Surprised there's not a post on this already seeing as the demo's been out for a good few days. Played through the demo several times already and i'm loving it more each time, so many ways you can approach each room, feels vaguely like Batman AA the way you can asses the rooms and take down the enemies how you see fit. It's so slick, the mark and execute works a treat and doesn't feel cheap or too easy, the presentation brilliant i just want to play the full game now and looking forward to the MP aspect, but disappointed there isnt a fully fledged competitive MP mode but the prequel style co op missions sound excellent.
Has anyone else tried the demo yet?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Caution: Apocalypse in Progress
At the risk of posting something just to send the viewer to another site... Canabalt is stinking awesome. A game you play with one button. Try to survive the end of the world. (Spoiler - you won't)
What are your thoughts? Obviously the game is pretty simple in design, but the thing I left most impressed by was the strong visual aesthetic, complimented with incredibly appropriate music. It's impossible to do while playing well, but there's even a fair amount going on in the background to help create the depth as well as atmosphere.
I love stuff like this. I like to think of myself as a "core/hardcore" gamer, but things like this really strike my fancy. The idea that the Wii's large casual game selection are polluting the industry has been brought up before, but I don't think that statement is entirely true. The Wii's bad selection of casual games are the compromising factor here. Canabalt presents some solid evidence for well-made casual games I think.
What are your thoughts? Obviously the game is pretty simple in design, but the thing I left most impressed by was the strong visual aesthetic, complimented with incredibly appropriate music. It's impossible to do while playing well, but there's even a fair amount going on in the background to help create the depth as well as atmosphere.
I love stuff like this. I like to think of myself as a "core/hardcore" gamer, but things like this really strike my fancy. The idea that the Wii's large casual game selection are polluting the industry has been brought up before, but I don't think that statement is entirely true. The Wii's bad selection of casual games are the compromising factor here. Canabalt presents some solid evidence for well-made casual games I think.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Army of Two: The 40th Day
I'm going to be getting it in a week or so from Goozex. If there are any takers I'd love to play thru it with one of you guys. I've talked to brjahu about it to some length because of our history with the series, but as of this writing he is uncertain if he's going to get it soon.
If no one can get it I'll just play thru it on my own and get thru it some other time with someone.
Let me know.
If no one can get it I'll just play thru it on my own and get thru it some other time with someone.
Let me know.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Perfect Dark XBLA
It's awesome. I'm not saying this to argue that you guys should buy it because I got it for me. I just want to state...it's awesome.
I've been so happy to see that they left everything intact. From the menus to the way the game loads. They didn't slap a new graphics engine on it. They didn't try to make lips move when they talk. They didn't update sound effects or music. All they did was make the game run in 1080p widescreen and sharpen the textures.
The game plays better now than it ever has because we can finally play the game the way it was meant to be played....with 2 joysticks.
I know that some would argue that Goldeneye is the superior of the two huge shooters Rare made, but I played Perfect Dark more because of the large customization in MP and because you could add up to 8 bots with ridiculously deadly skills.
Perfect Dark is actually the first game that Lead Salad and I played a lot together back in college. If you turn on my 64 to this day you will find our old save files and MP customizations and maps.
This game is.....Perfect. (sorry I couldn't resist)
I've been so happy to see that they left everything intact. From the menus to the way the game loads. They didn't slap a new graphics engine on it. They didn't try to make lips move when they talk. They didn't update sound effects or music. All they did was make the game run in 1080p widescreen and sharpen the textures.
The game plays better now than it ever has because we can finally play the game the way it was meant to be played....with 2 joysticks.
I know that some would argue that Goldeneye is the superior of the two huge shooters Rare made, but I played Perfect Dark more because of the large customization in MP and because you could add up to 8 bots with ridiculously deadly skills.
Perfect Dark is actually the first game that Lead Salad and I played a lot together back in college. If you turn on my 64 to this day you will find our old save files and MP customizations and maps.
