood in a straight line to make the handle, and add a block of stone to the top for the shovel bit. Or form a series of planks in an arch to make a door. There's a very intuitive feel to all of this, no one tells you how to build this or that, but you just have a sense that by putting this and that together, it'll surprisingly form the thing you were needing. For instance, I know I needed glass, and science has taught me glass is made from sand. So I just went and shoveled some of that, threw it on a fire, and voila! Sand.

For a city-dwelling urban rat such as myself, a game that lets me put things together with my "virtual hands" is satisfying in that "nature retreat" novelty way that a lot of urban-types like to do once in awhile. We think we're outdoorsy just cause we get out there and prop up a tent. But there's something more to exploring an untamed landscape, deciding "here, this is where I shall build my next home", and actually carving a hole out of a mountainside, or laying the foundations to your castle. And at night, you sit in it all safe and sound whilst monsters bay for your blood at the threshold.

Play long enough and you settle into this tranquil rhythm. Morning arrives, and you are out again searching for resources or exploring more landscape. By mid-day, you'd have wanted to head back to your base, or if you're nomadic, you're pushing forth and looking for the next place to set up camp. Nightfall comes, you build your base and spend the night forging various things on your furnace and workbench. All this to some very light piano tinkles that add a very mellow, melancholy, and almost spiritual air to the whole game.

It's absolutely lonely too. There is no one ever. It's like you're the only person in the entire universe, you know this fact, and you're doing everything you can to stay alive instead of succumb to the monsters. And for what? To keep building shelters, structures, and super-structures that no one but only you can marvel at? What is the point? Is there a higher being out there somewhere that will ever come to your salvation? Is this a personal hell or heaven?

There is some inherent philosophical musings to take away from Minecraft, but the bottomline as far as gameplay is concerned, is that it is a very strong foundation for future possibilities in complete sandboxing. Its only limitation is that after awhile, you do wonder "what do I do now?" And unless you have a strong penchant for crazy wild ideas and experimentation with engineering feats of wonder, you will perhaps lay this game aside after sometime. But the beauty of it is that you can always come back to it just as easily. There is no pressure, no hindrance of game structure. You're dropped back in the world, and it's like you never left.

The graphics is far removed from the shininess of more expensive triple-A titles. It's a game that can run on your dingy old laptop too, it just needs some RAM to ensure smooth rendering of the never-ending world as you venture forth into it. I feel like the lo-fi graphics actually adds to the game's charm, distills the concept of survival in a foreign world to its essence. Because heavy duty, photorealistic graphics like the kind you'll find in Crysis will only serve to distract you from the tight game mechanics.

The most interesting thing about the graphics however, is that despite its lo-fi engine, there is a deep beauty to the game's setting. The natural rock formations, over-hangings, waterfalls, steeps, canyons, rivers, forests all are a sight to behold. You stand atop a hill and look at the vast natural untouched lands before you, and it really is something. And that it is all procedurally generated makes it even more of a wonder.

I know there's a multiplayer component, but that's still being tweaked, not entirely bug-free, and takes Minecraft to a more cooperative level. But the singleplayer is the game's core, you make what you want in the world; your entertainment comes at the price of your hard work, but the rewards are deeper rather than superficial.

I know Notch (the game's founder) is continually adding content to Minecraft, and for its relatively cheap price, you're getting more than you paid for. And if you buy it now rather than later, it is also going to be cheaper in the long run. So go do so here if you want a different experience from the whiz bang explosions of 2010.

PS. My little bit about Castaway at the start of this post? Well, it's relevant to Minecraft because I got so lonely in the game, I started talking to a pumpkin. Bobby the Pumpkin was my constant companion.

PPS. For the infinite possibilities that Minecraft affords, I leave you with the image below.

News: Telltale's Back to the Future trailer is a-go!

2010-12-06T12:01:00.003+11:00

When I was a kid... don't you just hate it when blog posts start like this? You just know that it's going to be a fucking long thing about some guy's childhood that meanders for a long time, going on about his mum and dad and how they took him to see Bongo the Clown and had his first hot dog, or some shit like that. And that out of nowhere, it ties back to whatever thing the writer wanted to talk about in the first place, like Telltale's got a new Back to the Future trailer which can be found below.

---

Yes, when I was a kid I loved Back to the Future. I still have a soft-spot for it. Pre-Parkinson's Marty McFly was the right combination of naive and relatable, and yet tough on the inside. And boy, was Doc the coolest madman scientist I'd ever seen in my life.

And the ability to time-travel just blew my mind. The adventures they had were beyond anything for a kid's imagination and set the stage for some pretty epic imaginings of my own from then on.

So when Telltale of new Monkey Island and Sam & Max reboots fame announced they were doing a Back to the Future adventure game, I had a nagging wariness in the back of my mind that this may not be good. How on earth would they do something like that? It hurt my head just thinking about it so I watched the trailer and was thankfully proven wrong.

IT LOOKS REALLY COOL and the music is so dead-on with the original trilogy's wackiness. It makes me want to watch all of the movies over again. And then play this game and save Doc. Because Doc should never be captured.

I wonder who does the voices?

Review: Call of Duty - Black Ops

2010-11-24T00:51:00.007+11:00

Another year, another Call of Duty. With the crazy money Activision makes from each one, and more they'll make from the next, it's not surprising that this is a possible endeavor. Every year, Call of Duty and Activision always comes under scrutiny and every year they pass with flying colors. Will they ever release a shitty game?

Whatever it is, I've had a go with Black Ops so read on for my final verdict on this year's cash cow.

---

Like it or not, Call of Duty is never going to stoop as low as making their games ultra-realistic, feature sensitive and true-to-life portrayals of the US military or other nations for that matter. This is the shit Hollywood wanks off too; explosions every other second, larger than life macho men that never shed tears, preferring jumping into hails of bullets instead of run in the opposite direction. Bad guys usually have a Russian or Middle Eastern accent, and are bald with finger-twirling mustaches. And the sheer amount of weaponry on offer continually grows, an orgasmic adventure for gun enthusiasts. But even a long-time FPS player such as myself stares in bewilderment at some of the strange attachments - an AK-47 with flamethrower?!? WTF!?! Is that even possible?

Doesn't really matter with a Call of Duty game. What it boils down to is killing a lot of people.

So this time, you're killing people in the Cold War because clearly, Treyarch didn't want to tread the tiresome turf of World War 2 nor encroach on now-defunct Infinity Ward's modern warfare space lest they get their ass handed to them by overt-fanatics.

Cold War's good though cause it's hardly been done, and if you know your history, you'll know that it's a war that's mostly a verbal sling match between superpowers US and Soviet Union. Whether or not there really was a shooty war going on in secret is up for contention, and conveniently Treyarch just has to call it deniable ops for it to suddenly become possible for their game. The Vietnam War part is real though, and features just as heavily. Treyarch's done jungle warfare before with World at War so they aren't really getting out of their comfort zone.

The major problem I faced with the single-player is that I never felt fully engaged. I was just going through the motions, cutting down wave after wave of faceless bad guys. Pacing is an issue; the entire game was on hyper-speed, a rollercoaster that never had any down-time. An orgasmic climax that never stopped climaxing. It was bang, bang, bang through gauntlets of different environments right from the start. It got rather tiresome. The sneak-em bits didn't feel sneaky enough either; there was nothing that came close to the tension of the sniper bits in MW1/2. This could be my fatigue towards yet another Call of Duty game, or Infinity War just understood pacing and tension a lot better.

I'm also annoyed at those scripted moments when your character is thrown about in a helicopter crash or explosion. I don't ever want to see another in-game cutscene of me picking myself up off the ground, or your superhero friends saving your ass. It's an overused mechanic in shooter games a lot these days. It certainly feels like the devs have a fetish for throwing players unexpectedly off their feet. I mean, why can't I be the one rescuing my downed teammates? I'd like to be appreciated for saving a life rather than being the damsel in distress all the time.

Shooting is fine; I won't dwell too long on it because heck, by now Call of Duty, Treyarch and Activision has refined this to a T. I just wished that the actual combat was more tense which happens not by throwing wave after wave of baddies at me, but by making each pocket of combat more pronounced, more tactical. Medal of Honor touched on this momentarily but the best example of this is Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.

Team AI was horrific to the point that it ruined the immersion of the game. Sometimes, your superhero teammates would run right past the enemy because he was scripted to do so, magically dodging all the bullets fired at them. Bullet-sponge teammates was a big issue in previous CoD titles but why has no one worked on making this less apparent now? I half suspect all the enemies purposely picked on me only too.

The game doesn't feel dynamic at all, you're pretty much on-rails the entire time, surviving in a battle of attrition level after level. The worst example of this was an early Vietnam level where you're fighting Vietcong in trenches; it's frustrating that no matter how many you kill, you can't move on if you haven't completed the actual objective.

Thankfully though, at long last, vehicular combat has been improved in Black Ops. The tank bits were standard fare, just shoot at everything that moves but the helicopter flying bit was surprisingly enjoyable. There was an illusion of complete control as you moved the entire machine whilst firing intense weaponry at everything on the ground. Technically you can't crash the helicopter, leaving you to focus on the firing but it was at least less on-rails then Medal of Honor's helicopter bit, so Treyarch has to be commended for that.

As for the story, it definitely is a different take on warfare than what has come before. It's all Tom Clancy-esque top secret bullshit and there's a dash of horrific torture/brainwash story thrown in which makes the main protagonist you play a lot more relatable. And they even gave him a stronger and prominent voice throughout, so you don't feel like a silent gimp to everyone else. I may be wrong but the main guy sounds Australian not American? Anyway I liked that.

But the story was pretty much a flashback of the main guy's action-man life up till the final events which is pretty epic as a level. The return of Gary Oldman as Reznov was the stellar highlight for me - I liked what they did with Reznov's character, having him return from World at War and play a very important role in this story. Definitely fleshed him out and made him more godlike through empathy than Captain Price who was just an overtly pompous caricature of how Infinity Ward liked their macho men.

Activision has one of the best graphics engine in the business. Black Ops is positively dripping with visual immersion. The jungles, snow-peaked mountains all look shiny, but the water is especially shimmery that I just wanted to crouch down and drink it up. The character models are lifelike and cool too but why do all Call of Duty bad guys have to be bald, ugly and mustached?

Sound is fine; the fine that permeates from extensive research the dev team is expected to have done to get the gun sounds right, along with the appropriate over-the-top techno or orchestral music to go with the bombastic action. The voice-acting stands out, as mentioned before, Gary Oldman being the shit, but also whoever played the Australian main protagonist.

And finally, the all important multiplayer. Is this the ground-shaking epic game-changer that is to overtake Infinity Ward's prior masterpiece? Black Ops does a lot of good things; all the camping, all the crazy unfair perk cheats, and killstreak stacking has disappeared. Even the maps are better balanced, organically built so it doesn't feel like you can predict where enemies will come out from, relying more heavily on the skill of gunplay and reflexes to watch your back at all times. In this sense, Treyarch's shooter is less arcadey than Infinity Ward's and some people will prefer that. I've been used to MW2 for the longest time so making the transition to the new game's rhythm is still a challenge for me.

They've also retooled the experience and rewards system. Whereas in MW2 you unlocked weapons, perks, killstreaks, items the higher levels you climbed, with Black Ops, there's all that but you still have to purchase them with earned credits before you can use any. It's a cumbersome and unnecessary addition; probably Treyarch's attempt to differentiate themselves from MW2, but in doing so, makes it that little bit harder and more annoying for us to attain our rewards.

The multiplayer would've beaten MW2's flat out based on the well-thought out tweaks Treyarch has implemented, building on top of MW2's already robust system. But I cannot recommend it just yet as poor internet connectivity makes me want to tear my hair out. Treyarch stuck to their dedicated server guns for the PC version which is odd considering the console version implemented matchmaking (pioneered with MW2). I personally prefer the latter because connecting is a cinch, there's little lag or stuttering once you're in. With Black Ops dedicated servers, there is lag, connection drop-outs, long waits before you find a decent game and even then, you're angry because your hits are not registering fast enough due to lag.

In conclusion, Treyarch has come into their own with Black Ops. They've proven they can make a slick game and step out of the shadow that is Infinity Ward. There was enough good things with the single-player to compel me to continue, although it will never match the tight, solid affair that was Modern Warfare and its sequel. This game was rather schizophrenic in its ambition and scope, but I applaud it for trying. There's no doubt that for the price you're paying, you are getting a great entertainment package. Don't expect the most convenient of experiences just yet jumping into multiplayer though. I'm hoping Treyarch fixes it up, otherwise there's always MW2 to fall back on.

News: Dead Space 2 new trailer is ring-a-round freaky

2010-11-10T16:11:00.003+11:00

Dead Space was good fun. Dead Space 2 looks like it'll be more good fun, as long as the devs don't lose sight of what made the first one frighteningly awesome. Cumbersome character controls that heighten helplessness, strange and original weaponry and a freakish cult that has those flying devil babies. Brr....

Anyway, new trailer below. EA said it'll be a lot more cinematic and action-packed. Just don't overdo those quicktime button-mashing, please.

---

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/707118.html

Out January 25th 2011.

Also, I just thought of something amazing. Isaac Clarke should outfit his engineer suit with a video cam feed for the back of his head. So no more annoying sneak attacks from those pesky aliens.

News: Boom! Double shot! Triple shot! Get it right game! El Presador is a funny guy

2010-11-09T02:22:00.005+11:00

Wow that's one long and eye-catching title for a blog post. But it cannot be helped. I MUST tell you about this hilarious thing on Youtube. El Presador is a Modern Warfare 2 player who's been recording his gameplay and uploading them. He ain't a bad shot, and some of the stuff he posts is fun to watch.

But more importantly, he's hilarious when doing commentary. Like the video below. It adds a touch of hilarity to an otherwise overtly competitive and too-serious game. I IMPLORE YOU TO WATCH IT. NOW.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDfPVe-S7U&feature=player_embedded#!

THEY SHOULD MAKE A PATCH FOR SANDY RAVAGE IN THIS GAME because he's an unstoppab- LOOK AT THIS SHIT! LOOK AT THIS SHIT!

(Thanks to Kristina Ong for bringing it to my attention)

Review: Fallout New Vegas

2010-11-08T00:13:00.016+11:00

Americans have this deep-rooted fear that one day someone's going to give them a taste of their own atom bomb medicine. And in doing so obliterate the great superpower, reducing cities to dust and forcing its population to eke out a grim existence of survival in a dog-eat-dog wasteland. Countless literature, television and film have tapped into this concept to give us some crazy entertainment, but on the video game front, the godfather of the post-apocalyptic story is Fallout.

Does New Vegas live up to this mythology and continue the masterpiece Fallout franchise? READ ON BELOW TO FIND OUT.

---

Maybe. Possibly. Sometimes. But I can't really say it was an exceptional experience that I had whilst playing these past weeks. Before I go into the game proper though, for those who don't know, Obsidian has taken over responsibility for this title from Bethesda (who did Fallout 3).

If we look at Obsidian's track record, the bug-ridden but semi-entertaining Alpha Protocol and the kinda-slow and not very engaging Neverwinter Nights 2, it wouldn't be surprising to find that Fallout New Vegas came out of the gate unpolished. But you'd expect Obsidian to learn from past mistakes. Come on guys, seriously.

Look past the bugs thanks to a hot fix (third-party, mind you) and what you have is a game that expands generously on Fallout 3's experience. Oodles more quests, weapons, perks, and characters to come across. Unfortunately it isn't a dog that's going to show you an exciting new trick; the game engine is virtually untouched, no new or revamped gameplay/interface, with most assets recycled from Fallout 3. The only thing improved is the Ally command wheel that gives you more advanced tactical control over teammates, reminiscent of the original Fallout series.

I don't have a problem with "more of" Fallout; but that makes it rather like an expansion pack than a full-blown game, so does it warrant a full-blown game's price?

I don't think so. Fallout 3's experience was a tight affair thanks to Bethesda's special touch that ensured you were never bored wandering through the wasteland. There was always something around the corner. But Obsidian's sequel is mostly bleak empty spaces to trek through before you get anywhere semi-interesting.When you do get there, it doesn't really blow the mind or perpetuate intrigue either; nowhere that comes close to Fallout 3's frightening Rivet City or socially and plot-rich Megaton, amongst others.

The New Vegas strip is really the only draw, and despite its flashing bright lights, it too falls short given the mostly depressing inhabitants who are either desperate gamblers or drunks. And it is strangely underpopulated, most of the gambling halls devoid of life making the whole affair not as glamorous and fun as you'd expect it to be.

Obsidian's one significant addition are more factions like the Legion, Great Khans and Boomers. The first two remind me of ancient tribes which seem like a juxtaposition given the futuristic setting of the game. It's like a costume party joke that I can't take seriously. And the final one, the name reminds me more of a Left 4 Dead monster than a bunch of bomber-jacket-wearing rocket-launching doo-hickeys.

The voice-acting isn't that great (sorry Felicia Day, I didn't meet your character Veronica so I can't say you were brilliant) neither is the dialogue well-written or particularly stimulating. As I couldn't empathize with ANY of the factions deeply, it made carrying out their side quests horribly tedious - most of which were of the unimaginative kill-these-monsters or fetch-that-item variety anyway. I was only doing it for the XP and some decent loot. I confess that I did not play the game to its full capacity (about 70 - 80 hours of gameplay), or explore every nook and cranny, doing as many side quests as humanly possible. I would normally have done so and I did with Fallout 3, but this game just wasn't that compelling.

Then there's the main story quest. This is probably the game's only redeeming quality as it is somewhat interesting but gets screwed up at the end. I'll get to that in a bit. Spoilers ahead. You play a courier carrying a special package, a platinum casino chip which is highly sought after. You're shot, left for dead and the chip stolen from you by a mysterious dude. Unlucky from him, you didn't die so begins a tale of revenge and hunt to retrieve the chip. You eventually learn the chip has immense power as the wielder can control a massive secret robot army underneath the New Vegas strip.

Because of it, all the factions want you on their side and you can choose who to ally with before a mega finale showdown at the Hoover Dam, with the winner having complete control of the landmark and surrounding areas. There's also an option to keep the chip, screw everyone else and take control of the New Vegas strip for yourself. Best option ever, and certainly one that kept me motivated to play on. I'm so bored of playing goffer to everyone else, which seems to be an epidemic that no one has really sorted out in any role-playing game. Unfortunately, as exciting as the prospects of being top honcho is, you never actually get there. "What?!? Why?!?" you blurt out.

After working your ass off playing the factions against one another, screwing some or making peace with others, the game ends with a mega battle and an annoyingly hard but not very epic spectacle of a boss fight, then cue credits. Obsidian didn't learn from how bad gamers felt when Fallout 3 didn't let us free roam the wastelands after finishing their main quest line. Why can't Obsidian let us actually play out the repercussions of our choices, let us rule the Vegas strip even? THAT would make the initial tedium of the game worthwhile, and make the rest of it exciting. We'd be invested in the aftermath.

But as it stands, I can't be bothered to revisit the Mojave wasteland. I don't care if there are things out there that I've missed, because frankly, Obsidian didn't seem to put enough effort into making this a fresh experience. Most of the environments are dreary, perhaps it was their intention to have it contrast the flash and panache of the New Vegas strip but even that gets tiresome on the eyes after awhile. Everyone sounds bored or sad and you can meet character after character who says the same line about preferring a nuclear winter to the Mojave heat, or something. Granted, there were a few quests that sucked me in real good like having to investigate a hotel's dark cannibalistic past, but they were too far and few between bog standard go-here-do-this type quests.

Also Obsidian or Bethesda really need to fix the cumbersome inventory system. It could be forgiven in Fallout 3 as that was the first time the system was implemented, but people have complained about it a lot since then. Why is no one paying attention? It needs to be streamlined and maybe then, Fallout New Vegas wouldn't seem so tiresome playing.

Oh and the Hardcore mode implemented to supposedly make your wasteland experience more realistic (forcing you to sleep, eat and drink), isn't really all that hardcore. You can still go for days without drinking water, there's an abundance of food around, and you only need to fast travel to a doctor whenever you bust a limb, so it never really feels like survival. It also isn't very intuitive as the meters measuring your food, water, and sleep levels are confusing, and not indicative of when you need to be nourishing or resting. In conclusion, not a well thought-out system, more like an impediment to your enjoyment so turn it off and wait till modders tweak it.

Maybe people can argue that I can't really write this review if I haven't really explored everything New Vegas has to offer. But the onus is on the developers to ensure players have a good time at every turn, even if we have to work for our enjoyment, it should be rewarding. This isn't. I'll admit that I still had fun shooting people and watching them explode into guts and gore, or talking my way out of problems, or sneaking about and pickpocketing everybody. This means I would've been less harsh on the game if it were just an expansion pack, one for the fans as it were. But newcomers to the Fallout franchise should really just play Fallout 3, cause this one isn't the best representation of a post-apocalyptic adventure.

News: Call of Duty Black Ops made cooler with JFK

2010-11-02T13:34:00.006+11:00

I was kinda' into Call of Duty: World at War's Zombie coop mode. Anything with zombies has got me hooked anyway. So it's returning in Black Ops, fine and dandy. But wait till you find out that you can play as John F Kennedy!

"What?!?" you blurt out incredulously. "You can play as the amazingly handsome young Cold War American president that saved the country during that Cuban Missile Crisis? Who was later tragically assassinated?"

Quick! Peek below for a trailer of this lunacy.

---

Yep. And here's who else you can play as: Castro, McNamara, and sniveling Nixon! Perhaps this game isn't such devilspawn after all. I like this crazy sense of humor, it's a good antidote to the "look-at-me-being-all-serious-action-shooter" of the single player campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K8_QXAKX0&feature=related

Just look at Kennedy's pomposity with his oh-so-perfect hair, or Castro chewing on his cigar with such intensity. Treyarch has really done something here. Also, this kinda' reminds me of that old TV show with them puppets, Thunderbirds. Maybe it's the strange vibe of unrealness these caricatures give off.

Kennedy said that one really famous line when he was sworn in as President, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." He sure is a man of action here.

PS. I made the JFK LOLZCAT banner by the way *proud*

News: Call of Duty: Black Ops out soon

2010-11-01T21:50:00.004+11:00

The new Call of Duty all Cold Wary and Vietnamy is out next week, November 9th. That's like holy sh*t soon, if you ask me. Feels like time has gone whoosh over our heads. Why do I say this?

It was roundabout the same time last year when I was just rushing down to a games store in Melbourne getting my hands on Modern Warfare 2. I excitedly finished the whole thing in one sitting. All whilst I had an essay due the next day (which I aced by the way). And yet, I remember it 'sif it was just two weeks ago.

But really, it's been a whole year since then. Time flies, and so does gaming. Anyway, the release trailer's below the cut. It is quite beautiful in that crazy explosive Hollywood-style action kinda' way but I remain wary of it. It is after all, still an Activision baby. And you know theirs are devil-spawn.

I'd still probably buy it. And shoot some baddies like crazy. I'm shallow that way.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPTOVQFRggI&feature=player_embedded

Now Playing: The Ball

2010-11-01T13:32:00.005+11:00

Great balls of fire! Or rather just one ball, sometimes on fire, sometimes submerged underwater. Most of the time controlled by you and your strange skull-shaped gun. Fighting gorillas! And skeletons!

The Ball, an Unreal-mod turned full game is about navigating through an underground city deep in the heart of Mexico, circa 1940, solving puzzles and rolling over baddies with said object. I'm probably not doing the game justice so you should click on below to check out the really awesome trailer. Like seriously shiny awesome.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIYXaKp-qo&feature=player_embedded

Kinda' reminds me of Portal and that whole Companion Cube bit. 'Cept this is a Companion Ball that's far more useful. Also kinda' scary looking.

Just got me hands on the game. Will tell you how it goes.

Review: Dead Rising 2

2010-10-30T05:09:00.027+11:00

I've tried my best. I've played through to 80% completion, but I can't go on. Doing so would be a waste of my time. Dead Rising 2 has a lot of good things going for it, but it falls short of one very fundamental thing: keeping players having fun.

---

Killing zombies = always good gameplay

This game has a serious case of bipolar. On the one hand, it wants to be crazy sandbox fun. For the first few hours, it does achieve this with great aplomb - picking up virtually anything you see from a fire axe to skateboard to oversized teddy to my personal favorite, a dildo to decimate hordes of shambling zombies never gets dull. Especially when the violence is no holds barred, limbs flying off, blood spurting everywhere and on your clothes. Exploring the sprawling Las Vegas complex which includes several shopping malls, casinos, hotels and an interconnected subway is exciting. The attention to detail is good and for a Japanese developer, they've captured American decadence and excessiveness with satirical accuracy.

So that's what I like about the game. Killing a whole lot of zombies in style, and you can even combine items to create wackier death-dealing contraptions, from as simple as a baseball bat with protruding nails to a rocket launcher made from fireworks and a lead pipe, or a wheelchair that sends out volts of electricity thanks to a car battery strapped to it.

The zombies don't prove much of a threat. For most of the game, they can be regarded as mere cannon fodder. They are slow moving, more of a joke in the way they stumble towards you like old people with rigor mortis. You against one zombie is little trouble. But Capcom has numbered them in the thousands. They are jam-packed into the malls and casinos. Enough to overwhelm if you aren't constantly on your toes and hacking away at them.

A little bit of zombie pop culture education in Dead Rising 2

Looking at the concept of a zombie in modern popular culture though, you'll notice the trend leaning towards the fast moving zombie. The movies 28 Days Later and Zombieland, and video game Left 4 Dead are good examples of this. Those tap into the fear modern society has for global epidemics like SARS and avian flu, as well as the sense that pathogens are more plausible causes of zombification than reanimated dead. But the Dead Rising franchise (I haven't played the first one though) pays strong homage to the traditional shambling zombie, as made a significant cultural icon by George Romero's film classic Dawn of the Dead. You see, Romero was a genius in using the old-school zombie as a metaphor for American brain-deadism towards greed and consumerism.

Capcom extends this message to Dead Rising 2's nonsensical plot. A disgraced stunt motocross racer Chuck Greene has to save his infected-but-not-yet-turned daughter by searching the Las Vegas complex for medication. On his journey, he'll encounter all sorts of strange characters, some good but mostly psychotic and evil. The zombie apocalypse has somehow either let loose mental patients from a nearby asylum or made "perfectly ordinary" American citizens crack. Like a mall cop who hangs looters. Or an S&M freak who kidnaps this girl and forces her to marry him so that he can lose his virginity. Capcom is trying to tell us that deep down, most people have a dark side and it takes the destruction of order to bring that out. It is at once frightening and exciting to see what kind of caricature the game is going to throw out next.

Poor design choices in Dead Rising 2

But here's where the game starts to get annoying. All these crazy people are mini-boss encounters spread out across the complex, to be approached via side quests, stumbled upon, or avoided like the plague. After the first two or three mini-bosses, I gave up on confronting them at all. Why? They are ridiculously the hardest parts of the game, to the point of being infuriating. All of them move at lightning speed, even the obese characters, and one hit from their weapons takes half your life out. You either have to spam healing or learn a dodge skill.

The problem with this is that the dodge skill is taught at too high a level meaning for 90% of the game, you're stuck. You will most likely die often before you get the hang of fighting some of these ridiculous bosses, especially the ones with ranged weapons (how can you fight flamethrowers when you have to get close to hit them on the head?!?). You either have to train harder, killing zombies to gain XP or just avoid them completely.

This is what I mean when I say Dead Rising 2 is bipolar. It introduces a game that starts of as good ol' fun, hacking away at zombies and wearing leotards or kids' pajamas, but then Capcom throws in these unnecessary bosses that make the game deadly serious. Also, the main plotline is a strict linear progression whereas side quests and player leveling is non-linear. This can lead to a player's inability to continue if they can't beat a main plotline boss because they haven't leveled up enough. Clearly Capcom wants you to be grinding zombies rather than powering through to see how the story unfolds. That's contradictory when you've got a time limit on missions. What do I mean?

The game gives you this enormous and beautifully designed sandbox to play in, a shopping mall worth exploring but instead of letting you take your time to browse, they've imposed a time limit on all the main and side missions. So you spend most of the time rushing to and fro locations just to beat the clock, because failing to complete a main mission in the allotted time means complete and utter game over. You'll have to start back at a save point, and because of the infrequency of toilets (where you save the game) - which I find a design quirk in an otherwise flawless shopping mall, you have a lot of replaying certain parts to do.

And lengthy and unimaginative cutscenes to skip, most of which just have Chuck standing around looking pained and constipated at some crazy bad guy who spouts some lines before you have to fight him/her. The worst part about time limits is that sometimes, you have to wait before you can start the next storyline mission, so you spend about several in-game hours trying to entertain yourself by hacking at more zombies. When we want to take our time, the game speeds up. When we want to get to the next part of the story, the game slows down.

My recommendation? Ditch the time limits and let players get to the next mission whenever they'd like. They'll eventually get there, after playing a few casino games, chowing down on some sushi and playing around in the toy shop. Also, let them save whenever they want. Hell, I can't be backtracking to a restroom each time before I fight a boss miles away. That's not fun.

The only thing that is holding the game together at this point for me, is that I do want to know what happens to Chuck and his daughter at the end, how they get out of it all. But the game seriously tries to do everything in its power to prevent me from wanting to play on. There's this ridiculous boss fight in which you alone are up against a helicopter with a Gatling gun. For about half an hour, I tried shooting at the thing with an M16 or a SAW but that does no damage whatsoever. I eventually figured out that the only way to destroy the helicopter was to throw things at it. As if hand-thrown projectiles do more damage than high velocity rounds.

The story and gameplay become more incredulous towards the end. Just as the military arrive to rescue the survivors' asses, the zombies get affected by some green smoke and turn more violent and harder to kill. Obviously, they wipe out the military column and it's up to Chuck to figure a way out. Why? What's the reasoning behind making the zombies harder suddenly? Now they can spit acid to momentarily paralyze you and when they pounce, you have to get them off with some annoying quicktime events. They also become more resilient to a few blunt thwacks of my baseball bat.

By then, I was already sick of it all. The bright lights in the shopping mall, the never-ending zombies, the slightly annoying jazz muzak and having to trek to and fro the same hallways because you always have to return to the safehouse. I decided it was no longer worth my time, but I sincerely hope Chuck got his sick daughter out and far away from the idiocy of Las Vegas. I think Capcom really captured the feel of America. Loud, brash, annoying, always in decline but never dead. But as a game, it just got really tedious and pointlessly hard.

News: Diablo 3 final class revealed - Demon Hunter

2010-10-23T21:07:00.005+11:00

If hypothetically, Lara Croft had sex with Garrett, which would be hard because the two live in alternate universes and different time periods, but not entirely impossible because Lara Croft does like to do weird stuff with weird artifacts that may lead her to bend space and time... then the child conceived would not be unlike the Demon Hunter, the final class reveal for Diablo 3.

She sounds like her mother, wields two crossbows and likes to spew really punchy one-liners whilst felling plenty of monsters. And she looks like an absolute cliche of a ranger class, but whatever, it's still more Diablo 3. Check below for the reveal trailer which I have to say isn't really that inspiring when the graphics are rather low-fi and a bit cheesy. But meh, Diablo 3.

(I imagine Starcraft fans think exactly as I'm doing now when SC2 came out)

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMZvOcVwtOQ&feature=player_embedded

News: Fallout New Vegas out but not very playable

2010-10-21T12:11:00.004+11:00

Just a quick little post to remind ye good folks that Fallout: New Vegas has finally been released. Fallout 3 was a complete time sink for me, and I consider it one of the greatest massively non-multiplayer non-online role-playing games EVER. And thus I was heavily anticipating this new 'un.

Alas, the game is rife with disappointment. Why?

---

Because it is just so riddled with bugs. People have been reporting different problems, from strange asset disappearances, to failed saved games, falling through floors, and my personal issue, stuttering frame rates. It's not my computer, it can play the damn game on the highest settings, and in fact, at times, it is very smooth. But every so often, the game would crawl to a deathly pace.

Apparently, Nvidia cards are not optimized for this game, or vice versa. Anyway, whatever it is, Obsidian has just punched themselves in the face because they had the same bugginess issue with Alpha Protocol. It's not doing wonders for their rep.

A patch is on the way thankfully. I really do want to get back out in the Wastelands and do me some survivin'. What I've seen so far of the game is pretty good, more of the same perhaps but fun all the same.

Until then, have a gander at this rather creepy and yet oh-so-awesome glitch in the opening minutes of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKIkw3LIoQ&feature=player_embedded

(Courtesy of Rock Paper Shotgun who spotted this first)

Review: Medal of Honor

2010-10-13T21:11:00.015+11:00

Medal of Honor is finally back, and at long last jumping on the modern warfare bandwagon that Call of Duty and Battlefield have long settled into.

Is this the reboot MoH needs to reclaim its title of Best War Shooter Franchise? Read on below the cut.

---

Medal of Honor hones in on Tier 1 Operators, special forces that work high up in the mountains in the Middle East, lethal and silent in their duties. They don't complain about much except the occasional fuck up from command HQ, they grow their beards long because they can, and kick a lot of Taliban butt. And put their lives on the line every single day.

Now for a quick little comparison to the big ol' Modern Warfare 2. I admittedly enjoyed MW2 immensely, but it was bombastic. There was some fictional political drivel about Russia being at it again with the megolomania, and some super hero type military men like Captain Price saving the day. There's even a bit where players fight through the deserted streets of the US, because Infinity Ward smugly prove they can make a game like that. And let's not forget that controversially dumb No Russian airport level.

MoH is far and away removed from that. There's no politics. We know the game's a realistic reflection of the war in the Middle East, but we don't know of any super villains plotting to take over the world. And we certainly don't fight at the White House. It all happens in drab mountain backdrops, secluded camps and the odd town. But that's how the real war out there is being fought. If you're looking for some James Bond sci-fi hyper-tension excitement, you're looking in the wrong place.

It's all about the men, their guns, and the bad guys they have to stay one step ahead of at all times. And certainly, MoH does that pretty damn well. The combat is exciting, the guns fire as they should and you do feel like you are doing your part to save the real world. Danger Close has to be commended, because they've made the game seriously immersive as far as being part of a real military outfit is concerned.

The battle chatter is all there, along with the military mannerisms and protocols, as well as the camaraderie that you will certainly feel a part of. You play 3 different characters (a 4th briefly onboard an apache gunship) as part of 2 special forces units and 1 Ranger unit. Unlike the larger than life antics of Captain Price, Ghost, and Soap McTavish in that Modern Warfare game; Dusty, Preacher, Voodoo, Mother, Sgt. Patterson, etc. from MoH all feel like real men. They are world-weary, battle-hardened and ready to get the job done, but at the same time, they too could die at any time. No heroics, or risk-taking, everything they do is measured and calculated.

You could put Modern Warfare at one end of the realism spectrum (i.e. not very) and something like Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault at the other end (i.e. hyper-realistic). Then you've got MoH which straddles the two quite well, a game that's got the fun and excitement of a triple A title and also the storyline and concept of a military simulation. It's the kinda' game that I personally enjoy because I want to be immersed in military realism; constantly hearing all that "Oscar Mike" jargon, crouched in a bush for hours at end doing jack all except staring at some enemy positions, and short bursts of tense gunfight. No bullshit. The game also respects mortality, men aren't dying left right and center, instead there is a strong sense that everybody is fighting for their lives, always one hair's breath away from death. And if they do die, it's a tragic moment rather than a narrative gimmick.

But I'm wary that as a game, MoH lacks variation that most gamers nowadays crave - the environments are all pretty much the same - hills, mountains, rocks, valleys, early on there are some encampments and an airbase but yeah, mostly mountains, rocks and valleys. Also, MoH falls short in terms of mature game design - it feels like a corridor shooter, and it's a big pet peeve for me. The game shuttles you along these samey environments, occasionally stopping behind conveniently placed cover to take shots at enemies before moving on.

Technologically and graphically, MoH lacks polish. Enemies pop up from set spawn points. I saw them do it right before my eyes once when I ran too far ahead of the game's expectations of my actions. Also, there's the occasional clipping, people seem to be floating rather than running and enemy death animations are awkward. The textures are quite low which is a surprise considering it is running on Dice's (of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 fame) modified Frostbite Engine. It's not all bad, the large expansive scenery looks positively harsh, the character models look mostly badass, and there's nice shiny HDR lighting with glare and dust thrown in. But in comparison with Battlefield and MW, MoH may be the weakest of the lot.

But the worst thing about the game in my opinion, is that the whole thing feels like an on-rails documentary. What do I mean? Occasionally, the controls like to be taken away from you - whether it's to jump on the back of a vehicle, or the game wants you to walk instead of run a certain part, and let scripted moments play out whether you like it or not. To me, I'd want to be totally immersed in the role of a badass Tier 1 guy, but I can't do this if every once in awhile, I can lift my hands from the keyboard and watch the computer take over. Also there is little to no sense of player agency. You have to run along a set path, there is the occasional alternative, but otherwise you go where your superiors tell you, you shoot what they tell you to shoot and you remain mute as your character.

This is why I mean it feels like a documentary. You're there alongside the others, but you can't fully get into character. Danger Close has created a barrier between gamer and game, whether for better or for worse. By all means, the game makes you feel like part of the team - the other guys call out to you a lot, ask you to take point or carry out special tasks (they always do, even in Modern Warfare) and save your ass when it gets knocked down (as part of the narrative) - but there's a nagging feeling at the back of my mind that I'm just tagging along with these other cool dudes, just there to appreciate their valor, their bravery, and their hard work. But appreciate you will. If even half of these levels you play are realistic recreations of missions real special forces carry out, you'll have to applaud the amazing nature of these warriors' work. The realism trumps Modern Warfare's incredulousness any day.

Sound is actually very good. As I said before, battle-chatter is top-notch, the sound of bullets pinging close to your head is scary but most importantly, the music is emotionally rousing. As you climb that hill to victory or wait for death to close in on you, the music makes you feel like beating your chest. I have no other way to describe it except that it works. They even have some hardcore rock music playing as you rain death down from an apache. Awesome.

If you look past its flaws, the game's got heart. As I said before, the characters you spend the entire game hanging out with are great and the dialogue is well-written. You feel like they are a bunch who you could imagine knocking back a few beers with and tossing around the old pigskin during peace time. And that's important, a sense that these are real people thrown into extraordinary situations, and that they too can die at anytime. And you don't want them to. It makes moments in the game a lot more tense, especially when the narrative makes you feel outnumbered and outgunned. Unlike Captain Price and Soap McTavish who are really bulletproof, and the trick for you is to hide behind them at all times because you know they'll never be killed off. They are Modern Warfare's celebrity superstars.

So should you get this game? Perhaps, if you know what you want. Its multiplayer offering is average at best in comparison to what's out on the market already, and the single-player is not perfect. Medal of Honor probably won't win any awards, certainly not Game of the Year, but it is a decent showing from a new developer that has presented an unfinished, tragic war in a respectful, uncontroversial, and yet mostly entertaining manner. It's not about the conflicts between nations, it's not even about evil villains, it's just about the men and women on the battlefield keeping the enemy at bay, protecting the innocent. Yes, Medal of Honor is back in a good way. And if Danger Close learns from this game's mistakes, I'm looking forward to what they'll bring out in the future.

Review: Left 4 Dead - The Sacrifice DLC

2010-10-07T15:41:00.009+11:00

I finally had a go with Left 4 Dead's new DLC The Sacrifice. Is it AWSUM?!?

---

But wait! I realized I didn't do a review of Left 4 Dead 2 when it came out, nor its DLC The Passing. So I'll probably mention those "in passing" (LOLOL) as it does have a very strong relation to The Sacrifice.

For those that don't know, The Sacrifice and The Passing are narratively interesting in that they happen in chronological order and ends with the survivors of L4D2 briefly meeting the survivors of L4D. It isn't a hug and kiss moment though, in fact, when the survivors of L4D2 chance upon the three remaining L4D survivors near the end of The Passing campaign, the mood is somber. And with good reason, Bill is dead forever. Yes, I just spoiled the story, but you should've read the splendid comics by now.

Anyway, when you play L4D2's DLC The Passing, you see Bill's corpse propped up against a generator after having taken on three tanks to save the others. The comics play that moment up with such emotional power that I couldn't help but tear. But the exciting thing about L4D's DLC The Sacrifice is that you get to play out that very moment - but instead of it being Bill, anyone in your team can play the sacrificial hero.

But I'll get to that later. First, how is the The Sacrifice's gameplay? Well, it's pretty much just more of Left 4 Dead, which isn't a problem because more zombie shooting is always welcome. And Valve's got the visceral combat and cooperative mechanics refined to a T, so I don't have to go into that now.

Though disappointingly, it appears they mostly reused current game assets, rejumbling them to form a new, albeit linear map. This time you're fighting close to a port, with abandoned ships, back alleys, and warehouses. Nothing really spectacular and nothing we've not seen before. There's a bit early on where you have to prepare before opening a derailed train door to release a trapped tank who'll quickly reduce you to pulp. And another tense moment slowly climbing a hill to a narrow bridge to board a ship with infected snapping at your heels. Other than those highlights and the finale, the DLC's a breeze to play through.

The final of three maps in the DLC is where things start to get interesting. There's a bridge to escape on, so you have to power up three generators scattered across a little street area to get it started (I still don't see why the generators are spread far apart), and each time you power one up, it sends a horde of infected and one tank. All those are relatively easy to deal with for veteran survivors, just hold up in a corner and set canisters alight or throw molotovs.

But the Director does get sneaky and occasionally brings out the tank before the horde. Anyway, after you've powered the generators and get on the bridge, you can't breathe easy because the bridge stops half-way and three tanks appear for epic destruction. One person needs to get off the bridge and power the faulty generator (it always is) back on so as to let the others escape, and if someone doesn't do it soon, the three tanks will pulverize everybody.

It's a frenetic chaotic moment that requires the utmost coordination because even the person who has to leg it to the generator has to contend with hordes and the three tanks on his or her way there. So the other three survivors on the bridge has to defend them. Also, I must add that the finale cannot be completed without at least two survivors. Obviously, otherwise the sacrifice mechanic fails.

My problem with all this is that it's not epic enough. Like I said, the comics showed Bill's sacrifice with such heart-moving images that I imagined the sacrifice in-game to be ten times as rousing. Hans Zimmer or Michael Giacchano employed to provide some tear-jerking strings as the chosen martyr cuts through ashen gray monsters, life flashing before their eyes as they say one last goodbye to their teammates, saves them and then blackout.

But no. Instead, a sign pops up that says "looks like this is a one-way trip", you reach the generator, there's a quick victory cut-scene and it's over. You don't even get to see the remaining survivors boat away to the island as in the comic. Lameness.

Sure it's free and all, but owners of L4D are getting the short end of the deal in comparison to those with L4D2's The Passing. The latter has far more interesting level design, meandering mazes of apartment buildings and streets, storm effects added to confuse survivors, a near pitch-black sewer for a gauntlet, new weapons like the M60 and a new infected type. As well as the fact L4D2 survivors get to interact with the L4D survivors for a brief moment at the end, whereas L4D survivors have to play alone. It also seems that the journey for our favorite survivors Zoey, Francis and Louis has come to an end at the island, whereas I'm sure we'll be hearing from Ellis, Coach, Rochelle, and Nick again sometime in the indefinite future.

Anyhoo, there isn't much to complain about when the DLC is free. It's just a little underwhelming as compared to the hype. If it's any consolation, I've always preferred L4D over its sequel. I like the simplicity of gameplay, maps, and there isn't a glut of firepower or the annoyance of melee weapons to choose from. The focus is on survival plain and simple, and the constantly dark setting makes it all the more bleak and tense. Day time just ain't as freaky, and frankly, I like the original cast of L4D better than the wise-cracking, Southern-tooting L4D2 peeps.

R.I.P Bill.

News: New DLCs for Left 4 Deads

2010-10-05T14:27:00.007+11:00

I haven't played Left 4 Dead in a long while because I wrote a crazy 8k word thesis on it at the start of the year and subsequently grew sick of the game. Which is unfair to Valve because they have been working hard at releasing new content for both L4D and L4D2. As well as making a nice online graphic novel for our viewing pleasure.

So I am going back to L4D and L4D2 as Valve is releasing simultaneous DLCs for both today! October 5th! Yay! Will tell you how they fare in due time. Until then, get on Steam and download it yerself or check out the trailer below for L4D's DLC: The Sacrifice in which one member of your hardened zombie surviving crew will face permanent and irreversible and surely emotionally charged death.

As for L4D2, they are churning out a port of L4D's No Mercy campaign. For what reason they are doing this, I am unsure, but I'm willing to bet there'll be new content to have fun with. So I'll go have a look-see and report back.