This game is.....Perfect. (sorry I couldn't resist)
Darksiders
Started playing it yesterday and it's very very fun. I'm sure you all have heard the comparisons to Zelda and it's true. It feels like a modernized Zelda game in a post-apocalyptic world with combat that is actually challenging. I was very surprised at how fast and intense the combat can be at first because most games in the vein of Zelda or Fable have a little bit slower paced combat that's not too challenging, but here the enemies are fast, plentiful and with practically 0 drop in framerate.
One of the main things I like about combat is something very subtle. If you're mid-animation in a move you can basically hop to another move on the fly without waiting out the animation. Like I said small, but pivotal in a crunch.
I always forget how much I love exploring and so far this game has big areas to run around in!
Graphics are great considering the size of the boards and that there's no loading.
No real concerns at this time. I DO think that while the combat isn't easy that I won't be using many more than a handful of combos.
Considering that this is the first game from newcomer Vigil Games it's incredibly impressive and I can't wait to get back to playing when I get the time! Darksiders borrows from many great games and it shows, but they execute it all so fluidly you won't mind.
Why can't Nintendo do this?
Friday, March 19, 2010
A little more Nintendo bashing.
But is it justified this time?
I'm thinking specifically of my dislike for New Super Mario Bros. Wii here. It's essentially an old-school Mario platformer, which I should love, right? But I don't. Maybe because the big "innovation" for it is the 4 player coop, which I played and hated. Even if I did play thru the whole game by myself, I might like it, but at the same time I would feel like it was just a cut-and-paste of New Super Mario Bros. on the DS. Maybe I feel like it's just lazy of Nintendo to make this, since they've successfully taken Mario into the 3D world (almost 15 YEARS AGO-crazy that it's been that long) and even past that into space with Galaxy, but now they've taken a step back. Maybe it was just an effort to give younger players a try at playing a game very much like the all-important Super Mario Bros. from 1985. If THAT had been their reason for making it, I probably wouldn't be bothered so much. But I have a feeling they thought the 4 player coop was something awesome and that was "the big deal." It's been criticized by many (myself included) for a lack of innovation.
HOWEVER, there's another game series that I love (Mega Man) that has been resurrected in the past couple of years by a complete and utter LACK of innovation, yet I'm all for it. Mega Man 9 was released in 2008 for download on all 3 systems, and now in less than 2 weeks, Mega Man 10 is coming to 360 (after already being available on PS3 and Wii for a couple weeks). I bought 9 immediately and I'll be doing the same with 10. They're pretty much as old school as you can get (you can't even slide or charge up your shots).
I can't figure out why I'm so keen on these Mega Man sequels yet so hard on Mario. It could be simply because of what I've already said about how Mario has very successfully jumped into the 3D world, and anything less than that seems like a step in the wrong direction, whereas the Mega Man series has pretty much always been the same. I mean, there was at least one attempt that I remember to make a 3D game (Mega Man 64) but it was complete and utter poopoo.
Maybe it's the price that bothers me - $50 for NSMBW, or $10 for MM10.
Maybe I just want to hate on the Wii.
I'm thinking specifically of my dislike for New Super Mario Bros. Wii here. It's essentially an old-school Mario platformer, which I should love, right? But I don't. Maybe because the big "innovation" for it is the 4 player coop, which I played and hated. Even if I did play thru the whole game by myself, I might like it, but at the same time I would feel like it was just a cut-and-paste of New Super Mario Bros. on the DS. Maybe I feel like it's just lazy of Nintendo to make this, since they've successfully taken Mario into the 3D world (almost 15 YEARS AGO-crazy that it's been that long) and even past that into space with Galaxy, but now they've taken a step back. Maybe it was just an effort to give younger players a try at playing a game very much like the all-important Super Mario Bros. from 1985. If THAT had been their reason for making it, I probably wouldn't be bothered so much. But I have a feeling they thought the 4 player coop was something awesome and that was "the big deal." It's been criticized by many (myself included) for a lack of innovation.