---

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/705508.html

News: Changes afoot on Junch's Gaming Bites

2010-10-05T13:34:00.003+11:00

I don't talk about myself much on this blog, and for good reason too. Who cares about me when people want to know about video games. But bear with me as I go on a personal rant, it's games-related, I promise.

---

For those who don't know, I've returned to Singapore. Looking for a job is the next necessary stage in my life and as has been evident, opportunities are better for me here than in Melbourne. To cut a long story short, in my first week back I've managed to land a job, and it's with Razer.

How kickass is that? I always thought I was going to end up working in some PR agency or at a bank and the tiring hours would mean less time to play video games, let alone write about it. But now I've landed a dream job as a copywriter at a company in the games industry, and an awesome one to boot, I swear to you I'll be playing games more fervently and writing about them more hardcore than ever.

Also, you should all buy Razer products. Amazing stuff. Just saying.

News: Videos! Glorious videos!

2010-09-28T18:56:00.003+10:00

Yes folks, it's that time of the month again when I get lazy to write and instead post trailers and gameplay videos to get you excited. This time round, we've got footage from Bioshock: Infinite, Bulletstorm, and a nifty trailer for a fan-made Half-Life animated short. All below the cut.

In other news, I'm playing Dead Rising 2, and it's pretty good fun. The first I've had in a long while.

---

Bioshock: Infinite

The blogosphere was ablaze when Bioshock Infinite was first announced. The naysayers were all over the fact that Infinite was no longer doing the underwater thing, and Rapture was bye-bye. There are always going to be people who are unaccepting of change to their favorite game's sequels. Diablo 3 had crazy fools going apeshit over a change of lighting of all things, whilst Resident Evil 4 got flak for making the zombies look really not zombie-like. That game went on to win plenty of critics' hearts and minds. 2K's other big title in development, X-Com also got dissenters for the fact the reboot was a first-person shooter as opposed to turn-based strategy as the original X-Com was. We can't please everybody it seems.

My personal say in this is to trust 2K. They've never let us down before and I'm willing to bet the reason they can take the risk to make Infinite an entirely different setting and concept is because they've got some great ideas to follow through on. Besides, in my mind, Rapture is already like Atlantis, fully returned to the ocean, a reminder that humanity's attempt to escape the elements and reality has failed.

And, anyone still unconvinced of Infinite's awesomeness should just watch this gameplay video. The sheer scale of the world is mind-blowing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fDEA0BFSM&feature=player_embedded

Bulletstorm

I felt somewhat wronged when Epic never got their entire Gears of War trilogy on the PC. I'm a bit sulky about that, but Bulletstorm looks great. It's like Serious Sam with more serious attitude, more serious graphics, and more serious firepower. And definitely more serious comedy. I also quite like this sense of organic juggling of weaponry and skills.

Enemies will keep coming and it's up to you how you want to take them out. You could just shoot conventionally and they die, or you could lasso one, kick him in the butt, shoot a bouncing cannon ball, and kick that at enemies, etc. The possibilities for combos are endless, and that's what the game seems to be going for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRbzUtlvdDk&feature=player_embedded

Unofficial fan-made Half-Life animated film trailer

Everyone wants to make this film. I think Valve has something planned too (they should be concentrating on making Episode 3!!!), but this guy beat them to the punch. It looks pretty good, and definitely something he's put effort into crafting, not just graphically but narratively. Whatever it is, the trailer's good fun. Looking forward to the final product.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm5sEaC5tBA&feature=player_embedded

Thinky stuff: Mafia 2 - wasted opportunity

2010-09-24T21:14:00.006+10:00

Mafia 2 could've been a far better game if 2K Czech ditched the American gangster story for something completely fresh and different. I've thought about this a little deeper because it would be unfair to discount the devs who clearly put effort into this otherwise abysmal sequel.

Hear me out.

---

I've talked a fair bit already about my disappointment for Mafia 2's story. It's cliched and the protagonist remains largely unidentifiable. I'm also sick of the American gangster's story because that's all we ever get i.e. The Departed, American Gangster, Godfather, Mario Puzo's works, etc.

Then I also read a recent article about the new World War 2 RTS Ruse. The writer of this article considered it a wasted opportunity for the French devs of Ruse, Eugen Systems to make a war game from the American perspective because once again, that's already beaten to death. They could've instead dug deep into their own national history and done a story about the French resistance. Granted, it wouldn't have been as popular or accessible as the American story, but heck, it'd be something different.

They had an opportunity to expand our knowledge of a war that, in my mind, has been overused in video games to the point that it has lost its awesome mythical quality (and why everybody is now jumping on the modern warfare bandwagon). But I don't want to get into that debate right now. Anyway, if you're interested to read the article in its entirety, click here.

But my point is, in bringing up this Ruse story, 2K Czech should've also delved into their own history to tell a Czechian gangster story. And why not? Granted, the Czechian story may not be as peachy, shiny or as "Fergetaboutit" as the American Italian's, but brutality and grittiness worked well for Australian crime TV Underbelly and Russian mob film Eastern Promises. And the fact that very few gamers, other than perhaps Czechian ones or historians, know much about a mobster's life in the Czech Republic, I think that's good enough justification to tell a new story.

There's this funny story I was reading in the UK Daily Mail about Czechian mobs setting up sham weddings in order to beat immigration in Eastern Europe. We could have a mission in Czechian Mafia 2 where that was exactly what was happening - a sham wedding. It would be hilarious if the script was written right and then suddenly the cops bust down the church doors to break it up, and then it's shootfest that'll go down well with trigger-happy gamers.

The games industry is problematic in that it is, for now, still driven by sales, at which point, you either go indie or pander to the desires of everybody. Why doesn't anybody write a video game about being a citizen in North Korea trying to escape across the border? You can still have violence and gun play but at least that's a new story no one's ever told.

It's always the same archetypal heroes; people want their Anglo-centric Nathan Drakes and Prince of Persias with their sarcastic-slightly-cocky-attitudes-but-deep-down-are-nice-guys or the Vitos and the Scarlettis with their "Fergetaboutit" accents. And not the dirt farmer from outside Prague with 5 kids and a sick wife, who gets tangled with the wrong people in his attempt to earn a living for his family. Now THAT'S a mob story I'd like to play.

News: Alice - Madness Returns

2010-09-17T11:32:00.003+10:00

American McGee's Alice was a trippy, freakish take on the well-loved classic, and if people thought Tim Burton's 2010 reboot was psychedelic, they've not played McGee's game. And now the sequel Madness Returns is on its way out in 2011 promising to be darker, more horrific, and sexier than ever.

Crazy people sure have all the fun. You can watch the teaser trailer, read the official press release and gander at some juicy shots when you jump down the rabbit hole.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUmLstbaK-g

Eleven years ago a horrific fire took Alice’s family from her and left her terribly burned—and her mind terribly scarred. Afterwards she was confined to Rutledge Asylum, struggling to come to terms with her demons by slipping into her fantasy world of Wonderland. Now, after ten years, she has finally secured her release--yet she still bears the heavy psychological burden of that tragic event.
In Alice: Madness Returns, Alice is released from the asylum to a London psychiatrist’s care. As nightmarish hallucinations continue to haunt her and invade her reality, she seeks to understand her torment in order to recover herself. Her mind in tatters, she is unable to resolve the fear and neuroses prompted by her strange memories, dreams, and visions. Her relocation to London seems only to add to their number and intensity.
Perhaps she’ll do better in Wonderland. She always has. She travels there, seeking what the “real” world can’t provide: security, knowledge, and the truth about the past. But in her absence, Wonderland too has suffered. Something has gone horribly wrong, and now a great evil is descending upon what once was her beautiful refuge.
Can Alice save Wonderland—and herself—from the madness that consumes them both?

Now for some concept art and screenshots:

You can check out more stuff on the official website here.

News: The Sacrifice comic part 1

2010-09-16T12:26:00.004+10:00

Valve is being cool again, shucks. They are giving us a free comic to enjoy.

You know how they promised a new DLC for Left 4 Dead (not number 2) eons ago? Well they are still planning to get that to us, The Sacrifice, which follows the original survivors up till and after one of the members die PERMANENTLY. For those of us who've invested a lot of emotional and gaming energy in L4D (as I have, writing my academic thesis on the game), the death of a well-loved character can be quite saddening.

I know, characters die all the time in video games but Valve manages to make theirs all that more real and identifiable. And this comic promises to do the same.

Part 1 is up. Explains what happened to the survivors after they get picked up by the APC at the end of Dead Harvest (the farmhouse level). Click here.

---

Thinky stuff: Narrative is top dog

2010-09-14T12:32:00.005+10:00

I was being a bit cynical and daft when I wrote two posts ago about how video game storytelling sucks! I still stand by my belief that conventional forms of plot and narratives are horrifically juxtaposed with the play element of those new titles mentioned.

But I cannot consider myself a gaming enthusiast if I didn't think about this a little harder. There are a lot of arguments to counter what I said in that post, a whole lot of them much more respectful of the notion of video games, and what they have to offer as a form of expression, separate from other mediums.

I guess I've lost my way a little in understanding games deeper than the flashbang of shiny graphics and exciting gun play. So I had a chat with a good friend, Dr. Thomas Apperley who is a lecturer at the University of New England in Australia. I've transcribed our discussion below as if it were a faux Socratic dialogue.

Read on if you want some truth bombs on gaming as a form of narrative.

---

Me: I stand by my point that the latest video games out there have really bad storytelling. I know you're all like "meh, storytelling is not the point of games" but man, I'm so sick of playing something that doesn't compel me on.

Tom: If you are playing video games for the story you have missed the point. That doesn't mean games should be allowed bad stories though.

Me: I think it depends on how some video games are sold to audiences. Take Mafia 2 for instance. You can't go into that title without expecting a damn good "Godfather"-like plot. Of course, how it plays is important too but that is an example of a game that is married heavily to its story. It's no Mario, where you can just go, "Okay, I don't really care that Bowser's kidnapped the princess. I've got to go eat me some stars."

Tom: Yep.

Me: So I guess my point is, games that want to act like they've got a really important story to tell should tell a damn important story. Like Assassin's Creed 2, that game may have played well (although certain parts were unnecessarily pointless), but the story could've been a whole lot better.

Tom: It doesn't have to be a conflict, story vs gameplay. Think instead of gameplay as a mode of telling stories that has yet to be realized (fully).

Me: OMG I'm such a dumbass. You're right, I've been so caught up in storytelling as a completely separate element. This is like Gaming 101.

Tom: Right, people always tell stories. And storytelling adapt to the medium. But we've been very busy imposing current ideas about stories onto games which doesn't acknowledge the moves [games] have made towards being their own medium of communication.

Me: I feel stupid LOL. That's the fundamental point isn't it? It's because games exist as a separate medium, from the conventions we already know for storytelling through film, TV, books.

Tom: Yeah, games can use normative forms of storytelling but sometimes it doesn't work. It doesn't drive the game forward; think of gaming as de-hierarchizing narratives and foregrounding action.

Me: This is new. "De-hierarchizing". So what you're saying is narratives as not conventionally told.

Tom: Narrative is top dog. But in games, narrative is tied up with a bunch of other stuff. Or even deliberately suggested, e.g. multiplayer shooters. No narrative needed. Just weapons and environments.

Me: Or you could say the narrative is the whole "war story" in which you are placed.

Tom: Yep, the narrative is the world.

Me: Okay, then here's an interesting thing to consider. Kane & Lynch 2, a story about a bunch of gangster dudes causing a riot in Shanghai. I guess I'd LIKE there to be a plot other than just two guys who keep getting caught up in shit and having to shoot everybody that moves. But that's a kind of storytelling too right? It goes in line with the action which is all about running from one level to the next, and shooting things. But it fails only because the action is unvaried, therefore the plot is unvaried.

Tom: Right, but that sounds like a design flaw too.

Me: Yeah, exactly. Which is why Kane & Lynch 2 reviewed poorly amongst critics.

Tom: Because it's a poorly designed game.

Me: That, and also because the story really does suck. Okay, if I were to throw this ball out of left-field, what would you say is the best storytelling in a game you've seen in the last couple of years?

Tom: Half-Life 2, KotOR, Mass Effect, Bioshock...

Me: I would be most inclined to say that out of all those titles you've mentioned, Bioshock does it best. The first three compel a player to keep playing because of the immersive world, characters, and everything. Bioshock at first glance, does the same with Rapture. But there is that meta-narrative about "players playing video games and being blind sheep" that blows my mind. Which is why it's kind of a shame that Bioshock 2 didn't have anything new or profound to say. But then again, we can't expect it to pull as epic a concept as the first game.

Tom: How could it? The joke was revealed.

Me: Yeah exactly. But my point is, are there other jokes still to be told?

Tom: Sure, man.

Me: Just our brains are not as capable as Ken Levine's LOL.

In conclusion, I think a lot of gamers take for granted, as I have done, the capability for video games to combine interactivity with storytelling. Which is why Starcraft 2 is not about some dude who is trying to save the galaxy. The narrative is about your Protoss play, the strategies you employ, or my Zerg rush or how I won despite being outnumbered and outgunned. Just as Left 4 Dead is about everyone's personal horror story with zombies, with teammates, or how you survived a crazy onslaught at some shopping mall just a hair's breath away from death.

In other news, if you like what Tom spoke about up there, he's written a whole book on video games which is available for download here.

TOD #6: Gaming Rhythms: Play and Counterplay from the Situated to the Global by Dr. Thomas Apperley. I command you to read it, you'll learn something.

News: Dead Space 2 coop multiplayer trailer

2010-09-12T10:45:00.004+10:00

In space, no one can hear you hang out with your buddies.

Dead Space 2 has a new trailer (under the cut) showing off some splendiferous 4-player cooperative romp through an alien-infested space place (they always are infested, aren't they?). Reminds me a bit of Alien Swarm (recent Valve remake) 'cept in third-person, shinier graphics and featuring power tools as opposed to your standard military arsenal. Looks fun.

I like that the trend is shifting towards making cooperative experiences part and parcel with plenty more video games. It's no longer just some inaccessible mod. Everyone can play together now, yay!

---

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/704322.html

News: First Person GTA is better than No Person

2010-09-10T11:54:00.004+10:00

As you know, I'm a big fan of GTA. Number 4 especially. But what's cooler than shooting people, stealing cars and cruising round a big city in third person? Doing all that in first!

Some modder turned Rockstar's masterpiece into a first person romp, and it works very well from the looks of the Youtube clip (posted after the jump).

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Hm4K5_Pr0&feature=player_embedded

Driving will probably be harder in first person, but heck, anything to increase immersion is stellar in my books.

Thinky Stuff: Video games storytelling sucks!

2010-09-08T09:46:00.011+10:00

I'm having a crisis of faith in video games.

Yes, I have not blogged for a month, but let me explain.

1. I just graduated from university.
2. I've been caught up with looking for jobs
3. I've been writing
4. Making a short film
5. The games that have come out of late has sucked real bad

Wait, what was that last one again?

That's right, you heard me, the games that have come out of late SUCKS.

---

Kane & Lynch 2 disappointed me so much. I confess I must've gone nuts when I set hands on the demo. In demo form, the hyper-tension of action setpieces were thrilling, and the gaming world hadn't seen anything so brutal in a long time. But the game in its entirety is a farce; born of stupidity, tactlessness and little care for a well-written story. It's just one endless violent ride with no respite. And it is so grim I don't feel like I'm having fun playing at all. Kane and Lynch just keep getting into "Oh f*ck" moments, people just keep wanting to kill them. The shooting works fine for awhile and then it just goes on without stopping or having any variation.

Starcraft 2 is for the drones. Sure, the fanatics will say it is a return to form for Blizzard and all that hyper clicking will not only improve finger dexterity for other uses in real life, but truly we just like old Starcraft but need new graphics for it. I'm fine with all that hullabaloo but when Blizzard pours gazillions of dollars into this epic video game that will make them even more money (because of South Korea alone), they could have at least written a story to blow the mind. Instead, we have a dull story about a dull captain trying to save a dull universe. And man, is the dialogue horrific.

Mafia 2. I wanted very much to like this game. The first was stellar, a contrast to GTA back when GTA was still lame-brained. But now Rockstar has produced a classic in Red Dead Redemption and Mafia 2 in comparison is a regression. The protagonist is horribly unidentifiable: he only wants shortcuts in life, has no qualms about doing bad deeds and looks too stupid to be really heroic, and it's a cliched story if I saw any. A man trying to make it but comes to terms with the dark underbelly that is the American gangster way. And ohmygawd, have developers not learnt that no one wants to spend half the game chauffeuring themselves or other people around, especially not in old automobile rustbuckets. And as shiny as the cutscenes are, they are really quite empty of any real revelations or profound stories.

I think the underlying problem with all these latest releases is that none of them have a story that really matters. I know that games should first and foremost be about the gaming as opposed to the storytelling, but as a writer myself, I believe that the most compelling games (outside of Mario and Tetris) are the ones that can move you with a plot and characters.

If we want video games to get out of loserdom (I just watched Glee) and join the popular kids TV, film, and music, they've got to keep up their interactive qualities but also strive for excellence in storytelling. A bad story ruins the illusion, a bad story doesn't keep us playing. That's all.

Peace out.

Review: FEAR 2

2010-07-30T00:43:00.007+10:00

I said I wasn't going to talk about FEAR 2, but then I thought I should talk about it because even bad games need to be talked about.

So here is my talking about why this is a game you should not play.

---

Monolith, oh Monolith. They stumbled onto something great with the original FEAR. Influenced by Japanese horror, stole Matrix's Bullet-time, packed in a decent shooter, they had a recipe for something exciting. Shooting enemies in slow motion and every once in awhile being freaked by a little girl with overtly long hair was pretty fun. But then after the tenth non-descript corridor, and the billionth faceless drone enemy, it got boring. I didn't even finish the game.

So here we are with the sequel, and Monolith try shaking up the formula by letting us play in environments other than offices; such as schools, underground labs, the subway, and even open outside in the city. But the thing is, they never hide the illusion of a corridor well enough; eventually I still felt like I was being shuttled from A to B. But that's not the worst thing about the level design. It was that, although we were being subjected to "familiar" locales such as a school, I got the feeling whoever built these places are lousy architects.

Schools and hospitals shouldn't be winding labyrinths. I would imagine they'd be rather straight-forward, easily accessible, and uniform on all levels. Instead, it was all over the place, unnecessary rooms, stupidly long corridors, and mega complexes that would have been unrealistic to build in the real world - it broke the illusion of immersion and was just an excuse for Monolith to unnecessarily prolong the game.

This ties to the next bad thing. Most of the game was about finding keys in these mazes, unlocking doors so that we could get to the next part. There was no real plot development. It's just: shit hit the fan real bad, and we have to go from one place to the next just because, and then only realize towards the end that we should have gotten rid of the evil child-woman in the first place, so that there won't be no more shit.

Okay, so there's this other woman you and your squad are supposed to protect, she's the one causing all this shit in the first place, but there are these black ops folk who are out to get her. On top of that, evil child-woman wants to kill everybody and have sex with you. Got that? If not, it doesn't really matter because as long as you know how to shoot and which is the slow-down-time button, you can get through it just fine without doing your head in too much.

Monolith also does a mega pet peeve of mine (which I wrote about awhile back here): and that is starting you off with a squad of friends who are destined to die horrible deaths instantly, thereby leaving you hopelessly alone. Why give us friends who are of no use and will die anyway? And why don't you succumb to the hypnotic powers of the evil child-woman in the same way the others do? And why can't I stop my friends from dying? You have to stand there and watch them degrade into a heap of dead. At least Monolith made them a little cool before they died. I give them a gold star for that.

But let's talk about gameplay because this is a game after all. Well, as a game, it was too easy. Slow-motion just makes me overpowered. Granted, when I didn't have it, the enemies had a good fighting chance, especially as they were rather accurate shots, but the slow-motion power rarely runs out long enough for the baddies to overwhelm.

Why do all shooters nowadays feel the need to put in some extra gimmick ability so that it doesn't become just "another stupid shooter"? Gimmicks unless implemented and designed with the utmost care, STILL makes it a stupid shooter. Singularity had the same problem pretty much.

How's the shooting though? It's decent enough. The devs have much experience with the first FEAR, its expansions, as well as Condemned. But it still felt too floaty, not enough kick. Even the shotgun felt like a peashooter to be honest. Just because things died in slow-motion and blood, guts got everywhere, doesn't make the violence punchy. And after you've exploded the fiftieth head with a sniper rifle, you are kind of anesthetized to the gore effects. Oh, and I forgot to mention that like the first game, you're shooting a bunch of faceless drones again. And Monolith throws so many at you that I just get sick of the lack of variety.

Here's the crap icing on the crap cake though, and the last I shall talk about FEAR 2 because unfortunately, other than shiny graphics, this game has no redeemable qualities. The ending is utter drivel too, with not even a final boss fight to cap the absurd narrative that deliberately sets up for a third part (which is in the works, boys and girls).

So yes, the last crap thing about the game: it's not scary. FEAR 1 was spooky and a fresh experience for us, seeing this little girl screw with your mind. Frightening hallucinations, corpses, apparitions, pools of blood. There's less of that in this game, and what there is, it just looks like a big farce. Strange tentacled things coming out of the ground to take my friends away? Not scary. Glimpses of ghostly white things floating about? Not scary. Unfortunately, it feels like Monolith didn't make any attempt to pull out all the stops with the psychological fear. Not even a little pee in my pants. A shame as they got it right before with Condemned.

Also, evil child-woman likes to jump out at you when she feels like it. When she does though, I'm more annoyed than scared as there are these quick-time button-mashing that ensue to free yourself from her grasp. The only time it ever got creepy was when making your way through the underground lab with these wall-crawlers that can attack you from anywhere, anytime. But a little slow-motion handled that problem too. Ergo not scary anymore.

Unfortunately, Monolith is already hard at work with FEAR 3. God knows why they haven't realized how brain-dead this IP has gotten. Apparently, they plan to shake up the game once more by adding cooperative play. So now a friend can be bored alongside you.

You know what Monolith SHOULD do? Heard or seen the horror shaky-cam movie series Rec (and its sequel)? Also remade by Hollywood into a film called Quarantine? Well, I love that series like mad and although Monolith have done poorly with FEAR, I believe the devs do one thing well and that is create freaky atmosphere. So to redeem themselves from this charade, they should do a game tie-in for Rec.

Its got almost the same things as FEAR anyway. Corridors, scary possessed little girls, squads destined to die horribly, and shooting. Just take out the slow-motion, add zombies and make it freakishly claustrophobic. I'd pay good money to play THAT. Although it's got most of the same things as FEAR, why Rec the Game would be BETTER is because Monolith won't be writing the script (ooh, burn).

Also the horror of Rec derives from how close you are to the nightmare, how helpless the soldiers/survivors feel, and most importantly how under-informed the audience is about the mystery. FEAR 3 needs to do all that if it wants a fighting chance. But I don't see that happening when Monolith is aiming for something more bombastic and a second player thrown into the mix.

Oh yeah, so that sex thing I bolded earlier. You totally were not imagining it. It's like the p*nis flashing at the end of Fight Club. I really meant what I wrote. Why did I write that? Because at the end of the game, evil child-woman has sex with you and you impregnate her with evil new child. Gross? Totally. So that's why there's FEAR 3. Annoyed face.

Now Playing: Kane and Lynch 2 Demo out now

2010-07-28T13:57:00.004+10:00

Hello one and all. It's been awhile since I properly blogged. To be honest, there isn't enough interesting going on right now (notice how I'm not talking about Starcraft 2 because everyone else is, even though I agree, it's a pretty cool game which I am playing right now). I also just finished FEAR 2 which I am not going to write a review of because there is only one thing I can say about it - it's a waste of time.

I'm here to talk about something worth talking about, which is the demo of the upcoming Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days.

First of all, get it here on Steam.

Then read my words on it. I implore you to.

---

I never liked the first 'un. I gave it a try sometime ago, and although it had a pretty cool concept, gritty hardened psycho killers doing bank busts and stuff... the sheer bugginess of the game ruined it. I gave up early on.

But IO Interactive is back to finish the job with a sequel promising to blow people's minds. And boy, has it blown mine.

The demo opens with you sat for mere seconds in a Chinese restaurant before the shit hits the fan, police crawling out of the woodwork and spewing bullets everywhere. The camera is nauseatingly shaky, a rip-off and a good one at that, of modern day gritty action films like the Bourne series. It's so frighteningly close to the action, you'll have intensity coming out of your nostrils.

The most awesome thing was how hard the game was. I played it on medium and died real quickly over and over just by sticking my head out at the wrong times. The cops know how to shoot accurately and you go down real fast. It's the kind of shooter I've been waiting a long time for. The kind where you have to man up, no hand-holding, no arrows pointing you in the right direction, no forgiving health regeneration and the game laughing at you for sucking balls.

The guns have nasty realistic recoil and you spend much of the time sitting tight in cover from the hailstorm of bullets. All of it adds to the immersive grit. Cover works fine, although it could be a little more sticky. It was too easy to come out of cover which is not what you want to do when a bunch of cops are punching holes in the wall to get at you.

You run through some windy back alleys and dinky shops of underworld Shanghai. It's so dark and grimy I felt I needed a wash after I was done playing. No joke. Although I haven't been to China yet and can't say how accurate the setting is, the devs really gave it a strong presence. So graphically, the game is aces. There is even some nifty film grain. As for the back and forth dialogue between Kane and Lynch (who you play this time round), it's as explicitly-laden and gruff as you'd expect from two criminals you wouldn't want to cross paths with. That you can co-op the entire game makes it even more epic. I would describe Kane and Lynch 2 as Time Crisis on steroids, and without retarded protagonists with impossible hair and good looks.

The demo was also kind enough to throw in a multiplayer quick match of one mode - Fragile Alliance. In it, you and everyone else play bad guys on the same team, stealing bags of cash and working together to escape AI cops. But here's the catch, there's an individual leaderboard at the end of the round, so it's the person who survived with the most money that wins. Which means you can also kill your teammates and take their bag of cash. Everyone is free to back-stab and be back-stabbed. It's an interesting dynamic on an otherwise already exciting cooperative cop vs robber experience. The backstabbery is exactly the thing you'd expect from a game like Kane and Lynch, so kudos to the devs for emphasizing it.

The multiplayer's lobby system is fine but I don't know how the devs plan to keep online games lag-free. I hope it'll be like Modern Warfare 2, matching up people with the same connection speeds. I experienced major lag and lengthy load times when I tried multiplayer, and it ended disappointingly with disconnection after a short spurt of fun (it was definitely fun though). But hey, I'm just happy IO Interactive dished out a decent-length demo, and they should polish things anyway before the game's release 19th August.

Definitely a game I'm now eagerly anticipating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fI50l2_0sE&feature=fvst

News: Alien Swarm out now on Steam FREE!!!

2010-07-20T08:34:00.006+10:00

Who doesn't like free games? No one undoubtedly, unless you are a strange person who gets a kick out of throwing money into black holes. But yes, if you do likes free (and good) games, get a load of this:

Valve has been secretly working away at updating Alien Swarm, originally a mod for Unreal Tournament 2k4, to now run in the juicy Source engine (they hired the original Alien Swarm devs to become part of the Valve hive-mind). If you don't know what Alien Swarm is, it's a top-down shooter in which you and your buddies shoot aliens to bits. Simple and fun.

The graphics are now even more delectable. But the fact that it's absolutely free blows the mind. So what are you waiting for? Get it here off Steam. Then call up 3 of your best buddies, go forth and rip those aliens a new one.

See below the cut for two trailers, a before and after shot. Before in the Unreal engine and after in the new, shinier Source engine.

---

First, the original game using the Unreal engine (2006):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfp97y4NccU

Then check THIS OUT. So much pew pew in the Source Engine (2010):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owusWzSppyw

Here's a list of awesome features in the game, because lists are awesome:

Tactical, 4 player co-op action game with a top-down perspective
Complete game code and mod tools
Unlock persistent items by gaining levels
Over 40 weapons and equipment with countless loadout configurations
4 unique classes and 8 unique characters
Matchmaking, Steam Cloud, Steam Stats
64 achievements
Tile-based map generation tool
Powered by Source and Steam

Over 40 weapons?!? A leveling-up system!?? Map generator?!? Free?!? Whaattttt? This sounds too awesome. I think I might press this button HERE to download it.

Thinky stuff: Review scores

2010-06-30T15:09:00.003+10:00

This blog is just a little over a year old. A feat in itself as I've always dropped off interest after a short while, with many of my older blogs. But I love this blog because I get to objectively and honestly talk about the thing I love most, video games.

I've done a number of reviews over the year and hope to keep writing some more, but I've always had trouble giving an objective score. Sometimes my write-up might portray a game in an average to poor light but the score reflects something higher than that. Or so I have been informed by friends a few times.

This is normally what I do with scoring: I compare how the game fares in individual categories (i.e. graphics, gameplay, sound) to other video games like it. But I came to realize that the final score may not even be the best reflection of my opinion on the game. Also, I know there will be those who skip to the end of my review just to see what score I gave it. I'd rather people take the time to read the words I've slaved over which not only shows appreciation for my work, but will do the game justice.

I was reading several interesting articles about review scoring (here, here, and here) and how even the most reputable gaming websites don't use the full 1 - 10 scoring range, instead employing a more skewed-towards-niceness 6 - 10 range. Some see 7/10 as a really decent score, a game still worth playing, although in my mind, that number represents a game that your time should not be wasted on unless there really is nothing else to play. And 6, well that's shite. But it's still confusing though; I never use 1 - 5 because subconsciously, I'm thinking as long as a game is playable, it should get above a 6. Rock Paper Shotgun on the other hand doesn't give scores on their reviews because 1. it's confusing and 2. they believe they aren't the be-all, end-all authority worthy of giving final scores.

Hence, I believe I shall take the same approach from here-on out. If you visit my blog now, you will notice that all my reviews have had their scores removed. I want to encourage people to read my words, and I want to be honest that I am not well-positioned or experienced enough to be giving scores. Furthermore, it takes a huge weight off my shoulders because scoring a game, truly is like making the final word on it. And that's a heck load of responsibility.

You have no idea how many nights I'd worry about the latest games I'd scored, whether or not it was spot on with the game's worth. But all that's over now with this change. I'm glad because it also means my blog is growing in maturity.

Review: Singularity

2010-06-29T15:36:00.016+10:00

The Time Manipulation Device!!!! The Triple-threat Monstrosity Destructomachine!!! Or the TMD for short, is a device that will make a game more super duper than it is!!!!

That's what Raven Software thought when they were done making Wolfenstein and wondering what they should do next. Singularity is that outcome. It's kinda' alright, it's nothing spectacular but its got a nifty glove device that I would totally not use to rule the world.

---

It took my friend one quick look over my shoulder as I played Singularity, to make a genius statement about the game. In that one look, he managed to deduce that the game took all the best shit of other video games and then made you enjoy it all over again, except not nearly as exciting as when you played them the first time round. Here's a list of games that I figured Singularity stole from (and also one TV show):

1. Half-Life 1, 2 + episodes
There's a chick in Singularity that's like a British version of Alyx. There's a massive vortex beaming down some crazy light-show from the sky. And scientists doing something bad to let out some tentacular plant monstrosities from some other dimension. There's also a gravity tool in there that lets you lift barrels and stuff. Your character only ever speaks once. Most of the time, it's like people are talking to a wall. 'Cept, no one does the wall-thing better than Gordon Freeman.

2. Bioshock/Aliens versus Predators/Dead Space
Secretive location where some special experiment stuff is going down? Check. An almost other-world hiding from the rest of humanity? Check. Audio tapes that explains everything to players, thinking that we are seriously giving a shit about what happened to some random people before they got eaten by monsters? Check. Oh yeah, nearly forgot, MONSTERS. Check. Hubs to upgrade weapons and abilities? Check. Weapons and abilities on-the-fly switcheroo? Super duper check.

3. Fear/Killzone
Foot soldier enemies wearing masks and are maybe bio-engineered or not, but definitely soulless, who also get eaten by monsters. Random ally early on that dies immediately unsympathetically.

4. C&C: Red Alert
Dude, the Russians are at it again. Why is it always the Russians messing around where they aren't supposed to? Especially with time. They just have to play around with going back and forth in time don't they? Like they are just so bored with the present. Also, why can't it be like the Africans? Or the Singaporeans? Why do we always have to shoot them Russians? Or Germans? Or North Koreans? Give them a break already.

5. Twin Sector
This is an indie release, so not many may have heard of it, but it's like you use a glove that can manipulate objects through space (AND MAYBE TIME?!? I don't know, never played Twin Sector). Sounds familiar? Oh, I wonder where I put the TMD? Certainly not on my nether regions.

6. Lost
What the f-!!? you exclaim. A TV show is in this!?? Yeah (if you're still watching this kickass series, you may not want to read this next part. Super duper spoiler). There's a seriously mega Lost steal/reference in there to the magic wheel that Linus turns before being puked back into the real world. In Singularity, you can't interact with it, it just sits there at the bottom of some cavern, the wheel half-sticking out glowing. And the whole time travel thing. Although that's not specifically just a Lost steal.

Okay, so Singularity. The premise is simple. Russians have found a fictitious new element called e99 (yeah, I forgot to say: turn off your disbelief) that when harnessed, can control time. But those power-hungry mofos screw things up and rip a rift in time and space itself. So after the bad shit's gone down on a mysterious island that you've stumbled/crash on (Bioshock again), it's your job (it always is) to rectify the problem. And you do so with a device that can occasionally time travel, reverse or increase the age of an object, turn monsters to goo, pick up objects and best of all, make bubbles that near-freeze enemies to a slow-crawl.

The first person shooting works decently. There is some interesting variety of weapons but you'll soon find yourself sticking to one favorite and maxing the shit out of it. For me, that's the chain gun and it sure as hell rips the limbs off humans and monsters alike. There's a lot of combat, and some of the monsters require just a little more thinking and juggling of weaponry and abilities to tackle. But nothing gets pass the time bubble. Let me explain.

The TMD has an assortment of abilities that you can utilize in combat and puzzling. Like aging enemies into dust, a force push thing, and the time bubble. Unfortunately not all abilities are explored to their full potential. I found myself sticking to the time bubble in every combat situation. Basically, you throw one at the ground and enemies caught within its radius move much slower. Like seriously not moving at all. Then all you have to do is walk up to them, shoot some lead into their stationary heads, and walk out. Then when the bubble closes, watch as the enemies flop dead instantly. TOO EASY. I'm just surprised they didn't throw in Prince of Persia's rewind mechanic just to be safe. Imagine: enemies running backwards, bullets going back into guns, except for mine which will still pew pew the enemy dead. It'll look helluva funny.

The devs could have figured out a way to make the other abilities just as fun or encourage their uses more. Aging locks and safes to dust so I can get at the contents, or reverse-aging power outlets so they work again is fine but nothing spectacular after doing it for the hundredth time. Also, make combat more challenging. Sure, enemies take cover and are good shots, but when you give me super powers or a sniper rifle that can actually slow time whilst I'm scoping, or a gun that lets me control a single bullet in flight to hit my targets every time, well then I'm superman.

I do like that they kept with the concept of time throughout the game quite well. You'll be sent into the past without warning, and it's interesting to watch levels that were decrepit in the present return to their former glory. Ghosts become tangible. But most importantly, the story plays with the idea of fate and paradoxes. I don't want to spoil it too much because if I do, then there isn't anything left interesting to compel you to play this game.

There's a twist at the end and MULTIPLE ENDINGS *gasp*. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's another Bioshock thing. However, whereas in Bioshock 2, all the actions you take throughout the game led to one of many possible endings, the ending you get in Singularity is dependent upon just one decision-making sequence. I feel it's a little contrite to have multiple endings if the entire game you've just played up till then has no impact on the ending you get. Just leaving it till the end for you to make your choice is too simplistic, and shows under-appreciation for multiple endings as a concept in video games.

Up to now, I've mentioned how the game's concepts are heavily influenced by Bioshock. If Raven Software really were going to do a Bioshockian adventure though, one thing that they could have developed further, was the intrigue on the island. I was genuinely interested, after I crash landed, to find out more about what the hell was going on. Little bits and pieces are fed to you aurally and visually, but instead of maintaining that sense of intrigue, everything about the island was explained and shown to you soon after. This is so that you can concentrate on shooting things to death and subsequently, the game lost that spark.

One thing I didn't like was how a lot of things felt pointless or left unexplained. Like, I understood that humans mutated because of the time rift, but why were there even more massive alien things? Did they come through a portal? And why were there these glowing tentacles that took over the labs? Or really stupid little critters that ran up to you and exploded. I hated those the most. They were annoyingly hard to kill, I died more against those then an army of super soldiers. I wondered why it was included. It had no link whatsoever to the story or the concept.

The graphics is a plus point. Positively crisp and shiny. You can always count on the Unreal Engine to work wonders in making a game more enjoyable. A B-rate title that was worth a look, because, literally, it looked good. Water is wet, walls are shiny, wood is weathered, and people look great. Kudos to Raven Software for making it work in their favor. It's a shame though that the game doesn't have advanced options to increase the resolution beyond 1280x... or fiddle with some detail sliders. That really sucks.

Voice and sound? Nothing out of the ordinary and too many faux Russian accents spoil the broth. The monsters don't even make any noises, and I'm tired of listening to random audio logs that don't actually teach me anything or really have any purpose in the game world other than "fleshing it out". I heard that Dead Space 2 is shaking up the audio log nonsense, by making VIDEO logs. Also, I would actually LOVE a game where you could uncover more mysteries or truths about a world through active engagement to snoop about. As of now, game devs don't want to take the risk of investing too much time in the side dish if players are going to just pass them by completely. Assassin's Creed 2 have to be commended for making it interesting enough to seek out those hidden glyph things.

My final point is this. The game rips all the best ideas of games before it, but that doesn't make the game any less fun. Granted it's a little brainless, but the shooting is decent enough to pass the time with. And the ending is not too retarded. It made me even go "O-M-G" at one point. But if it weren't for the titular TMD, this game would not be worth anybody's time. As of now, I can only recommend it, if it's lying in a bargain bin somewhere and you're waiting, as I am for something epic on the horizon. But to Raven Software: after Wolfenstein and this, I am confident you are one step closer to making something mind-blowing.

Review: GTA 4 - Episodes from Liberty City

2010-06-25T14:09:00.009+10:00

Episodes from Liberty City is a latecomer on the PC, having been released on consoles eons ago. And with the recent release of Just Cause 2 as the new sandbox gaming great, is Rockstar's expansion pack to GTA4 still worth playing?

I wear a biker's leather jacket and bell bottoms to find out. Wow, I'm ashamed at how horrible that fashion disaster sounds.

---

I love GTA4. It's just the plain ol' enjoyment of stealing a fast car, driving irresponsibly, running over pedestrians, and then getting out of said car and beating more pedestrians senseless with a baseball bat. All to the backdrop of an extremely detailed city teeming with life and strange at every corner and down every alley.

Rockstar has perfected the art of city/world-building. And even though the expansion is set within the same city, it wasn't a boring return at all. In fact, I welcomed it with open arms because as always, fun in GTA comes with the fact that you can do crazy things in a replica of a real city, without worry of the law.

So what's new with the expansion?

Episodes from Liberty City bundles two separate stories that become intertwined. The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony. The Lost and the Damned sees you play Johnny, a member of a biker gang who has to contend with the return of the leader, who after spending some time in jail, is back to cause senseless mayhem in Liberty City. This leads to the gang spiraling into self-destruction with the leader's idiocy. Johnny is forced to take matters in his own hands and fight the leader before the gang is destroyed entirely. It's a grim story about brotherhood, loyalty and of course, betrayal, with rough men swearing every other second and cracking overtly-masculine jokes.

The Ballad of Gay Tony is a more light-hearted affair. You play Luis, right-hand man to Gay (literally) Tony, a club tycoon who is also (surprise, surprise) spiraling into self-destruction through drugs and debt to various mobsters and devious loan-sharks. As plenty of bad people are out to kill Tony, it's Luis' job to protect him. After playing Niko and Johnny, who are both characters stuck at the bottom of the status hierarchy prevalent in Liberty City, it was refreshing to play somebody who got to see a flashier and swankier side of life. It was however, not all peachy as Rockstar made sure to show you that things get worse the higher up the ladder you go.

Playing yet another GTA title finally made me see the patterns to most Rockstar games. They give you an illusion that it's an open world but really, driving yourself from mission to mission is hardly "open-world". It just means you do all the hard work of progressing the plot along. This, along with the fact that most missions in Rockstar games are just faffing about in the world rather than having anything to do with the plot, means their games, and this Episode pack in particular suffers from poor pacing.

Also, the basic mission structure of all Rockstar games including the latest Red Dead Redemption is the protagonist always takes on missions and jobs from strange, larger than life characters. And the wanton brainlessness of the protagonists accepting to do those missions no matter how dangerous, morally wrong, or just plain retarded they are, diminishes the appeal and my emotional engagement to these protagonists. In both episodes, this is no different. Johnny and Luis both seem like sensible guys, and although they can say "No way I'm doing this job, it's too dangerous", a minute later you're climbing on top of a train or taking part in a deadly shootout.

It speaks volumes of the lack of agency that these characters, and by extension, players have to live with in the game. For instance, in Luis' story, his mother is subjected to harassment from a loan shark she borrowed money from. The loan shark and I take a walk and he offers me a proposal, to fight for him in a cage or my mother will have to pay the exorbitant owed money. Instead, I decide I want to kill him right there and then to end all my problems. I shoot him in the face. The game even showed Luis giving his mother a call saying "the loan shark won't bother" her no more. I thought that was that, but then I learnt I couldn't continue the story until I replayed the mission and did exactly what the loan shark told me to do. It's utterly contradictory to how I believe the character is portrayed. Rockstar can do better in making the characters and the story more convincing.

Rockstar makes great open-world games, but they should consider moving into open-choice games. I saw a glimmer of that in the original GTA4, when in one mission, you're given the choice of killing or letting a man go. It was very minor, and the only time in the game where such a choice was given, but it showed potential that Rockstar could explore non-linear paths of play. Like, if I killed an integral character in the story, that would be the end of his storyline. Of course, there is potential to "break" a game in that regards, and many other developers like Bethesda on Oblivion and Fallout 3 worry too. But in my opinion, that's the player/audience's problem. If they break the game, they are ruining it for themselves. And hopefully they'll learn not to do such a thing. But if they wanted to, they should be allowed to also. It makes the world they live in seem more real.

In one of the episodes, Ballad of Gay Tony, one thing that got on my nerves was the number of helicopter missions there were. When compared to the ease and simplicity at which aerial vehicles like the helicopter are driven in Just Cause 2, GTA 4's in comparison are infernal contraptions of death. They are too sensitive and require both hands on the keyboard to steer, and it was not fun at all when I died countless times trying to accurately shoot some boats in the water. It was so bad that it truly did make me want to stop playing the game there and then. It wasn't over though. After that, there were at least four or five more helicopter-based missions that had me tearing my hair out.

Finally, I was tired of playing protagonists that weren't easily identifiable with. All of them come from the fringes of society, amoral although deliberately slanted towards good, and lived in a world filled with other annoying, harsh, or vapid characters. None of them were genuinely decent people.

Graphically, the game is extremely dated. At the time when GTA4 was first released, the detailed city and characters were the pinnacle of gaming technology, but now it is poor in comparison to newer generation titles like Assassin's Creed 2 and Just Cause 2. This makes the Episodes expansion pack not a worthwhile spend if you're in it for the visuals. Even the animations and controls are clunky.

So what's the game's saving grace? If I've not only managed to criticize the expansion pack, but Rockstar games in general (save Red Dead Redemption, because I have yet to play that).

I still like the Euphoria engine that the game is built from. The physics is fun visually; the way characters interact with the world, and when you knock people over in a car or shoot them, it just seems so ... sticky. It's also what makes running around the city and committing random acts of violence real fun.

Combat was interesting in the Episodes by way of the environments fought in. Highlights included the fairgrounds in Ballad of Gay Tony and prison ward in Lost and the Damned. There were also times in both episodes where Rockstar supplied the player with unlimited ammo or gave all the best weapons to just go nuts with. Like a tank to blow shit up. I reckon Rockstar realized that as much as their newer games have taken on a more serious tone, people still love to go ape-shit and wreak carnage. That's why Just Cause 2 did so well.

Voice acting is generally decent. Although at times, it is annoying especially with the taunts both protagonists spew in combat.

All in all, I think I've reached the threshold of enjoyment with a standard Rockstar title. When I first played GTA4 sometime ago, I was blown away by how good it was. But times have changed. Just having an edgy story with edgy, ghetto characters doesn't make a good game. So Rockstar either has to shake up their gameplay structure (currently it's just drive, mission, drive, mission, drive) or make their stories exceptionally compelling (which apparently Red Dead Redemption does). But one thing's for sure, my love for open world carnage with no inhibitions remains the same.