HOWEVER, there's another game series that I love (Mega Man) that has been resurrected in the past couple of years by a complete and utter LACK of innovation, yet I'm all for it. Mega Man 9 was released in 2008 for download on all 3 systems, and now in less than 2 weeks, Mega Man 10 is coming to 360 (after already being available on PS3 and Wii for a couple weeks). I bought 9 immediately and I'll be doing the same with 10. They're pretty much as old school as you can get (you can't even slide or charge up your shots).
I can't figure out why I'm so keen on these Mega Man sequels yet so hard on Mario. It could be simply because of what I've already said about how Mario has very successfully jumped into the 3D world, and anything less than that seems like a step in the wrong direction, whereas the Mega Man series has pretty much always been the same. I mean, there was at least one attempt that I remember to make a 3D game (Mega Man 64) but it was complete and utter poopoo.
Maybe it's the price that bothers me - $50 for NSMBW, or $10 for MM10.
Maybe I just want to hate on the Wii.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Another Nintendo...
...comment that assures me they aren't interested in making hardcore games, but hey don't worry, it's not because they couldn't....they just don't want to.
I hope the Move and Natal wipe the floors with the Wii...just to shut Nintendo up, but then that would probably be bad cause MS would start making crap for 360 too. Damnit!
I hope the Move and Natal wipe the floors with the Wii...just to shut Nintendo up, but then that would probably be bad cause MS would start making crap for 360 too. Damnit!
I Love Games, Games, Games
(set to the tune of Jay-Z's song...) Is anyone else feeling overwhelmed with the amount of games out there? I just recieved Prototype in the mail yesterday from Goozex. It's like a blend between GTA and Spiderman 2 and it's pretty fun. Not the best game around but definitely fun to jump and glide around the city. Without turning this into a review (since it's been out for quite some time), I just wanted to say that I feel overwhelmed with the amount of games out there. Maybe because Goozex has opened up a world of games to me, since I had so many that I've traded it, I don't need to purchase points so I just use all the points I accumulate to get other games. Sacred 2, Viva Pinata, Hawx, FFXIII, and Prototype are sitting in my living room, demanding my time not to mention Bad Company 2.
The amount of fun and great video games just takes up too much time. You can't even get to all the good ones... so many games, so little time to play them all.
That's all I needed to say.
The amount of fun and great video games just takes up too much time. You can't even get to all the good ones... so many games, so little time to play them all.
That's all I needed to say.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Final Fail XIII?
I'm on the 2nd disc (of three) and about 15 hours plus some minutes into FFXIII and I have very mixed feelings on this game. (I'll try and be careful not to turn this into a fanboy post on how incredibly awesome FFXII was...).
First of all, let me say the graphics are amazing. I didn't think the 360 could produce something this good. You will definitely notice some drag in parts as you pan the camera around and this shows the true power that the graphics require to process. The environments are pretty darn awesome to look at and some parts are just downright breathtaking. It takes a keen eye to tell the difference between a CGI cutscene and a cutscene using the characters themselves. Music is pretty cool too going from orchestra to rock to harmonica/jazz/lunge music (which seems to occur around Sazh alot, making me assume that all Japanese are racists, haha... just kidding).
Secondly, the story is pretty cool. Stronger, in my opinion, than a lot of other FFs. This world Cocoon is a floating sphere containing several cities and different environments and it's where I'm still at. They hate anything to do with Pulse, the world below. These creatures, Fel'cie or something like that, control everything. Any of these creatures from Pulse that brand a person are evil. The characters are done pretty well though most are not as memorable or cool as characters from other FFs. Lighting is the female lead, Snow is this cool brawler guy, Hope is some annoying teenager bent on revenge, Sazh is the token black guy who has two pistols and a Chocobo in his afro which is pretty funny, Fang is some warrior chick, and Vanille is the ultra-optimistic high-pitched voice female.