Now Playing: DotWar

2010-06-18T14:32:00.003+10:00

This is awesome beyond comprehension. Some funky dudes in Japan took Twitter to a whole new level of play. Essentially, using your Twitter icon (you know, your mini thumbnail photo) duke it out in an epic Lord-of-the-Rings battle with someone else's.

You can use anybody's Twitter id, and there's two different modes of play. One's automated so you can sit back and watch the little dots scurry about making short work of the opponent. Or you can get stuck in, giving directions to your foot soldiers, though I still need to figure out how to do it properly.

Then, when you win/lose, you get to brag about it on your Twitter account. Personally, I've been kicking my Twitter friends' butts cause I've got an awesome logo.

And if you don't have a Twitter account, fret not, you can still input other peeps'. Like mine.

See below the cut for a video of an example of an epic battle. Click here to go to the game site.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAmLEBdbAac

News: Offerings from E3

2010-06-17T15:54:00.008+10:00

Unless you are a certified noob, you should know that E3 is upon us. And with it comes joyous tidings of spectacular games, and new technology to behold. Here are some of the games that I'm personally highly anticipating.

---

Star Wars: Old Republic MMO

Bioware are like the gods of RPG. They KNOW RPG. They ARE RPG. The Old Republic MMO will apparently be the perfect hybrid between players having their own individual epic stories to unfold (like in a single player game), whilst enjoying the social, cooperative experiences that only MMOs afford (the multiplayer component). I'm just looking forward to swinging a lightsaber like a Sith badass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEp5htbq4Ws

From the developer videos I've seen, Bioware is really digging deep into the lore of Star Wars to get the feel of the universe pitch perfect. That's really what makes an MMO stand out, on top of being a timesink like WoW. Also, you know, this trailer is just CGI and the game wouldn't be like this. If it was... then, this would be the best game ever created. One day games will be this real.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Indeed, the first Deus Ex was a revolution in gaming. The non-linear gameplay, the choices you could make, the deep characterization. A true sequel to that experience (sorry Invisible War) has been long coming, and it is now finally here. Plus this trailer was made with the magic pixie dust that is Square Enix. That's why everything looks so shiny and purdy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6JTvzrpBy0

Monkey Island 2 Special Edition: LeChuck's Revenge

I'm honestly not a big point-and-click adventure guy. Maybe my brain is not capable for logic puzzles, only interested in shooting, killing and BLOOD! I was however surprised to find I thoroughly enjoyed The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition. Whether it's because LucasArts updated it for the new generation, added a hints system for the impatient, or because Monkey Island is genuinely an amazing adventure game franchise. Whatever it is, here is the sequel in glorified update graphics to tickle our fancy some more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzs8_PilN54

Portal 2

When I heard GLaDOS' voice again in this sequel's trailer, I nearly wept with joy. She is the ultimate villain, the harbinger of scientific death, and yet someone I want to cuddle. That there is a sequel to one of the smartest games ever created is just sheer epicosity. Valve have to be commended that they are making a co-op campaign that's just as long as the single player, giving gamers MORE and MORE.

Weird though that Portal 2 will be coming to the PS3 when awhile ago, there was that whole hoo-ha that Gabe didn't like Sony's console. Anyhoo, this is a PC gaming blog, so WHO CARES. I just think in portals... you monster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-luUEA99A0

XCOM

Admittedly I never played the first one. But I hear it's a classic in the truest sense of the word. A game that progresses entirely on the actions and inactions you take. Complete player agency and unpredictability no matter how old the game, is an epic feat in its own right. So when the new game under the same title was announced, a lot of fans of the original were up in arms that the new 'un was not the strategy 'em up that the first was, rather a shooter.

But have faith in 2k Games. Bioshock is like art in video games, and I have no doubt that on top of being a great shooter, this will also be solid in the intellectual department. Plus I love period games, this one's set in the 50s. The age of paranoia, hidden truths, and political conspiracies.

Have an issue with just fighting blobs though. Hope we'll get to fight even more monstrous stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdVb4UnqO7A

---
That's it for now folks. If there are any more awesome titles that I come to learn of, be sure to hear of it here!

Review: Alpha Protocol

2010-06-11T17:15:00.012+10:00

For about two days, I became an international man of mystery. Sure, there was the occasional glitch and stutter, but I think I managed alright. I still beat the bad guys, got the girl, and saved the world.

Come with me as I sing about my adventures.

Okay, jokes, don't go away. I talk about it only.

---

When I started up Alpha Protocol for the first time, my reaction was "What the f......"

The graphics were horrendous, like something from 2001 (because 2001 is pretty old in gaming years); think of Counter-Strike graphics from a map like de_dust, beta version mind you, and you wouldn't be too far off. Blocky, undetailed, and totally uninspired design. And the worst part was, de_dust would've beat AP's maps hands down because at least that was painstakingly crafted with strategy in mind. I liken AP to being a rat running through a linear maze.

Rome's ruins did not look like ruins; a warehouse in Taipei looked like it could've been a warehouse in Moscow. Obsidian didn't put enough effort into distinguishing their locales, it all seemed a little fake - a dash of red to represent Taipei, bleak whiteness for Moscow, and shades of sand for Saudi. So unnatural, as only games from a graphically bygone era now appear, next to new generation titles. The worse thing was, although the game has you "globe-trotting" to various destinations, in truth, you're really just running through one maze after the other.

You know, in plenty of games, like Modern Warfare 2, you get those training galleys at the start of the game? Ones where you run through and shoot at pop up cardboard terrorists? Even Alpha Protocol has one. Well, ALL of Alpha Protocol feels that way, generic bad guys pop out from random spawn points, there to slow your continual grind forward but ultimately to be disposed of mindlessly.

The animations are even worse; in the new generation where the heroes of video games can be counted on to look decent, Sam Fisher, Batman, Ezio, John Marston, heck even Shepard, Michael Thorton looked like he stepped out from a mannequin shop and got confused for an international super spy. His arms and legs move like robots, and his face is a wall, but I guess that works when you're trying to be a cold hard agent.

There are a whole slew of other bugs; clipping, seeing through walls, skipping dialogue and the worst, retarded AI. I hate retarded AI because it further removes whatever little illusion there is left that you aren't just playing a poor game. When I throw a grenade, the enemies look at it as if a beautiful rare butterfly had just landed at their feet. They get curious, turn their backs on me and get blown up. If not, they'll be running into walls.

It was horrific beyond words. Undoubtedly, people are going to compare this game to Mass Effect or Dragon Age, as will I. But as far as graphics are concerned, I don't really care if Alpha Protocol doesn't look as brilliant as those two titles, but at least decent enough to portray the world of espionage. What did get produced however felt soulless, like the tech people just gave up trying to make it look half-decent.

By now, you'd be wondering, why on earth would I keep playing if it's that bad? And it's true, I'm the kinda' guy, if a game hasn't hooked me on any level in the first thirty minutes then I'm gone. I was very much on the verge of uninstalling it, but then something strange happened.

The game just clicked. Maybe I got used to the graphics after awhile. But I also soon found myself smiling at something a character said, or giggling at my dialogue choice. And that's where I saw the flash of brilliance that this game could be.

You see, underneath the technical failure, AP is a game about the characters. Sure, they don't match the level of characterization that games like Uncharted 2 reach, but some were interesting in their own ways, whether its Heck's psychotic comical nature, or Scarlett's allure, or Mina's no-nonsense professionalism; they do grow on you. When you say the wrong thing and they disapprove, you do feel a twinge of guilt. And that can really only come with emotional investment.

Which means the dialogue is decent. It's not mind-blowing, but at times, it can be witty and at others, quite tense. Michael Thorton as a character, despite animating like a mannequin is surprisingly tolerable. He is like a blank robot at the start, but after spending a good while with him, he does seem to have a personality of his own. As a super spy, he's damn awesome. Professional, gets the job done, and doesn't mince his words. He can even pull the trigger to kill someone when push comes to shove. He doesn't make annoying wisecracks and thus is cooler than Nathan Drake, can be a great guy with the ladies, and is a hero in the most traditional sense. Against surmounting odds, he still cares about his country and saving the world. That's admirable.

Sure, I was the one choosing his dialogue options and thus shaping his character, but even so, that's got to be a plus point in Obsidian's favor. I was half-intrigued by the non-combat parts of the game, powering through the insipid action bits so I can get to more talky parts. Also, sex is done very tastefully. It's more akin to how it's presented in most films, Thorton romances the girl, starts making out with her and then fade to black. Unlike Mass Effect 2 which is totally fail with the whole strip-club gyrating bit in your room before the animalistic copulation thing. Brrr, scary.

Voice acting is fine. I can't say it's outstanding, but kudos to the voice actors for getting their characters across decently. Music is alright, grating sometimes with all the techno, but mostly it does build tension quite well.

The story is weak though. An agent betrayed by his own organisation, resolves to uncover a web of conspiracies, travels the far reaches of the world to bring the bad guys to justice. There isn't really much more to it. The mission structure is static, reminds me of Assassin's Creed. In each country, you collect intel, beat bad guys up, meet informants, collect more intel and then it's on to the final "explosive" mission that ends with the obligatory boss fight. But that's alright, it wasn't too boring thanks to the conversations. Oh, and emails. Those are rather entertainingly written, and unlike Mass Effect 2's, which are read-only, you can even reply to these ones.

A lot of other people thought the shooting mechanics rubbish, but that's cause after they've played Mass Effect 2, they expect all shooting in RPG to be as spot on as that game. But they forget that ME2 is a hybrid shooter/RPG whereas Obsidian clearly placed AP smack middle of RPG. Spend points in your weapons and you'll see them improve dramatically. In fact, they've made the game too easy at the latter stages because once you've maxed out toughness and assault rifles, you're Terminator from 1984. It's very hard to die. This is where the game will divide in opinion; there will inevitably be those who say if the gameplay is boringly easy, then there's no fun. For me, I really couldn't care less about being challenged by it, I just wanted to get to the talky bits, so if that meant I could power through the shooting easily, then so be it. In fact, to make it a little more fun for myself, I maxed out martial arts too, so I spent most of my time sprinting up to an enemy and mashing E to roundhouse kick them dead. I was cooler than Chuck Norris for sure.

Don't expect to be able to customize your look beyond different hair/beard styles and eyewear, cause you only have the one Michael Thorton-look. But you can customize your loadouts, from the two weapons you carry, to the armor and equipment you'll use in the field. Everything is stats-laden, so it definitely feels very RPG-ish. Weapon purchases are done via computer, and the buying/selling system could be better streamlined but then I remembered things need to be simplified for the console crowd. They don't have the benefit of a mouse.

The worst part of gameplay that had me tearing my hair out in chunks was the security mini-games. The lock picking and rewiring games are fine, but the one comprising of hunt-for-the-code in a sea of flashing numbers is hell. You have to find two codes simultaneously, that changes positions after a certain time. For instance, you could see the code and move your cursor towards it, but thanks to this being a console port, your cursor moves like a friggin' turtle. Then it'll be too late, at which point, the code has changed position again. On top of that, if you fail to unlock the code within a time limit, alarms are triggered bringing bad guys running to your position. It's like whoever designed the mini-game must hate the world.

Choice. I think this was the only thing Alpha Protocol certainly got right. Dragon Age (not Mass Effect 2) had the best implemented choice/dialogue options I'd seen prior to AP; morally gray, ambiguous as to the extent you didn't know which was the right choice to make half the time.

In Alpha Protocol, it wasn't so much a case of being morally gray, more like because your options were just one of four "styles" i.e. professional, suave, flirtatious, dismissive, instead of spelling out "I think we should get on with the task at hand" or "maybe you should come over to MY place to check MY package", it was harder to calculate the "right" approach, thus making it seem more like a real interaction. Some people preferred you taking a more aggressive tone with them (like the Russian machine-gun toting woman) or if you were more respectful, less misogynistic (like with Scarlett).

Whatever the case, unlike Mass Effect 2, where it was clearly consciously choosing (alliteration win!) the right option every time to earn points with various crew members, AP's winning-points-with-people were better hidden under the surface. The time limit on choosing dialogue options also made conversations more natural-flowing, tense, and you had to be on your toes all the time. You couldn't just sit back and enjoy a cutscene (there wasn't much to enjoy from them anyway).

I also liked that relationships were built from the ground up in AP. Michael Thorton had to work his mouth off to impress people, whereas in Mass Effect 2, the reason why some gamers loved it so much was because everyone was in love with Shephard/you from the beginning. A few wrong things said wasn't going to change the fact that they were already on your side. In AP, you could lose potential allies if you said or did the wrong thing, and that's the way relationships should roll.

Choice also comes in a different form. At several points in the game, you'll be made to choose between two ways a mission can unfold. For instance, save the girl or stop the bomb thereby saving more people. The consequences for choosing one or the other is pretty serious, and I don't want to spoil anything, but after I made one utilitarian choice, the game was very smart to pile on the guilt.

After I made my choice, I thought that was that, and I could put the horrible decision I made behind me. But no, the game wouldn't let me off that easy. One of the characters said to me, "You may have made the right choice, but when you're alone, what will you think of? Will you think of what you have done?" I admittedly felt uneasy, and I realized that death is not taken lightly in this game. I learned my lesson. It's the first time in awhile, when I felt in the truest sense, guilt.

Also, you'll come to learn that in this game, there is no such thing as clear cut good or evil. Most of the villains have very good motives for acting the way they do, and it makes you stop and think whether you'd want to execute them. It's tense. If you let them live, they may come back and backstab you, but if you kill them, you may be killing off a potential ally, losing the chance to learn something of use. And when you do decide to execute a person, the weight of your action can really be felt. What Obsidian wants to say, is that it's not easy to take a life, which is fine, although a little contradictory seeing as we can dispense of the faceless goons with such ease.

Another thing AP did well was to employ flashbacks, or in this case, flash forwards effectively. These flash forwards have a meta purpose. Before you begin each new mission, you'll have a flash forward to the last part of the game where you're talking to the evil head honcho of the organization you are supposed to destroy. He recounts the mission (before you actually do it), and the people you encountered. It puts a lot of interesting thoughts and suspicions in your head, subconsciously affecting how you decide to carry out the mission. And once a mission has been accomplished, you'll return to the flash forward discussing the actions that you've taken. It's like a form of feedback, you get to see the repercussions of your actions; it was where the game made me feel guilty about some choices I've made, and understand the implications of others. It felt like my choices were really shaping the world, more so than even in Mass Effect 2.

At one point, there is a very subtle breaking of the fourth wall, when the evil head honcho asks Thorton, and through him, the player, "Most people think they know what to do in the situations you have been in, but you have had the chance to act on it. How does it feel?" It feels pretty exciting to be honest, and it was a glimmer of the great game Alpha Protocol could've been, if only they'd done more to improve the design and technical side of it.

Overall, the game is ... tolerable. After you get over the jaw-dropping disbelief at how shite it is, and wonder how it could even get released in this day and age, you'll find something or other to smile at. But as it stands, I cannot recommend it. This is not a game you buy at full price. Wait till it drops in a bargain bin (which I can imagine won't be long), then check it out to see how the game uses conversations and choice in a very dynamic and mature manner.

News: TF2 is NOW. ON. MC'INTOSH

2010-06-11T12:07:00.003+10:00

Hello everyone! Missed me? Cause I certainly missed myself. It's been awhile since I last updated, and it is all thanks to life. Life and university got the better of my gaming needs. But alas, that is all done now, so I can play games until my nose bleeds profusely.

Remember those Valve speculosity posts I wrote sometime ago? Where Valve was feeding the press information about a potential Mac crossover for Valve games that I believed was really gross?

Well, to my disbelief and sadness, it is true. We now have to share our great games with those automated robots and their lame Apple computers. Including Team Fortress 2. Sadface.

But not all is lost. At least everyone gets to see Valve's creative marketing genius at work.

---

First, read this comic. It's all kinds of awesome, most specifically so because of one Saxton Hale. No one is more manly than he, especially when fighting dangerous and endangered animals in the wild (for more where those came from, see Wiki page).

Second, know that all ye shooter noobs ESPECIALLY on a Mac, will be spared the humiliation of online domination (yes, by me) with the addition of an offline training mode with bots!

Third, for those playing TF2 on a Mac, you'll get limited edition in-game iPod earbuds for your characters to wear. It may seem cool to you, but it's to help distinguish Macs users from us on the PC. So we can see who to shoot first (:

Finally, awesome video. Yeah, yeah, it shows how cool ye Mac users are, but at the end of the day, us PC will get ye. In TF2 or not. Oh and, if you watch the video, check out the scope on the Engineer's shotgun. (: Valve being sneakeh, something wicked our way comes.

And totally unrelated to Valve or TF2, just a little video showing how fail Apple was at their latest unveiling for the iPhone 4.

Thinky stuff: The importance of the games journalist

2010-05-27T11:30:00.018+10:00

The other day, I had an interesting discussion with a mate who told me it's not right that I go apeshit on game developers in my reviews, if they don't live up to my ridiculously high standards. That I and other reviewers are being obnoxious in what we do. My friend has a good point. After all, game devs put a lot of effort into their craft. Why should we criticize if we only consume and not contribute?

In my opinion however, someone's got to have those high standards if we're to get any advancement in games development.

I'm not trying to prove my friend wrong with this post, but I am going to think more about what it means to write a review.

---

Journalists are not artists. They aren't the ones that mold sculptures, direct films, produce TV shows, or make music. Yet they are a step up from the simple consumption that the masses engage in. Journalists take that extra step to reflect on what it is they've consumed. Granted, the masses are capable of reflection too, and I'm very certain a lot do but where journalists are better and significant to the process is that they've taken their extensive experiences on their chosen subject matters/passions, in order to critically posit the artistic work of another in the time-line of our human existence.

By critically positing an artistic work, we are able to see how far we've come from the simple drawings found in caves all those centuries ago. The same is true for games development. It may still be a young art form but it's fueled by rapid technological advancement so in the gazillion years it takes for us to develop other art forms, it only takes fourteen to go from The Day of the Tentacle to Crysis. In that sense, if there are no journalists, no critics to say what needs to be said, the evolution of game development comes to a halt. The weeds will not be rooted out, and the bad stuff will just keep getting worse. Of course the developers are the primary catalysts for the evolution of video games, but the journalists are just as vital. The latter are especially needed in an industry where development is volatile, anything can happen, and mega-corporations swimming in greenbacks do not answer to anybody.

Activision can go on screwing over Infinity Ward and yet people will still buy their Call of Duty games. Valve can release Left 4 Dead 3 next year with no more care for Left 4 Dead 2, and I'd still want to get it. Heck, as much as I love Valve, where's Episode 3? Do they owe it to the masses though? Hell no. But journalists will be there writing about the wrongdoings of companies, absent games or failed promises (looking at you, Molyneux) so that the public will be reminded what they should be getting, not what they have been given.

Of course, I'm not saying that no one should hold journalists accountable. Most recent scandal I can think of is games writer Quintin Smith's review of MMO Age of Conan's Godslayer expansion being pulled off Eurogamer; it was considered an inadequate review as he only played beta rather than the full game. But really, I'd say it had something to do with Smith's negative review (read: corporate power over online media). Look at Kotaku Japan's snipe at Famitsu for the latter's excessive high praise given to PSP title Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker. Also look at the firing of ex-Gamespot editor Jeff Gerstmann because he didn't score game reviews high enough.

Rupert Murdoch may be the evil villain of mainstream media but every games corporation could be a Murdoch in their own right; they certainly have most games media outlets in the palm of their hands. Especially with the economic crisis, most media outlets either have to crash and burn or unfortunately, stop biting the hand that feeds the most, and that's the games corporations. After all, it's the corporations that let journalists play their games earlier to write reviews and more importantly, buy out advertising space. Us folks at the bottom of the ladder don't do nothing but consume. We read journalists' words on games, but we're not the ones paying them.

This is sad because I've come across too many cases where the words of professional reviewers don't align with personal experiences I've had of some games. Take Alan Wake for example. This game got some crazy good acclaim from most major media outlets but when I played it, I thought it was a piece of shite scraped off the sole of better horror titles like Silent Hill, Dead Space, and Resident Evil. Sure, you can argue about opinions being "each to their own" but with some games, it's clear.

Let me think about this personally. Why do I write reviews? I'm not being paid for my opinion. And yet I do it because I love video games. I love playing something worthwhile, something that'll blow my mind. I'm sure that's the case for a lot of people, but journalists love what they do because they have license to translate their love into something others can read about. Someone needs to do it because it'll keep the masses informed. It will also keep games companies in check, making sure they keep doing what they do best better not worse. Journalists can also make sure our money goes into the right hands like indie devs and small companies that constantly push what gaming can do for us.

At the end of the day, I don't think I've got any major point to make other than that there are people out there making sense of video games on your behalf. It's no walk in the park, a lot of them have to do it for a lot less money, and at times, they'll get flak for it too. But by gawd, it's exciting. And thanks to these journalists, there's a large information flow that connects everybody to opinions, ideas, and the collective, undeniable love for video games.

Now Playing: Alan Wake impressions

2010-05-20T22:41:00.013+10:00

Alan Wake is finally out. Hold your horses folks, it's only for Xboxers unfortunately.

I know, totally lame. But them devs don't trust us PC folk cause of pirating galore on our beloved beige boxed machines. Never mind. The next best thing for you guys is to listen to my thoughts on the game when I had a look at the first two episodes on a mate's Xbox.

---

I'm a big fan of Remedy Entertainment. Big fan of Max Payne. Especially the second 'un which I remembered playing over and over in my youth (yes, I'm that old). So I had big hopes for Alan Wake. I wanted it to spook the living daylights outta' me, and at the same time, compel me to keep playing.

Alan Wake opens with this quote, "Stephen King once wrote that nightmares exist outside logic, and there's little fun to be had in explanations..."

Okay. My spidey senses are tingling. I have a feeling Remedy's got that quote in there to encourage players to suspend their disbelief. The game's telling our subconscious, "If Stephen King said that, then it must be right. So if weird stuff happens in the game that we don't explain, don't hate us." We'll see about that.

This is the story. Alan and his wife head up to the seemingly idyllic (they always are) town of Bright Falls for a little getaway. Until good ol' Alan takes a NAP, of all things and weird shit happens. Alan then wakes up in a car accident with his wife missing. Thus begins the tale of Silent Hill - oh crap, I mean - Alan Wake.