The game is VERY linear through where I'm at. Not just one big area after another. We are talking tiny little paths that you walk down. Fight 3 battles, cutscene, 1 battle, cutscene, cutscene, panaramic environmental view, cutscene, 2 battles, cutscene, repeat, repeat. You upgrade weapons and purchase items at save points and so far, there have been no towns and no discussion. The game is all story sprinkled between battles. Once I complete the game, I will voice my final verdict on this but so far, it's a step backwards. Most FFs have been linear through most of them, 1/2 to 3/4s of the game is spent going from area to area and learning the story and then they finally explode and you can explore the whole world and do whatever. I'm desperately hoping this will happen eventually. This game makes the linear movement of past games appear like open-world games.
The battle system is what happens when other FFs get hooked on crack. I honestly believe that casual gamers are bringing about the downfall of gaming in general. I have been playing on normal mode and I might try playing on slow mode just to see if it tones it down a bit. But it plays more like Street Fighter meets strategy than a FF of the past. You will spam the auto-battle button while switching paradigms. Each paradigm is set up with your characters consisting of 6 different classes. Commando deals damage and holds up the stagger gauge from slowing down too much. (Enemies get staggered and you can deal more and more damage to them). Ravagers fill up the stagger meeting but it slows down really fast. Medics heal, Sentinels draw fire, Synergists cast protect and shell and what not, and Sabuteurs cast slow and other status on enemies. You only control the main character and if they fall in battle, battle over. However, you can retry and enter the period RIGHT before the battle began. It feels like a dumbing down of the series where control is ripped away from you and changing paradigms (which is extremely lame) is more important than casting cure or what not. Oh, and I have a mentioned there are no levels...? Which dumbass douchebag designer came up with that idea? A FF without levels? It's akin to Star Wars without Darth Vader... One doesn't exist without the other... and I've mostly been fighting with 2 people. My last boss battle last night was fought with 3, finally, and it was much more enjoyable than others have been.
"Leveling" up consists of spending CP points to purchase different attributes. You follow select paths and so far, there has been no choices whatsoever. You don't have a level but you do gain new powers in different classes. +3 Strength then +10HP then +3 Magic and so on and so forth. But enemies have levels so it's pretty hard to figure out if you should backtrack and power up more before taking a boss on. Oh, and certain class levels, new classes, and more powers don't open up until you reach certain points in the game. I've come across bosses that are really hard to defeat and I CAN'T GAIN ANY MORE POWER! What the heck!?
I could go on and on since I've been a fan of FF for a long time. Overall, the game is good and I want to complete it.
PROS: Graphics, music, story, history, leveling up items
CONS: No levels, battle system on crack, paradigm shifting, linear movement
If you love FF, you should check it out... eventually... but I would maybe purchase it used or wait until it drops in price or get it off of Goozex when someone like me trades it in... probably in 2013.
Game designers are tweaking their proven formulas too much and with the advent of "casual gaming", the farmville and guitar hero freaks are ruining the gaming industry. Why make a game that 1,000,000 hardcore gamers will buy when we came make some lame knock-off of last seasons hit that 3,000,000 will buy? Exactly...
I will try and post a secondary review once I've completed the game and it, hopefully, gets a little better...
First of all, let me say the graphics are amazing. I didn't think the 360 could produce something this good. You will definitely notice some drag in parts as you pan the camera around and this shows the true power that the graphics require to process. The environments are pretty darn awesome to look at and some parts are just downright breathtaking. It takes a keen eye to tell the difference between a CGI cutscene and a cutscene using the characters themselves. Music is pretty cool too going from orchestra to rock to harmonica/jazz/lunge music (which seems to occur around Sazh alot, making me assume that all Japanese are racists, haha... just kidding).
Secondly, the story is pretty cool. Stronger, in my opinion, than a lot of other FFs. This world Cocoon is a floating sphere containing several cities and different environments and it's where I'm still at. They hate anything to do with Pulse, the world below. These creatures, Fel'cie or something like that, control everything. Any of these creatures from Pulse that brand a person are evil. The characters are done pretty well though most are not as memorable or cool as characters from other FFs. Lighting is the female lead, Snow is this cool brawler guy, Hope is some annoying teenager bent on revenge, Sazh is the token black guy who has two pistols and a Chocobo in his afro which is pretty funny, Fang is some warrior chick, and Vanille is the ultra-optimistic high-pitched voice female.