Alan Wake himself is a mess of a character. Remedy tried to make him out as this average joe we could identify with. But he broods too much, has some mental disorder and can't even be nice to his wife who's alright, save for her annoying phobia of being unable to turn on light switches on her own (she gets Alan to do that for her every time).

Alan as a game hero doesn't work either. He runs strangely, like he starts out in a rugby tackle, always ducking down before breaking into sprint. Also can't run far without wheezing like he had too many shakes and super-sized fries. And hurts himself falling from small heights. I mean, he ain't no Nathan Drake but make him a little more fit at least! Seems to be a great shot though, despite admitting he's never fired a weapon before. Odd.

Gameplay? Basically it's a third-person over-the-shoulder Resident Evil/Dead Space-style action horror. The distinction that it's action before horror is an important one to make that I'll expand on later. For now, just know it's basically you running about in the dead of night, in a woods infested by hicks with axes out to get you. To me, that's the most interesting feature. Why are the enemies all lumberjacks/car mechanics?

Perhaps some subconscious commentary on class division? I could be bull-crapping but whatever it is, there's a very strong whiff of Resident Evil 4/5. Townsfolk as expendable enemies was their thing too. Why can't there be really freakish monsters of the night? I mean ghouls would be more frightening than your friendly neighborhood convenience-store owner.

The torchlight/gun-play is decent. Shine a light on the enemy enough times till their "armor" breaks and then you can shoot them dead. This becomes more challenging, the more enemies are thrown at you. Only problem is, there doesn't seem to be anything interesting about the combat beyond that. Dodge, shine a light, shoot, reload batteries, reload ammo, shine a light, shoot, dodge. I verified this with a few other reviews, apparently it REALLY doesn't get any more exciting than this...

In the game's defense, the light-is-good mechanic works. It certainly makes you feel relieved at whatever source of light you find, a safe haven from the darkness. Enemies can't enter light and they act as checkpoints/medical stations. It's never explained but Alan Wake is like Superman getting his energy from the light.

Whether it's hard or not depends on the player. On normal difficulty, the game is so generous with ammo drops it never feels like the pressure is on. The enemies can dodge, throw weapons at your head, and run at you. But they really are just zombies so if you're coordinated enough, they can be taken out easily.

Puzzles are dumb. Just variations on the "lock-door" conundrum. Find a locked door, back-track, pick up key/flip switch and then presto! To the game's credit, this keeps the action flowing but it feels more like you're leaving your brain in the backseat and going along for a ride. More puzzles, less action please.

Also, you pick up pages from a seemingly magical manuscript that Alan can't remember writing, but apparently has, and it spells out the shit that's about to happen to him. It sounds like an exciting plot twist but really Remedy's killing the suspense if you're able to read what's going to happen to you.

(I'm calling upon two of my favorite game writers for help writing this preview. They tweeted about Alan Wake recently. And I feel their tweets best express what I wanted to say)

Richard Cobbett: "I put down the magic manuscript warning me my friend would be attacked. I didn't call him. I'm a writer. I hate spoilers."

Then, at times, Alan Wake liked to tell us what we already just experienced. Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

Yahtzee Croshaw: Alan Wake's narration feels a bit unnecessary at times. You see a hairy dog. "SUDDENLY I SAW A HAIRY DOG".

Remedy nailed noir with Max Payne. But in Alan Wake, the hardboiled narration from the writer feels contrite. Max Payne had the license to be noir thanks to the dark plot; his family was murdered in cold-blood. Alan Wake opens with a nightmare and expects us to accept the dark atmosphere wholeheartedly.

Anyway, graphic's is Alan Wake's redeeming quality. Light is definitely the strongest element of the engine as it should be, whether its the sun setting, the spotlights of street lamps in the distance, or the way shadows dance in the headlights of a cop car. Environments look real and ominous, the fog really adding to the atmosphere. The opening sequence where you run on a bridge with cars and barrels falling from the sky is impressive. But the character animations could be improved on. It's decent but at times, they all have a bad case of lips-not-in-sync-with-dialogue.

Presentation is overall fresh because it's built to look like a TV show. Episodes end with a nice track and a cliffhanger to keep you playing, and next episodes begin with the obligatory "Previously on Alan Wake". It isn't enough to make the game as a whole exciting though because it still comes down to whether the story is compelling enough.

Remedy sure is following Stephen King's quote to the T. They throw in all sorts of absurdities, never explaining why the townsfolk are going nuts, why his novel is coming alive, or why it's happening to Mr. Wake in particular. But whatever I saw in the first two episodes was interesting enough for me to want more. I hope they explain all this in the remaining 4 episodes (oddly seems more like a HBO mini-series than a 25-episode mainstream).

Here's the biggest problem with the game I see. It's not scary enough. It's got all sorts of funny spooky stuff, but it's not actually pee-in-your-pants freakdom. Alan Wake didn't take into account what makes a good horror game. Clunky controls like the original Resident Evil trilogy, psychological horror like FEAR and jumping-out-monster bits like Dead Space. And can't forget, survival. Give us less ammo, more running away. For a game that wants to rip-off other horror greats, it's more like an action game, as I mentioned earlier than a horror one. Let's call it a thriller then. More Dean Koontz than Stephen King, since we're on the topic of horror writers.

Richard Cobbett: "Slowly, surely, I realized the truth. These zombies were pathetic. I was in no danger. My horror novel is ruined." Alan Wake, Departure.

Employing a writer as a main character seemed like such an edgy move, Remedy thought. But they failed to realize that's not all that makes a great character. Alan Wake isn't charismatic, wears a tweed jacket with elbow patches, and for a successful author, his writing kinda' sucks. His manuscript looked like it could've been written by a grade-schooler.

For a game that took a heck of a long time to develop, it's nothing impressive. The presentation is top-notch sure, but the game play leaves me wanting. Perhaps in another life, it would've been a mediocre TV series or a straight-to-DVD release with cult favor. But when it comes out on the PC, think twice before jumping into this nightmare (wordplay!).

Thinky stuff: Words are best!

2010-05-18T19:46:00.018+10:00

Games aren't always about moving pictures and coordinated fingers. It's sometimes about words! WORDS I TELL YE! If it isn't, then Uncle Rocko is my dog.

Lots of interesting WORDS about games below, none written by me cause I've written loads of words on games already. So this is me taking a break, let other people do the talking. Worth reading all the same.

---

First, some war-related stuff. First blog looks at games in history, particularly board games in Nazi Germany and what that has to say about the time period. This extract gets heavy with games though...

None of this is to say videogames in particular are, or should be, overtly political. Games do not have to be "about" something. Yes, you can enjoy a game without discussing race, class, gender or religion. But that too is insignificant. Games will be "about" race, class, gender, and religion anyway. It's only natural... To completely avoid the medium's history, its potential, and the fact we imbue objects with meaning both intentionally and unintentionally, is self-administered ignorance.

Second blog post is an opinion piece on EA's upcoming Medal of Honor reboot. We all know modern warfare is the new fad thanks to the now-defunct Infinity Ward, but this guy believes it's bad. World War 2 is done and dusted so it's alright to make video games about that, but the war in the Middle East is far from over, so he thinks the new MoH is seriously an insensitive PR fail.

EA claim they “aren’t getting involved in politics”, but given that Goodrich proudly made boasts about their deep involvement with the US military (and even admits to cutting certain aspects of the game based on their say-so) that contention seems faintly ridiculous. Whether EA know it or not, this is a political exercise, with the possible aim of rehabilitating the US military (Goodrich repeatedly focused on the game’s attempts to accurately portray the ‘honour’ of the troops.) And when asked why EA chose this most contentious of locales for setting the game, Goodrich replied that the decision was taken simply because that was where the ‘bad guys are’.

Indeed, that particular comment had echoes of the good versus evil discourse so dominant in George W Bush’s America seems to be in full force here, the binary worldview that may have worked when fighting the Nazis but fails to convince this time around.

Final blog post is an interview with the guy who made the famed freaky, wack Sim City city (see it here). He spent four years pouring over equations and graph paper whilst playing the game in order to build the most epic and game-breaking city ever. Too-serious gaming much? And I thought formulating Modern Warfare 2 tactics in my head were epic.

Best bit of the interview...

Technically, no one is leaving or coming into the [game] city. Population growth is stagnant. Sims don’t need to travel long distances, because their workplace is just within walking distance. In fact they do not even need to leave their own block. Wherever they go it’s like going to the same place.

There are a lot of other problems in the city hidden under the illusion of order and greatness: Suffocating air pollution, high unemployment, no fire stations, schools, or hospitals, a regimented lifestyle - this is the price that these sims pay for living in the city with the highest population. It’s a sick and twisted goal to strive towards. The ironic thing about it is the sims in Magnasanti tolerate it. They don’t rebel, or cause revolutions and social chaos. No one considers challenging the system by physical means since a hyper-efficient police state keeps them in line. They have all been successfully dumbed down, sickened with poor health, enslaved and mind-controlled just enough to keep this system going for thousands of years. 50,000 years to be exact. They are all imprisoned in space and time.

That's all with the heavy stuff for now, folks! To reward you, here's a video of a fat cat standing up LOLOLOL.

Review: Assassin's Creed 2 or Zorro - The Game

2010-05-15T15:03:00.005+10:00

For this review, I'm going to write an open letter to Ubisoft. Tell them how I feel about their game, offer constructive criticism so that they will know how not to waste my time for future titles.

Warning. Spoilers ahead.

---

Dear Ubisoft,
I just recently completed the main storyline, not 100% mind you, of your game Assassin's Creed 2.

Let's start with the good points first. After all, the correct protocol for constructive criticism is to first make the person/game you're critiquing not feel too bad about themselves.

Assassin's Creed 2 is a very good platformer. You've come very far from your early Prince of Persia days, so that's top-notch. Fun to jump about in a well-realized Italy. The platforming bits are well integrated into a living breathing city. Also, the Tomb Raider bits; platforming puzzles to get the Seals were great, kudos to the Singapore dev team for making it fun and just the right amount of annoying.

What else did I like? Your combat always looks visceral, whether it's the clash of swords between Ezio and his enemies, or one of the many finishing moves that are violent and epic. Ezio also looks great when he is scaling walls, buildings, boxes. The motion-capture is pitch perfect in animating his climbing.

I like the Truth treasure hunt and puzzles. They were so DaVinci Code-esque in evoking a historical fact or fiction atmosphere. Spooky too. But the video rewarded to players for collecting all the Truth glyphs is retarded for not having a purpose other than be even more cryptic.

I also liked that you shook up the rigid mission structure of the first game in favor of one that followed the plot more closely. Good that I spent more time in Italy than in the real world faffing about with Desmond who's pretty lame as main characters go. But did I mention Kristen Bell's face is really weird? Oh and Shaun, one of the support characters in the "real world", can you kill him off? He's being a dick to Desmond who happens to be the guy who can change the world. You don't be dicks to heroes.

So what didn't I like about the game?

Let's start with the controls. Granted, the game is ported from console but instead of giving us little hard-to-see icons, you should instead tell us to press Shift, or Right Mouse Button or 'E' because most of the time, I'm pressing the blasted wrong button at the wrong time. It's especially bad when quick time events happen cause I'm mashing the wrong buttons in confusion thereby failing them.

And quick time events! This is not God of War for god's sake (yes, pun intended). Don't half-ass the QTEs if you want them in there. There's a QTE for hugging Leonardo which is pointless, because heck, Ezio should hug Leonardo ANYWAY. Why do WE need to control him to do that? A lot of people miss QTEs like that because they don't expect them to be there. Get rid of them.

Cumbersome controls. Why did you add things like "extended jump" or "springboarding"? Already, as it is, the controls are confusing with the whole head/right-left arm/legs thing. And now you want to add more confusing controls to remember? I already have enough trouble wondering whether I've been countering enemy attacks properly and GETTING THE QTEs.

Moving on. Graphics. Your cities and environments are highly detailed but your characters look like a blast from the past (wordplay!) The engine is dated, and we're only talking about six months ago. Uncharted 2 came out around the same time and that looked friggin' amazing.

Missions. Why do I have to kill NINE random people just so I can kill the main bad guy? Why do I have to chase after some random soldier across the seriously big city to get an artifact that I shouldn't have lost in the first place? Why do I have to suddenly collect ALL the codex pages at the end when originally they were optional? WHY? WHY?

You see the problem. People will keep asking "why" when you choose to include pointless missions. Why do I have to kill another random person who is no more useful to the plot than as a mere roadblock for Ezio? Quantity is not quality, as they say, and you have obviously chosen to plump the game unnecessarily.

This is the mission structure of Assassin's Creed 2. You kill this guy so that he can tell you where to kill the next guy who will tell you where to kill the next guy who will tell you where to kill the next guy.... etc. This is not interesting storytelling, and none of the people you kill ever tell you anything of importance. Ezio is also a major dumbass. It takes him three-quarters of the game to realize that the person he wanted to kill all along was the last name on the friggin' list. He didn't need to go through everybody else to realize that. Why couldn't he just kill the Spaniard straight off so that the bad guy wouldn't have to rule all of Italy?

Furthermore, the game is one f*cking long tutorial. It takes half the game before I get ALL the skills. Why can't I just learn them all in one shot at the start so I can play a REAL assassin for the WHOLE game?

Back to Ezio. He is a bad protagonist. He may be a ladies' man, and have more heart than Altair, but at least Altair wasn't a noob. Ezio keeps losing the artifact, doesn't sneak around very well, and keeps getting knocked down by enemies. He's got to be the worst Assassin ever. Heck, he does public speaking at one point and tells everybody his name. Templars do a better job at being secretive than Assassins. The first time Ezio got stabbed, he goes into a friggin' coma and comes out of it sporting a beard. The second time he gets stabbed... nothing happens. Ezio FTW.

Cutscenes. A major pain in the ass. The first time you make me fight the Spaniard, I beat his ass to a pulp. Then the cutscene straight after shows the Spaniard beat Ezio to the ground and run away. This happens a second time at the end. Ubisoft, this is annoying and once again, not very good storytelling. You don't let players expect to have beaten the enemy with their own hands, only to say a second later, "Sorry, actually we can't let you kill the bad guy just yet." STUPID CUTSCENE and STUPID EZIO. In fact, the whole game is "Sorry, we can't let you have the prize just yet. You have to get it in a convoluted way."

The Villa. Who the hell thought that we'd love to play a little spreadsheet Sim City whilst playing Assassin's Creed 2. The Villa essentially removes all difficulty in the game because you'll never go broke. This in turn means you can buy the most expensive things without having to break a sweat to earn money. Heck, just talking to somebody for a mission can earn you 2000F. I have more trouble trying to spend all the money. Plus, I hardly ever returned to my "humble abode", so I don't know why it needs to be there.

Altair's secret armor. When you get that, it removes the need for a blacksmith because your armor never breaks. Also, it means you don't need to buy anything anymore because you've got the most l33t armor in the game. Also, can't forget that carrying 14 healing potions in a large pouch means I can keep spamming heal after getting hurt. No more pain, no more challenge.

Boss fight. Assassin's Creed 1 had an annoying, but at least spectacular boss fight where I fought multiple copies of the bad guy. In Assassin's Creed 2's boss fight, Ezio has that power and makes multiple copies of himself. The copies don't make themselves useful though, instead stand around and make the occasional swipe at the enemy. Why don't they swarm the enemy and destroy him? Pointless inclusion.

Then, Ezio decides he wants to go fist to fist with the Spaniard. Why? This is retarded considering any NORMAL person would take the opportunity to stab the damn unarmed enemy already. You let the bad guy get away with it too many times. And then when I beat his fat ass to a pulp a second time - it wasn't very hard either, the enemy didn't even land a blow on me (not forgetting it's supposed to be the FINAL OMFG BOSS FIGHT) ... Ezio decides not to kill the bastardido or however Italians say bastard.

Come on! It's the final f-ing boss! The bloomin' evil lord of destruction, if I haven't made myself clear. Why does Ezio decided to take the high road? That's just leaving an audience dissatisfied with their hard work. Especially the ones who've been intellectually assaulted by the bad choices this game has made before (see above for examples).

I'm not going to talk about the whole OMG secret that is revealed at the end, because it's really just your standard strange beyond belief sci-fi stuff. Thankfully it was a little more decent than the horrendously paced plot in 15th century Italy. And Leonardo DaVinci, great Renaissance man reduced to playing sidekick. And why bring Machiavelli into the picture at all? He just makes a few cameo appearances, isn't very appealing as a character... WHY? And then what's with the whole geo-instability thing!?? WTFFFFFFF.

You want to know who's the best character in the game? Ezio's mum. She unflinchingly uses the word "vagina" early on. And now she's a shocked mute. Well done, Ubisoft.

My biggest gripe with the game though? That the game is called ASSASSIN'S Creed 2. Assassins are creatures of the dark (Machievelli even said so at one point). They skulk around, stealthy, and remain undetected as long as they can. Instead this game has you running across rooftops and doing flashy things unnecessarily. It's more like Zorro the Game than Assassin's Creed 2 if you ask me. This is why Ezio gets spotted all the time. At least give us sneaking abilities, like CROUCHING, or SHADOWS.

But that's not all. The game is confused, asking you later on to complete certain missions undetected. Out of thin air, you decide to change the rules JUST to make it more "challenging"? Why? What's the point when I've succeeded before at crashing into parties noisily and stabbing everyone in the gut? F-A-I-L.

The game starts off with such potential and a great emotional hook. Your father and brothers are murdered treacherously. But then Ezio's tequila worm is left dangling in the wind because he is so noob without some proper direction from Papi. Also, too much nonsense goes on for this game to be taken seriously. I cannot even believe you guys are planning on making another one set in Italy. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Seriously? I've had enough of Ezio. Bring on the American Civil War already. And a woman protagonist.

Story needs tightening up for all your future games (including the new Prince of Persia). It's just not compelling enough. The only thing running through my mind as I was playing this was, "When is it going to end?!!"

Finally, get rid of that blasted DRM. The game breeds enough frustration as it is, that stopping players from playing even a bad game is just... well, bad.

And, sorry if I keep coming back, but just in case you're not convinced at how poorly designed your game was, here are two other game writers who feel the same way. One and two.

Review: Splinter Cell - Conviction

2010-05-07T10:28:00.009+10:00

Sam Fisher doesn't think much about music. Or football. Or poetry. Or films. He don't do small talk over a beer either. He probably thinks about how to get from point A to B without being seen. Or what's the fastest way to kill an armed man with his bare fists.

Sam Fisher is back. And he is badass.

---

You know what this game reminds me of most? Batman: Arkham Asylum. Strange comparison but both games are about kickass heroes with a specific skillset that must be utilized in the correct manner, in a contained environment. Like that superhero game, Splinter Cell: Conviction is about skulking around in the shadows, dispatching of the bad guys sneakily with well-placed headshots.

Whereas in the original trilogy (I don't include Double Agent, that was shite), the sneaking method was the only method to use, Ubisoft has made this game more short-attention-span-friendly, for those who love their violence explosive and loud, in order to keep them interested in the game. Initially I was, like most hardcore gamers/fans of Splinter Cell, quite disappointed that Ubisoft has sold such a brilliant franchise built upon the stealth element to the noobs. But I was surprise to find a game that is just as challenging and rewarding for those who stick to what Sam Fisher does best, sneaking about.

Without a doubt, Sam Fisher could probably do well in a stand-up fight. He could take down Jason Bourne or James Bond with a snap of his finger and of their neck, but Sam Fisher is best known for remaining hidden. It's what sets him apart as a "secret agent" to the rest of those dudes who make too much noise and with little finesse.

But I digress. As a game, Splinter Cell: Conviction just works. The learning curve is a little more complex than other games, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes the most intuitive of systems. Cover works well, you stick to it when you need to, and come out of it when you don't. Climbing, opening doors, taking enemies down is all context sensitive so there isn't many buttons to learn, but it means that if you have good enough reflexes and are fast-thinking on your feet, you can go from taking down one bad guy to shooting three more and then jumping over a table to hide, in quick succession. It's all about juggling skills and if you can successfully pull off moves like those, the game is just pure fun.

But as I said before, you can also go in guns blazing if your cover is blown. But in my opinion, it's not the way the game is meant to be played and Ubisoft punishes people who think that Splinter Cell: Conviction is Uncharted 2. They throw in more enemies, it's messy, will get you killed more often and also probably won't rack you up enough points to unlock weapon and equipment upgrades. Besides, the shooting mechanics is vague, and mouse sensitivity is constrained so the game can't be played like a twitch shooter, kept deliberately low for those precise headshots.

There are a couple of new features Ubisoft's added to this game; Mark/Execute, and Interrogate. The former allows you to mark several enemies, and with a press of a single button, take them all out at once with some devastatingly accurate automatic headshooting. It sounds pretty overpowered, but the devs have balanced it by requiring you to take down one opponent with a hand to hand kill before you can use the ability once. And then you have to take down someone else to recharge it. It's the perfect ability to complement the new Sam Fisher, who is quick and efficient. It also helps get players out of tight spots, either to clear a room when outnumbered or stop too many enemies from converging on your position.

Interrogate is self-explanatory. It goes hand in hand with the edgy, gritty feel of the new Splinter Cell. What with awesome films like Taken or Law Abiding Citizen, Sam Fisher needs to be just as badass for the modern day. Which means being inappropriately violent to the point it's cool to smash someone's face through a ceramic toilet to get them to talk. The only problem I have with this feature is that it feels quite unnatural; the gameplay sequence of interrogation is the same for every single mission. You have to interrogate all the targets three times before they've sung their songs fully, as if each of them just can't wait for you to destroy their faces even more. It's a little niggle in an otherwise fun-to-watch set of events. At least Ubisoft gives you a choice of dynamic torture tools each time. Like a hot stove, or worst still, a paper shredder. I'll leave it up to your imagination how that one works.

Only wished they kept Fisher's signature "split jump" in narrow spaces. But then again, Fisher is getting on in years. Ain't so flexible no more eh?

Even with all these exciting ways to be cool, the game ain't easy. The enemy AI is generally pretty smart, able to search around dark corners, or take cover against "ninjas" (as they sometimes oddly refer to you as). Their shooting is punishingly accurate and they can see/hear you coming from miles away too, so strategy is of importance. Most of the time, the game respects its audience, giving them freedom to approach situations in any way they see fit. The environments are open enough although ultimately it's still a linear game.

Now for story. Sam Fisher as we last left him was hurting from the loss of his best friend and daughter, as well as disillusioned with Third Echelon, the organization he gave his loyalty and duty to for so many years, only to be ass-f*cked by them later. He's off sulking in a corner when his old handler gets in touch with him, telling him that there is more to his daughter's death than he knows. Fisher is not happy about this, and he is willing to destroy everything and everyone to get to the truth.

Simple enough right? No. If there's one thing Ubisoft needs to learn, is that flashbacks do NOT make for good storytelling. The plot may be water-tight, but for the audience to make sense of it, they have to be put through an extremely convoluted narrative where the game cuts back and forth in time, name-dropping with little care for whether the audience remembers who they are referring to, and just plain being confusing. I don't appreciate this kind of storytelling because I could see it as Ubisoft trying to plump an already lean story. The game is 7 hours or so, but heck, if they removed all the extra nonsense, it could very well be 4 hours.

Sam Fisher meets guy, beats his face. Meets new guy, beats his face. Meets new guy, beats his face. That's the story if the narrative were straightforward. But they interject that with, Sam Fisher-friendship story, Sam Fisher-held-at-gunpoint story. So story is the game's weakest point. Sure, it's got the whole 24-style political-web-of-conspiracy thang that I was hoping for some post earlier but it wasn't compelling enough, like I've seen it all before.

Although there were some glimmers of brilliance like how the game keeps you guessing about the loyalties of certain characters. And when the story's major reward is bestowed upon you after your hard work ploughing through the bad guys, it's quite a touching moment. It certainly puts Sam Fisher in a good light, because as cool as he is, he sure isn't the most charismatic. He growls, scowls and beats your face in. Sounds like Kratos really.

If story is bad, then graphics is a redeeming plus point for Ubisoft. I'm currently playing Assassin's Creed 2 and that game is average in the graphics department. But SC:C can hold its head up to some of the newer games out there. Kudos to the environments designer, because that's the best thing about the visuals.

For those who don't know, SC:C was originally planned as a sandbox title before they scrapped that for its similarities to Assassin's Creed 2. But what they kept were the well-designed open environments, from the fairground to the park/monument building, to the city streets. Amazingly detailed, the places that seem most real are the public spaces with the hustle and bustle of innocent civilians. It makes you wonder about the sandbox game that SC could've been, that I have no doubt would be just as fun. The colors visually pop, the environments drip with atmosphere, and civilians go about their lives, oblivious to the world of pain Sam Fisher is about to bring down on some bad guys. Ubisoft does good crowds, as Assassin's Creed 2 is also testament to.

Ubisoft also made a good choice in going with the raw-realistic-shaky-cam-Jason-Bourne cinematic style. It makes you feel a part of the action, and holds your attention well.

Sound is great. Of definite importance to this game in so many ways. Not only for its heart-pumping soundtrack but also as indicators when enemies are near. Though Ubisoft probably overdid it in the enemy chatter department. All of the bad guys, random dude 1, random dude 2, etc. seem to have a close relationship with Sam Fisher because they love to go "Come on out Fisher, don't play games", "I'm not scared of you, Fisher" amongst other bad lines. They all refer to Fisher as if they know him personally, even though I'm pretty sure Fisher doesn't feel the same way when he breaks their necks. They talk too much for bad guys and if they talked less, maybe it would make it harder for them to be spotted by him. Just read here to see what I mean.

Finally, multiplayer. Although it's no surprise this was implemented what with people's love for cooperative gameplay nowadays, Ubisoft has done something really special with theirs. Cooperative mode is a series of story missions that is two-thirds as long as the main game, set as a prequel to the main story. It's a brilliant idea, giving people more of the Splinter Cell legacy, as well throw cooperative play into the stealth-action mix.

Cooperative works well; coordinating kills, sneaking around together, one interrogating the witness whilst the other watches his back, etc. There's not much more to say than that two players sharing in the tense fun of being splinter cells is awesome. If that's not enough, there are other modes like Face Off which sees you compete against the other player, hunt or be hunted. And Infiltration which is a bigger scale sneak-fest where both players must avoid detection from enemy AI entirely.

And if you don't have friends, there's always Deniable Ops which lets you play smaller contained levels solo, hunting the bad guys or holding out against waves of enemies. Whatever it is, Ubisoft has plenty of post-campaign content to keep gamers happy.

Splinter Cell: Conviction is not a mind-blowing game. But neither is it nothing special. In fact, it is very special for those who understand Sam Fisher, and the Splinter Cell franchise. Ubisoft has appealed to this crowd but also made it accessible for a new generation of gamers. The story is nothing to shout about but then again so isn't a lot of Hollywood blockbusters today. They are mindless fun and SC:C flits between that and a hardcore playground for fans of sneak-em-ups. Sam Fisher isn't an entertaining guy, but we aren't here for him. We're here for his job, and that Ubisoft does very well.

News: Call of Duty - Black Ops teaser trailer

2010-05-04T15:20:00.006+10:00

Ever since news broke of Activision's war with Infinity Ward, I vowed to boycott all Call of Duty games produced by Activision from then on. To show solidarity for them IW boys now over at Respawn Entertainment. But honestly, that's being a bit silly. I know deep down that I'll play the new Call of Duties anyway, because I need meh gun-porn-violence-drugs.

Jumping on the gaming blogosphere bandwagon so to speak, I shall mindlessly contribute to the further perpetuation of free publicity for the latest Call of Duty game and make Activision more money. Don't we just love capitalism?

Two awesome versions of the same trailer below the cut. One's the original and the other's a frame by frame analysis of what's going to be innit.

---

http://www.youtube.com/v/l1pUiQxVjvU

http://www.youtube.com/v/B_kMlpHRgtE

I deduce from this SERIOUSLY cryptic trailer that there's going to be a lot of shooting and banging.

News: Dead Space 2 emerges from the ether

2010-05-04T15:04:00.005+10:00

It's been all quiet on the gaming blog front of late, only because I haven't really got anything interesting to talk about other than that I've finally got hands on PC copies of both Splinter Cell: Conviction and Assassin's Creed 2. Having loads of fun with both.

EA has put out a teaser video and some nice art shots of Dead Space 2. For those who don't know, Dead Space is a sci-fi action-horror title that I enjoyed very much. So looking forward to the sequel.

You can see the interesting stuff below the cut.

---

http://www.youtube.com/v/VKyHZCRkOaY

Nice new suit, Isaac. And some pretty piccies below.

Speculations abound that maybe for the second outing, not only do we have to contend with creepy ghoulies, but also Isaac's growing dementia.

Review: Sleep is Death

2010-04-25T15:48:00.009+10:00

This is possibly, from a hypothetical point of view, the best game in the world. Or it could also be the worst.

It is up to you to decide.

---

Jason Rohrer, a video games artist, is no stranger to profound stuff. He's done the Passage, which I've talked about in some length before here and here. And now he's done it again - fusing art with video games. Eat your heart out, Ebert!

If you don't know what I'm blabbing on about, let me introduce Sleep is Death. The latest wunderkind from Rohrer, the game is a two-player affair that has one person create a story, a world, and all its inhabitants for the other player to experience. It can be a dramatic story, an adventure game, a murder mystery, a romance, a comedy, a puzzle.... the point is, Sleep is Death is infinite in its possibilities, limited only by both players' imaginations.

People rave on (I do too) about the amazing nature of open-ended games like Mass Effect 2 which let your choices have an impact on the world. Well, Sleep is Death goes one step further. Any action or any words you utter in the game will have a direct and appropriate reaction from the world, all thanks to the fact that it's being controlled by a real human on the other side rather than a set of algorithms. You can literally do and say anything.

It reminds me of a really good book I read some time ago. The Chess Machine by Robert Lohr (not Rohrer, L-O-L). It's about a man who invents a seemingly magical chess machine that is intelligent enough to beat people at the game. How does it work? The secret is that there's a dwarf hidden inside playing (no joke). It feels the same with Sleep is Death. When you're the Player, even if you know deep down that there's someone at the other end of the game responding to your every move, it's still somewhat eerily awesome; that it responds so accurately.

Here's the inherent problem. The game works when both Player and Controller are onboard, crafting an awesome story together, letting it unfold spontaneously. Or if the Player is willing to go along with whatever wild trip down the light fantastic the Controller has in store for them. But if the Player decides to be daft and go against everything the Controller says or does, then the game is broken.

Example: if the Controller creates a sad little drama about a family arguing in the kitchen, and the Player is playing perhaps, the young son, it'd be totally wrong if the latter suddenly started accusing the family of being spies, and that he was actually some CIA spook sent to kill them all. It wouldn't have been the Controller's intended way for the story to go down.

Of course, the Controller could be easy-going and just go with the flow. Like I said, the game works best when both parties are in tune.

Another problem with the game. It works when everything is fun and exciting for both people - but clearly, no matter how long the Controller took to craft the story, how lovingly detailed it is, or how well-prepared they are for the random nature of the Player, the Player may very well just not enjoy the story/game. It may grow tiresome, drag on too long, or the Player may just turn off to the story for whatever reason.

The game's creation kit is also not the easiest to use. 8-bit graphics may be great for in-game, but the toolset could be a whole lot more intuitive. And this is a big deal in keeping the Controller motivated. Be warned, the learning curve is steep. But if you are willing to try, there really is a whole universe of infinite possibilities waiting for your imaginative touch. Along with the sizable amount of resources already preinstalled, there are community sites that allow you to download more bits and bobs to use in your stories. You can even upload your proud creations once they have been played out.

So there's a lot of "ifs" that this game perpetuates. IF the Player and Controller gets along, it'll all be good. IF the Controller can be bothered to build a beautiful story, it'll all be good. Jason Rohrer cannot be blamed for any of that. He's a one-man army showing up the world that games can be more than capitalism, commercialism and big pow wow explosions. This is truly heartfelt "gaming", if you can call it that; reminiscing on the good ol' days when grandparents use to tell grandkids mesmerizing stories, or friends sat around a dinner table, rolled a few dice, and played out a fantasy world. It's all that nostalgia transposed for the modern era, the 8-bit graphics just further emphasizes that.

For some people, it'll be brilliant. For others, they might stick to their awesome shiny graphics and big bang explosions. Whatever it is, people like Rohrer, and games like Sleep is Death prove that the indie games scene is a necessity. Indie game developers are the heroes who will go forth into the dark abyss of our gaming existence, push the boundaries for what we are capable of playing, and show us that in this deeply cynical, money-driven age, there is some love.

Sleep is Death is a mere US$14. It gets you a DRM-free (that's right, Ubisoft) digital copy of the game. It's bite-size, doesn't take much hard drive space, and you can share a second copy with a willing friend to play. It's not much for a playground of joy, and even if the idea doesn't excite you entirely, if you're a little bit curious, it'll still be an interesting nugget of experience.

I've put a link to one of my favorite SiD created stories below. It's hauntingly sad and beautiful, and sheer proof that Rohrer is a genius to have created this game. It is indeed a new era of user-generated content.

Link HERE. Keep in mind that the little kid in the game is the Player, and he has no idea what's in store for him.

News: Some videos for your absolute viewing enjoyment

2010-04-18T11:44:00.003+10:00

I haven't done video posts in awhile. Interesting games afoot!

---

First up, Red Dead Redemption

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEMxSUGZ6TU

This is highly anticipated on my list. It looks a gazillion times bigger than GTA 4, more awesome than Just Cause 2, you can channel your best Clint Eastwood, and multiplayer free roam means you and your buds can form a gang, kick ass, and ride into the sunset together.

Unfortunately there's no confirmation of when it's coming out for the PC ): Only consoles for now. But Rockstar did the same with GTA 4, releasing it on the PC a little after consoles. So I'm optimistic it won't be too long before we see this for mouse and keyboard.

Singularity up next!

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/64560.html

From the dudes who also did the latest Wolfenstein reboot. That was a decent game and had nifty hand powers too. But this is running on the more graphically epic Unreal 3 engine, so it's going to rock. It's giving off some Half-Life vibes, not that that's a bad thing seeing as Valve is not working on the game they should be working on. I'm hoping this is just as smart as it is action-packed.

Law Abiding Engineer - A TF2 machinima

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGrHBpfqCo

Not a game but if you've seen the movie Law Abiding Citizen, or love TF2, then you'll want to see this. Heck, even if you haven't seen the movie or like TF2, just watch this blasted video. It rocks all kinds of socks off. Totally something Valve might've done, 'cept some brilliant dude got to it first.

And last but not least, a non-PC game, but still an awesome trailer.... Gears of War 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Te5fcnrUA&feature=player_embedded

I don't know about you, but even the Gears of War 1 and 2 trailers were moving to me. Epic seems to know how to tug at my heartstrings; it's the juxtaposition of an intense, grim action-packed game with some really beautifully chosen music. R.E.M, Devotchka or this one's Heron Blue by Sun Kil Moon (if you were wondering). But I really like that last line. "Brothers to the End".

Have a good day, everybody.

Now Playing: Splinter Cell: Conviction and Assassin's Creed 2 preview

2010-04-17T17:51:00.008+10:00

This week, I checked out Ubisoft's two latest games Splinter Cell: Conviction and Assassin's Creed 2. You wondering wot they are like?

Here goes.

---

Splinter Cell: Conviction. The game is frighteningly fast compared to the turtle-pace of the original trilogy. Just five minutes in and things are already going kablooey. There's a definite sense of constant locomotion; you do what you must to get pass the guards, get into the building, and keep moving forward. Improvise as you go. You never come to a complete stop, nor back-track. In one sense that makes the game mighty linear, but heck, Ubisoft has made a very good point with why Conviction is a tighter, shorter affair.

The majority of gamers just never finish their games (noobs) and the older Splinter Cells have been victims of this too (seriously, noobs, the lot of 'em). So Conviction is built to feel like a really awesome movie/rollercoaster ride. There is just never any player agency in carrying the plot forward. The game takes care of that so all you have to do is have fun in the little pockets/playgrounds, peppered with enemies and dark shadows and furniture and whatever.

Much of the game I've seen/played rocks. Cover works really well, so does the actual sneaking around bits. I was worried it was going to be too easy for the console crowd, especially in firefights, but it turned out to be quite the challenge when getting shot at. You die pretty easily, so you're really forced to think about your tactics rather than just go in guns blazing. That's Splinter Cell right there.

And interrogation. Ouch. Seriously ouch. Some people will be turned off by the torture bits, but never does it feel like Ubisoft put it in there for the sake of gratuitous violence. It feels like exactly what Sam Fisher would do. If I lost a daughter, I'd be that pissed too.

I don't want to go into too much detail here because I'd like to finish the game first, so expect a full blown review when the game comes out for PC at the end of the month (blasted console exclusivity). One last thing. The cooperative mode alone is worth the admission fee. Both you and a friend can have tons of fun whilst doing some really wicked two-man stealth operations.

Next. I played Assassin's Creed 2 (I know this has been out awhile, but its the DRM that's holding me back) and straight away, I can say that it's an immense improvement over the first title. In fact, it is so much more engaging that we can even forget that the first title ever existed, and just have this as the starting point. It gets newcomers up to speed with the story so far anyway.

The characters seem more lively like dumbass Desmond who tries horribly at times to do a Nathan Drake impression, and even Kristen Bell (no one remembers her character's name) had a makeover for the better. But most importantly, I like the new assassin protagonist Ezio Auditore. He's a smart, fun and mischievous kid. Loves his family and is a good guy. Unlike Altair who is a douche.

Some bad shit goes down that forces Ezio to grow up quickly. And when that bad stuff happens to him, Ubisoft has you hooked by the heart. You will empathize with the poor guy.

Action is fine. Pretty similar to the first game. In fact, I may venture so far as to say it has dumbed down a little. The first game had you on your toes when surrounded by enemies; needing to find openings and counter attacks. AC2 feels like button-mashing; just isolate an enemy and keep hitting till he's down. Swordplay doesn't seem as interesting as in the first game, but yes, I haven't gotten very far to say for sure yet.

Certainly a different beast altogether from Splinter Cell: Conviction which seems overly grim, but Assassin's Creed 2 holds its own with an immersive world. For sure, AC2 seems to be crafted with love and such attention to detail even if it is the graphically weaker game to SC:C.

In fact, I was so impressed with Assassin's Creed 2 that I was tempted to go buy a copy immediately myself. But alas, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family. No, really, I am a broke student. Have to decide whether to get this now or save up for Splinter Cell a couple of weeks later.

And then there's still the problem of the DRM. I have been convinced that Ubisoft really does not disappoint with their games, and it's understandable if they want to protect their hard work from piracy. But this internet-connection-only DRM is the worst of the worst. People are still struggling to connect to other Ubisoft games like Settlers 7. This is really working against Ubisoft's favor. Or have they given up on PCs, what with there being enough console gamers to make money from? I can't really say for sure. I have no solution. We'll just have to wait and see how Splinter Cell handles the DRM.

Thinky stuff: Cool guys walk away from explosions + 100th post

2010-04-16T16:40:00.004+10:00

This post has nothing to do with games, but in line with my recent review of Just Cause 2, I reckon this music video totally sums up the coolness of the game.

Oh and, I hit my 100th post just a bit ago.

Yay.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqz5dbs5zmo&feature=player_embedded

Now Playing: NOTHING! Just eagerly anticipating. Part 1

2010-04-15T09:09:00.006+10:00

I am not playing much right now. Boo to that. But there are some good games coming over the horizon that are worth talking about. Let's start by talking about a sneaky 'un.

---

Splinter Cell: Conviction

I really was going to boycott every Ubisoft game that comes out now. Honest. The DRM has been evidentially causing people a lot of grief so why would I be dumb enough to get Splinter Cell: Conviction?

Well because I've got a long-love for this sneaky game. I was so mesmerized by the possibilities with the first one, and though I never actually played the second or third (Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory), I will always remember the ground breaking concept of skulking around third-person view, with super gadgetry and REALLY using night vision for something other than shooting people dead in the night.

Plus, Tom Clancy was good at building a believable modern world in his stories that were filled with espionage intrigue, where corporate giants and the government were entangled in the dirtiest of ways, no one could really say who was good or bad, and you as the player and as Sam Fisher was viewing all this shit as an outsider.

Double Agent detracted from this slightly, it was their attempt at refreshing the near-dead series, and understandable enough, how much more interesting could a sneaky game be after you beat the horse to death with three games. It failed thanks to sheer technical bugginess (I got the copy for my birthday, and I never got very far because it didn't work) and it just isn't Splinter Cell if you aren't spending a major portion of your time in the shadows waiting to sneak past an annoying guard.

Splinter Cell was Metal Gear Solid without the explosively bombastic storylines or characters. It was Thief without the supernatural crap. And it certainly had more stealth than Assassin's Creed. It was the serious man's adventure. You could imagine that shit going down in real life, and just like Sam Fisher, it was hard as nails. And unapologetic about it.

So I'm hoping the latest Splinter Cell, in its reincarnation, doesn't lose too much of that hardcore serious vibe. I know Sam Fisher's angsty at losing his daughter, and he's pretty much channeling Liam Neeson from Taken, but Ubisoft please don't lose control on the story for some Hollywood-styled action. The game's been dumbed down (for console audiences, heh) and more action than stealth driven, but if they can keep presenting a world-view that is sickeningly twisted and yet frighteningly prophetic of real life, then I'm sold.

One good thing. I'm glad Ubisoft didn't stick with Sam Fisher's hobo look. That was just not very becoming.

Oh and, five hours is REALLY short for game time. Those five hours better be mind-blowing.

Review: Just Cause 2

2010-04-13T21:47:00.005+10:00

So you play this game. Things explode, cars crash, people die and you laugh. You laugh because it's the ultimate playground of destruction. And you laugh because it has offensively bad voice-acting, especially from one Bolo Santosi.

But little do you realize that Avalanche Studios and Eidos are laughing at you.

---

Sandbox games are dime a dozen now. Make no mistake, they aren't easy to develop. How do you capture a large scale environment and yet make it extremely focused for the player. Make everything work, nothing clunky (bad case in point: Saboteur), no details left out, and most importantly, how to keep gamers playing?

The game devs struck gold when they realized that it's not enough that people like to go around cities jacking cars and causing mayhem. People subconsciously like to blow up shit. And Just Cause 2 has that in aces.

You're thrown into a fictitious South East Asian island called Panau that's going through the standard military-coup-take-over thing that corrupt islands of that part of the world normally get up to, and as a CIA spook, it's your very-American duty to stick your nose in other people's business and cause trouble for American gains.

Most people playing this game will probably not get past the first few missions. Most people are probably just going to see how high they can fly a plane and jump out of it, and grapple on to moving vehicles. Or how long they can drag a poor helpless victim along the back of their car with a cable. And if they do play the missions, they are just going to laugh at the horrendously bad Singaporean accents, the crappy lines, and bombastic caricatures of people in the cutscenes.

Truth is, the game devs don't want you to take this game seriously. I mean, when the game lets you hijack helicopters whilst in mid-air, or level an entire base single-handedly, then you know this game is no serious GTA IV. You even have to fight random ninja, WTF. That's fine, play this game like a toy then. It's a very well made toy indeed.

The graphics positively scream out at you, the world is so exquisitely crafted; the jungles lush, the beaches golden, the peaks snowy, and the water wet and clear. I would even say that it is as beautiful a realized world as Far Cry 2's African landscape. There are lots of little detail thrown in that people may or may not not even see; temple ruins deep within the trees, little villages out by the sea, and an Easter egg to beat all Easter eggs. Let's just say that when you see what it is, and how well it references the TV show, you'll be tearing your hair out in fanboy ecstasy.

The cars handle like shit, the planes and boats handle too well, not that that's a bad thing as overall, driving is a joy. Either for sightseeing or causing carnage, both are too fun. There's a lot of shooting too, it works fine, although it's not the let's-be-cool-and-use-cover system kind of shooting you get nowadays. It's run, gun and dodge enemy bullets. But being able to to grapple everywhere makes you better than Spiderman.

To me, the best part of Just Cause 2 is that it's no walk in the park. You're given the license to blow shit up, a grapple and infinite parachutes at your disposal, but be warned, enemies will come in droves after your South American ass. That's probably the most un-fun thing the game can do to you, but it's also ironically the most "realistic". They'll throw armies, helicopters and planes to shoot you down, and if you're not fast or quick-witted enough, death comes often. But that's fun, if you ask me.

When you can keep cool under pressure, kill everybody or make a daring escape, then you are worthy to keep blowing up shit in this game. The challenge is exciting, and this is where you should begin to see that this game is to be taken seriously. Why?