The game is VERY linear through where I'm at. Not just one big area after another. We are talking tiny little paths that you walk down. Fight 3 battles, cutscene, 1 battle, cutscene, cutscene, panaramic environmental view, cutscene, 2 battles, cutscene, repeat, repeat. You upgrade weapons and purchase items at save points and so far, there have been no towns and no discussion. The game is all story sprinkled between battles. Once I complete the game, I will voice my final verdict on this but so far, it's a step backwards. Most FFs have been linear through most of them, 1/2 to 3/4s of the game is spent going from area to area and learning the story and then they finally explode and you can explore the whole world and do whatever. I'm desperately hoping this will happen eventually. This game makes the linear movement of past games appear like open-world games.
The battle system is what happens when other FFs get hooked on crack. I honestly believe that casual gamers are bringing about the downfall of gaming in general. I have been playing on normal mode and I might try playing on slow mode just to see if it tones it down a bit. But it plays more like Street Fighter meets strategy than a FF of the past. You will spam the auto-battle button while switching paradigms. Each paradigm is set up with your characters consisting of 6 different classes. Commando deals damage and holds up the stagger gauge from slowing down too much. (Enemies get staggered and you can deal more and more damage to them). Ravagers fill up the stagger meeting but it slows down really fast. Medics heal, Sentinels draw fire, Synergists cast protect and shell and what not, and Sabuteurs cast slow and other status on enemies. You only control the main character and if they fall in battle, battle over. However, you can retry and enter the period RIGHT before the battle began. It feels like a dumbing down of the series where control is ripped away from you and changing paradigms (which is extremely lame) is more important than casting cure or what not. Oh, and I have a mentioned there are no levels...? Which dumbass douchebag designer came up with that idea? A FF without levels? It's akin to Star Wars without Darth Vader... One doesn't exist without the other... and I've mostly been fighting with 2 people. My last boss battle last night was fought with 3, finally, and it was much more enjoyable than others have been.
"Leveling" up consists of spending CP points to purchase different attributes. You follow select paths and so far, there has been no choices whatsoever. You don't have a level but you do gain new powers in different classes. +3 Strength then +10HP then +3 Magic and so on and so forth. But enemies have levels so it's pretty hard to figure out if you should backtrack and power up more before taking a boss on. Oh, and certain class levels, new classes, and more powers don't open up until you reach certain points in the game. I've come across bosses that are really hard to defeat and I CAN'T GAIN ANY MORE POWER! What the heck!?
I could go on and on since I've been a fan of FF for a long time. Overall, the game is good and I want to complete it.
PROS: Graphics, music, story, history, leveling up items
CONS: No levels, battle system on crack, paradigm shifting, linear movement
If you love FF, you should check it out... eventually... but I would maybe purchase it used or wait until it drops in price or get it off of Goozex when someone like me trades it in... probably in 2013.
Game designers are tweaking their proven formulas too much and with the advent of "casual gaming", the farmville and guitar hero freaks are ruining the gaming industry. Why make a game that 1,000,000 hardcore gamers will buy when we came make some lame knock-off of last seasons hit that 3,000,000 will buy? Exactly...
I will try and post a secondary review once I've completed the game and it, hopefully, gets a little better...
Modern Warfare 2 maps
I knew there was a map pack coming, but I didn't know until this morning that it would be $15 for 3 new maps and 2 old ones (one of which I HATED). I've been reading message boards this morning filled with whining about the price point.
So....is $15 too much for 3 new maps and 2 old ones? I think so. I kinda thought the "standard" price for map packs was $10. Oh yeah, I also haven't played the game since BC2 came out. Also, I'm probably getting rid of it for that very reason.
If they released a new Spec Ops pack, that would be enticing since that was the best part of the game. Campaign made no sense, multi was ruined by glitches and perk exploits, but Spec Ops was a blast. Why no Spec Ops DLC?