On a simple level, blow up shit, kill everybody. On a deeper level, see that this game is the evolution of Far Cry 2. Everyone raved about how that game lets you tackle missions, approach enemy bases any way you wanted. This game does that too - you really can go into missions any way you want, and finish it any way you want. Complete player agency. It leaves you feeling chuffed after each mission if you've handled it superbly, and to your own high standards. You just want to have someone look over your shoulder and tell them, "Look at me! Look at me be cool!"

Because that's what Just Cause 2 does. It makes you look fucking cool. Whether you're walking away from an explosion just like they do in the movies, or free falling from a skyscraper on to the back of a jet plane, Niko Bellic just can't touch Scorpio. Neither can Nathan Drake for that matter. Scorpio doesn't crack bad jokes either, he just grimaces and is willing to get his hands dirty. Now that's a cool protagonist. And he has the best lines like "If you don't shut up, I'm going to cut off your hands and bitch slap you with them all the way to wherever we're going".

The missions themselves are plentiful. Whether you're doing side work for factions or powering through a main story mission, they are all fun and varied. Hijack vehicles, escort hostages, blow shit up, assassinate... you'll never tire of the fun ways to cause mayhem this game has in store for you. And the story missions are super intense.

One highlight is a boss fight in which you have to take down three military generals, one after the other. They're located on the rooftops of three buildings; there's little room to maneuver and the enemies have big weapons. The Russian general has a tank on the roof, whilst the Japanese uses a satellite-controlled particle beam cannon. The odds are certainly against you, but then again that's what the entire game is like. No walk in the park. But fun as hell.

And what of the story? It appears so dumbass, the lines just appalling and seriously, Singaporeans do not talk like that. But if you invest some time to get deep into the missions, towards the end-game, you will see as Scorpio sees, the grotesque nature of everything happening on the island. You will definitely see the corrupt opportunistic faction leaders, furthering their own gains at the expense of the island, the obvious tyranny of the dictator, and the imperialistic arrogance of America, the way they manipulate everything, and have to stick their fat stubby fingers in other people's pies. This game also cleverly makes a sly poke at Singapore.

Why else would it have Singaporean accents? Why is there a news reader that pops up every once in awhile to lie to the public. You blow up a base, and the news reader comes on to say that the explosion the people heard was just fireworks, or some bullshit like that, nothing that would case panic in the population. Singapore is not known for their free press either.

You laugh at the stupidity of the game's shallow presentation, but there's a point behind it. It's all a farce, a freaking caricature of geo-politics today, and Scorpio, you, the stoic hero, is at the center of it all, exposing one dirty little secret at a time with well-placed grenades. If you don't realize this and see the game as just a fun toy, than Square Enix is laughing at you and your ignorance.

Thinky stuff: Life on Mars - The Video Game

2010-04-10T10:40:00.004+10:00

Life on Mars is an awesome TV show. Just finished it a couple of nights ago. I reckon it should be made into a video game. Hear me out.

---

For those who don't know, Life on Mars is a 2006 British crime/detective series about a policeman Sam Tyler who gets into a car accident that sends him back in time to 1973. Then, lost in a time he doesn't know, where the police force is ruthless and corrupt, he has to find out why he is there and how to get back.

I reckon that using Bioware's Mass Effect 2 engine, an awesome game could be made of the series.

It'll be a mystery-detective game, so you have to walk about crime scenes analyzing stuff, and talking to people. In fact, the talking to people bits are the most important part of the show and the game. Hence, Mass Effect 2's nice conversation wheel can come into play along with the nice cinematics.

There have to be a lot of hard choices to make, right things to say at the right time, be it when questioning suspects, or getting morsels of information out of wary witnesses. Then, like in Mass Effect 2, there'll be a Paragon/Evil mouse icon flashing at the moments when you can pull the Good Cop/Bad Cop move. Maybe you'll throw the guy up against the wall and punch his gut if he's not being helpful, or you can stop DCI Gene Hunt from doing something corrupt, like planting evidence on a bad guy.

In Life on Mars, Sam Tyler always appears in opposition to the police force because his methods of policing are ethical, logical and scientific. So in an interesting twist, every time you do a Good Cop move, the other characters will get really pissed. Gene Hunt especially; not only will some of his conversation options be disabled, he will antagonize you for always going against him.

Life on Mars doesn't have many shoot-outs, but I guess in the interest of making this a mass marketable game, there's got to be some action bits for those short-attention spanned fools. Lots of running after bad guys.

Squad-based gameplay? Sure. You've got Detective Annie Cartwright and Chris Skelton backing you up, and instead of just plain ordering them around to help you shoot stuff, you could assign them tasks such as looking for the murder weapon in a landfill, or interrogating a group of witnesses, so you can get the information faster.

The actual detective gameplay will be to collect enough evidence, or concrete confessions from witnesses, suspects, etc. to put a criminal away behind bars. There'll be no hand-holding in the game, the player has to make connections for themselves. Like if a witness mentions a brother to the killer, the player has to decide to go find this brother, or not. People will lie and lead you down the wrong path. Who can you trust? In the case at hand, and with the wider conspiracy within the police force.

Relationships? Totally. Life on Mars is all about the relationships in the police force, gaining or losing respect from the people by the choices you make. Like when Sam lets Ryan walk towards a bomb about to explode unknowingly, causing the latter's hospitalization. This leads to everyone else on the force being pissed at Sam, ostracizing him. People won't listen to your orders, and as before, conversation choices close off. Relationships are big in this game, and love interests? Sure, you've got just Annie to focus on but she's one tough cookie to crack.

Madness. Sam Tyler is constantly referring to his life in 2006, which is both comedic in some instances and dramatic in others. Like how in one scene, Sam tells Annie he'll reward her with a Kit-Kat for her good work. And she's like "Kit-Kat?" and Sam says, "Yeah, a chunky one." Annie walks away offended. Why? No chunky Kit-Kats back then LOL.

Anyway, Sam in the game will have visions/hallucinations, hear voices in the oddest of places, and you have to juggle police work in 1973 whilst uncovering the mystery behind your time traveling. But the more you chase your madness, the more distance you put between yourself and Annie. An interesting dilemma for the players.

The graphics will be superb. The Bioware team will do their research so well that they'll get the 1970s Manchester vibe down. The industrial feel, the red bricked houses and most importantly, the depressing gray weather.

The music is going to kick ass, just like the TV show, with most tracks from the 60s and 70s. Including David Bowie's Life on Mars, Elton John's Rocket Man, Neil Young, etc.

Voice-acting will be top notch. We'll get all the actors and actresses of the series including John Simm and definitely Philip Glenister. Besides, all of 'em save Liz White and John Simm are still playing their characters for the spin-off show Ashes to Ashes.

Most important thing? Your choices will have an impact on the story. Just like in the first episode, when Sam Tyler chooses to let a suspect walk because of a lack of evidence. And in doing so, the bank robber robbed again and in the process shoots an innocent bystander. The blood is on Sam's hands, your hands. That's compelling gaming right there.

Finally, then Bioware can say "Suck it, Heavy Rain!"

Now Playing: What I've been up to

2010-04-08T12:15:00.003+10:00

I've been M.I.A for a month plus. Why?!?! WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!? WHAT'S IN THE BOX!?!

Click below to find out.

---

Hello everybody. It's been awhile. And suddenly out of the blue, I pop a review of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on. Anyway, that particular post has been sitting in my Drafts for ages, it's just I decided to take a break from games writing.

I've been thinking why I do it. Why do I write? Why do I game? Why do I produce all this content, why do I consume so much content? For what end? And most importantly, if I am producing content, is it of the best quality that it can be?

So I've been reading a lot of game blogs of late, or rather, as I have always done it's just that this time with an eye to see how they do things. To see how I can improve my own, and I've decided the thing I'm going to do differently from now on is to add a more personal voice. Include personal anecdotes. How that's going to be relevant to the games, I don't know just yet, but heck this is my personal blog too.

I used to rant endlessly on previous incarnations of this blog, with little structure to my reviews or commentary. But now I see that even so, I had more fun with the stream of consciousness than I did with a planned style. Not that I'm going to stop producing quality, well-edited posts. I'll keep doing what I've been doing, just now with a more personal mark on them. And I hope you as the readers can see this come through.

And I've answered the all important question. Why do I write about games? Because I just love to share my thoughts on them. In fact, playing the games themselves is only half the fun. That is all.

NEXT.

So, in my month or so missing, what have I been up to? I have been playing lots of games, that's what.

Metro 2033

Atmospheric, tense, immersive, scary. Those are the words I'd use to describe this Russian heavyweight. It's like Stalker, Fallout, and all those other post-apocalyptic games rolled into a highly focused, robust train ride of doom. It's the first Russian game I've played that's less buggy, less clunky than most of the stuff to come out of that country. For the most part, the game is compelling and worth a try. The writing is top notch thanks to the fact that it was originally a huge best-selling novel, and honestly, Russian apocalypses are bleaker and less bullshit than American ones.

Just Cause 2

What game lets you hijack helicopters in mid-air, jump between cars with such ease, grapple-climb tall mountains, free fall from amazingly great heights and cause utter mayhem on a South East Asian island?

I've never had such fun with a sandbox game in a long time. In GTA, you have to find the right building to jump off from, and find a parachute. In Just Cause 2, you can do it anytime anywhere. INFINITE PARACHUTES! This is the first sandbox game where it's really up to you what hell you want to raise, and how you want to do it. I feel like Mercenaries should give the title Playground of Destruction to Just Cause 2 because it really is just that. And the island is friggin' pretty.

Must play. Also to hear the offensively camp Singaporean accents.

Bioware stuff

Dragon Age's Awakening expansion and Mass Effect 2's Katsumi Goto DLC.

First one, fun stuff for continuing the Dragon Age adventure. But when will the stupid Blight and Darkspawn shit ever end?

Second one, interesting new mission but really too short, and nothing spectacular to add to the experience. Don't get your hopes up for Katsumi as a new potential love interest either. Cause she isn't one.

AND THAT'S IT. It feels good to be back. Till next time.

Review: Battlefield Bad Company 2

2010-04-08T12:14:00.002+10:00

WAR. In capital letters. That's what Battlefield Bad Company 2 tries to achieve. Was it successful?

Find out, below the cut!

---

Let's start with single-player shall we. In short?

Sucks. Butt.

The end.

Why? Basically, the characters are annoying and the script is poorly written, the writers seeming to think they are the greatest comedians on earth.

Furthermore, the construction of the game is like something out of the 90s, which is to say, completely out-dated and poorly done. Enemies pop out of invisible spawn points after you pass predictably placed triggers. Let me illustrate with an example. In one level I noticed a tripwire trap in the grass and attempt to jump over to avoid setting it off. I clearly jump to clear it, but the game doesn't let me. It says "No, you MUST trip the wire, otherwise we can't start the next set piece in which all hell breaks loose, and you must shoot more shit".

That is not good gaming and is just one in many horrific experiences I've had with the single-player campaign. Sure, Modern Warfare 2's got moments like that too, but they are better masked and the action so explosively distracting that it doesn't really matter. But when you can clearly see the tripwire and want to avoid it, it's frustrating that the game is so lazily restrictive.

The cutscenes are jarring as they occur at the most unnecessary of times, breaking up the gameplay too much. Dying is also a chore because then you have to go back to the loading screen for some time, whilst checkpoints are too far apart. It gets annoying have to play through scripted set pieces again.

S0 I was absolutely disappointed with the single-player. A waste of time. And undoubtedly, this will bring down the score of the entire game, which is a shame.

Because multiplayer is pretty damn good.

As I said at the start, this is WAR. It seriously is. With the beautiful, richly detailed and robust Frostbite Engine, DICE has created an experience of war that is unlike anything you'd have experienced before.

With the new graphics engine, everything is so pitch perfect in ambience. Dust kicks up with billowing winds, trees are lush and the sun is sweltering. Water shimmers and is truly wet, and guns kick back with nasty recoil. In the distance, there is the incessant cracks of gunfire, and if you stand next to a tank, BOOM. In fact, there's so much BOOM in the game. Battle chatter is also a constant in your ear, squads shouting accomplished objectives, incoming threats, cries for medics and back-up, reloading, etc. This ties in to how great sound is in this game too.

Which brings me to my next point. The graphics engine is not only one of the best out there right now (it's lush jungles come close to the Cry and Dunia Engines in fidelity) but it's also got DESTRUCTABILITY. Which is necessary in WAR.

If you don't know how such an engine works, here's a quick lecture from Professor Junch. Basically, with most engines, at least simpler ones, if they wanted to show destructability, it was a case of replacing assets of a house with a broken house as soon as hits upon the building were registered. But see, doing this is just an artificial representation of destruction that could not truly be considered accurate/realistic.

With the Frostbite Engine, where you hit is what will come apart. Walls, fences, boxes, vehicles. And this is amazing not just because it looks great when buildings fall apart with constant shelling from tanks, mortars, grenades, etc. but also because this changes the battlefield dynamically every round. Need to quickly get from point A to point B? Just shoot a hole in the wall and run right through. But if you're taking cover in a house, don't think you're completely safe. All it takes are a few well-placed shots from a tank and your hidey-hole is reduced to rubble.

Combat is decent, although it appears a lot less "realistic" in the sense that you really need to pump an enemy full of lead to bring him down. I get that this game needs their players to have quantifiable hitpoints but I think in a war game, shooting someone in the chest would drop them pretty fast. It especially sucks if you're a low level sniper trying to make good kills. I should really play the hardcore mode, but there just aren't enough people playing on those particular servers.

Like that other big war shooter, DICE has got a rewards system going. Experience is earned separately for each class. So play enough times with the Recon, and see your snipers upgraded etc. Play as a medic, and get more healing abilities and weapons unlocked there. Which means the classes you neglect will remain crap throughout, which is fine. There's also a lot of rewarding on the battlefield, anything from killing an enemy, assisting in kills, capturing flags, etc.

Which brings me to my next point on death, fun, and stress levels. Undoubtedly, with any shooter, it takes awhile to get a hang of the gameplay, mechanics, in order to be proficient with it. You see, as I've mentioned many times before about Modern Warfare 2, that game is seriously ruthless in its competitivity. People play for themselves even if it's a team deathmatch. It's always about being on top of the leaderboard, pwning others, and keeping your death count down. Unlocking the next big toy to kill more people with. It's an extremely stressful way of playing the game, but Modern Warfare 2 does perpetuate that.

But I didn't feel that with Bad Company 2's multiplayer. As good as I was at MW2, I had a lot of getting used to with BC2, and undoubtedly, going up against tanks and more enemies meant dying more often. It didn't matter so much to me. In WAR, being cannon fodder was just inevitable. But every time you die, you push harder, take out one more enemy, and then go down fighting again. Then respawn to start all over again. It doesn't matter so much because you truly feel like you're fighting for your side, rather than yourself.

If you die defending a capture point, that's just good play. This game does team play very well. From easy points gained from ammo dumping or reviving teammates, to objectives that are clearly marked on your HUD, this game really compels you to do your bit for the war effort. In the Battlefields of old, I loved forgoing the whole fighting thing and just jumping in a jeep and driving across vast open spaces, the wind in my hair. But this game really encourages you to keep the focus on the fight.

Sure, the maps are just as big, and traversing across large spaces is a chore but DICE has streamlined the experience now by allowing you to respawn within squads, and if they are fighting at hotspots, it keeps the action flowing. There is never a dull moment, and everyone is somewhere doing something.

Vehicles are great fun, and they drive well. No complaints there. There's a decent variety of maps and undoubtedly, DICE will have more coming. And there are really just three distinct modes on offer, conquest and rush are just different versions of attacking and defending specific points, whilst squad-play is a more focused, small affair pitting two teams of four against one another. Squad-play is much easier in making kills and being an important player on the team, because there are so few others to compete with. In a massive 32-player kill-fest, it takes a lot to be the stand-out legendary hero of your team.

The only gripe I have about the game is that connections to online games is quite iffy. It takes a long time to refresh a server browser (like, a really long time) and when you do, expect a few failed connections or drop-outs. Modern Warfare 2 in comparison has a more robust multiplayer framework which means you spend less time worrying about connecting, and more time playing. DICE needs to make it a lot better so that it becomes less of a chore wanting to just get into a decent multiplayer game. That said, once you're in, it's all good. Map changes happen within the server so you don't have to worry about reconnecting, etc. Just keep playing and soon you'll realize that time has passed and the real world has sunk under the sea.

In conclusion, compared to Modern Warfare 2's paintball shooter in which a handful of ruthless, cold gamers scurry about small maps pwning each other, Bad Company 2 is your true war shooter. This is war as frighteningly epic and intense as it gets. Running with a whole bunch of your squad towards more explosions, gunfire and just as determined as the enemy is nothing short of exhilarating. Battlefield is back, and it's as awesome as 1942 was eight years ago. Worth getting for the multiplayer experience. Just forget that the single-player ever existed.

News: Valve speculosity part 2: Hi, I'm a Mac

2010-03-04T21:37:00.004+11:00

Part 2 of my coverage on Valve's pwnage of the gaming world right now. First part can be found here.

A day after they give Portal owners messages to decipher, they send 6 choice games/Mac websites an image each. The images have something do with a Valve game but they've also obviously been made with an inspirational bite (wordplay!) from Apple's own marketing style.

See 'em below.

---

Although the official announcement has yet to be made, this is pretty clear that Steam is heading to Macs. This probably means that for some time now, Valve has been working to make their games wholly playable on those iconic white boxes.

It's definitely what Mac users have wanted for sometime. It used to be that Valve fans who are also owners of Macs would install Virtual XP (before Boot Camp) just to play the ol' Counter-Strike. Now it'll work perfectly with Mac's native OS.

I can't say I'm totally happy for them because I'm in a war against Macs. Sure, their iPods and iPhones are great, but I think Apple is really mean to make their "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads, making PCs look retarded. I'll forever be sore about that, plus don't get me started on Mac users who are fanatics, always going on and on about how Macs are the best and whatnot. Can't stand it.

But no, I won't be a sour puss. Macs, as late as they are, are welcome to the Valve party.

News: Valve speculosity part 1: Portaldom

2010-03-04T15:23:00.009+11:00

Is "speculosity" even a word? I don't think so, it just sounds nice. But Valve has two strange happenings that are driving the gamingsphere nuts. No one in hell knows what they are up to but don't be surprised if it's the first step in many towards world domination.

First up, let's talk about some strange updates for Portal.

---

On March 2nd, Portal owners got a little update from Steam. A shrug of shoulders and "Meh." Routine patching, you think to yourself. But alas, things prove a little odder than that.

Patch notes read: "Changed radio transmission frequency to comply with federal and state spectrum management regulations."

Remember there was a radio playing some cheerful jingle in your little bubble room at the start of Portal? Well, apparently now it is pick-up-able and if you take it to specific locations within the world, strange messages start playing. Scary stuff but most of it sounds like gobbledegook.

Until some Portal fans (read uber nerds of the highest order) grabbed the new audio files from the game folder on their computers and ran it through a Slow Scan Television (SSTV). What the f*ck is that? You ask.

In the past, real-life, not in virtual lala-land, people used SSTV to transmit and receive static pictures via radio. So anyway, these Portal dudes have done just that and lo behold! they've stumbled upon some really cryptic images of keyboard keys, a skull, math equations on paper, random numbers and more. The most important thing to note though is that all of these images have the Aperture logo embossed (how the F*CK did these fans know how to do this?!?).

The next thing is that the ending of Portal has been changed too (slightly). When you emerge safe from the destruction of the lab, that's when the game cuts to black right? There's now a little bit more to it: a robot comes to drag you away...

See for yourself below:

http://www.xfire.com/video/2393cf/

A lot of folk are speculating that this has something to do with Portal 2 or Half-Life: Episode 3. I personally haven't been able to make sense of the strange pictures or ending to say that it has definitely got to do with those two highly-anticipated yet-to-be-made games. All that I can say is that once again, Valve has blown our minds. That they decided to perpetuate conspiracy theories and create hype for games that haven't even been announced THROUGH a game, rather than conventional media is just sheer genius.

Gabe, you are not of this world.

(Spotted first on Rock, Paper Shotgun)

Thinky stuff: Why so lonely shooter?

2010-03-04T09:27:00.008+11:00

For a long time in shooters, we've traversed all sorts of dangerous locales and done everything from saving our Navajo girlfriends, get out/into Hell, and stop evil Nazi forces from world domination.

But why do we always have to do it alone?!?

---

In all fairness, I'm not saying it's a bad thing all the time, and certainly in some stories/situations, it's necessary to have the protagonist be alone for things to play out as the game devs want them to.

But when certain games force this "you have to go it alone" feel, damn, it really gets on my nerves. Recent game in question, Aliens versus Predator. I've been getting some time in to single-player, and the Marines campaign in particular - why is it that in the first five seconds of the game, my badass squad of hardcore Marines ready to kick some Alien butt gets decimated save for me - especially when my name is Rookie. Hardly the long-time surviving veteran eh? They might as well have para-dropped me into enemy territory alone in the first place. Why bother with all the extra animations?

Then for the rest of the game I'm forced to traverse dark, Alien-infested corridors alone with some woman communicating/annoying via walkie-talkie, refusing to come out of her hidey-hole to help me in person.

Blasted Bioshock 2 has you running around alone for pretty much the entirety of the game (Little Sisters on your shoulder don't count), save one teasing moment when Sinclair and you are just separated by glass, before he scampers off to hide in a train.

In Crysis why can't I kick butt with my squad of supermen? Why is it that I'm so damn lucky to be the only one not eaten by aliens? And I reckon we'd get the job done much faster if a whole group of super-suited soldiers (alliteration!) cloaked into an enemy base together and leveled it without having to worry about being outnumbered.

In Wolfenstein, I get all excited when I'm thrown in with some French resistance fighters ready to kick some Nazi ass, only to have my heart broken a minute later when they get wiped out as easy as running a knife through hot butter, by some Nazi with a big gun. And I'm the only one who doesn't die ... again. Was I was born different or something? I have a 100 hit points, but all the other good guys only seem to have 1.

Basically, me no likey when I'm separated from my squad/the sole survivor/ordered to do something dangerous alone/dumb enough to be doing something different in a different place from my friends altogether.

Or your spunky hot chick friend/cool badass buddy goes, "I'm going to check in here for a second. You go on ahead." *Slaps forehead at foreboding recipe for disaster*

Which is why games like the Half-Life 2 Episodes are so refreshing. Alyx is by your side pretty much the entire time, kicking butt and covering yours. We need more shooters doing that. It also seems a hell of a lot more realistic than just one guy saving the world.

Rant over.