I challenge you to NOT get these maps. Don't give any more money to Activision/IW for this heap.
So....is $15 too much for 3 new maps and 2 old ones? I think so. I kinda thought the "standard" price for map packs was $10. Oh yeah, I also haven't played the game since BC2 came out. Also, I'm probably getting rid of it for that very reason.
If they released a new Spec Ops pack, that would be enticing since that was the best part of the game. Campaign made no sense, multi was ruined by glitches and perk exploits, but Spec Ops was a blast. Why no Spec Ops DLC?
I challenge you to NOT get these maps. Don't give any more money to Activision/IW for this heap.
Friday, March 12, 2010
FF XIII
I went ahead and purchased FFXIII today so I will be posting up a review in about a year and a half when I finally complete it. I decided to take the chance since XII was so awesome and, imho, the best in the series after VII. Even the "bad" FF games have still been pretty decent games that sucked up a lot of my time. We'll see how this one fairs.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
I'm offended!!!!!
I have recently played thru (and had a very good time doing it btw) and restarted Dante's Inferno. Say what you want about it being a shameless ripoff of God of War or that it's not at all like the real book because it's still, at it's core, a very fun action game.
The point of this post is that this game can be downright revolting at times and I'll admit that more than once I was like, "maybe I shouldn't be playing this." Between killing unbaptized babies and the shocking amount of demon boobs I was tempted to take it back, but since I'd dropped 60 bucks for it and would get not even half that on a trade I just kept it.
Have you guys ever played a game that, in your mind, crossed the line and maybe upset or offended you? Did you take it back? Did you plow through it like I did just to not waste your money?
The point of this post is that this game can be downright revolting at times and I'll admit that more than once I was like, "maybe I shouldn't be playing this." Between killing unbaptized babies and the shocking amount of demon boobs I was tempted to take it back, but since I'd dropped 60 bucks for it and would get not even half that on a trade I just kept it.
Have you guys ever played a game that, in your mind, crossed the line and maybe upset or offended you? Did you take it back? Did you plow through it like I did just to not waste your money?
Decompressing (Mass Effect 2 Spoilers)
I just finished Mass Effect 2. Anyone who knows me will recognize this as a victory in and of itself - I do as well. I'm having trouble feeling good about it though.
To say that I didn't like Mass Effect 2 would be an incredible lie - it was awesome. The combat was tight, the conversations and dialogue was honest, and I got my moneys worth for sure with an easy 30 hours. But something isn't sitting right with me right now. I've hypothesized that this is due to this being the "middle child" of the series, much in the same way Empire Strikes Back is the middle child, and because the story line has no definite conclusion, maybe I'm feeling a bit empty. I've also theorized that maybe I rushed it at the end, and didn't take my time to appreciate the world like I did in the earlier parts of the game. I'm really not certain at all.
I don't like the decisions I made, but it seems like I'm in too deep now. This even goes back to the first Mass Effect game. I, being the curious gamer I am, couldn't pass up the opportunity with a romance situation and it's corresponding achievement points. As a result, I ended up creating this weird awkward relationship thing that keeps haunting me. I instantly regretted the decision, wishing I would have forgone the side quest for the sake of being true to the personal choice I was putting into my protagonist, but it won't leave me alone. Even on my desk in my room on the ship, there's a picture of Ashley. Determined not to make the same mistake again, I skipped the relationship missions on this game as well, only to have my main character walk around all lonely in his room before the final suicide run, and gaze awkwardly at his picture of Ashley! I tried so hard to invest my own choices and decisions into my character in hopes of creating a more personal gaming experience for myself, only to find that I'm being alienated by my own choices. I've even been tempted to start the whole experience over, crank through ME 1 and 2 again just so I can remake some of my choices.
This is so frustrating right now. I'm so glad I played both of these games, but the time I was spending playing it was significantly more rewarding than the consequences of my choices. Because the results were different from what I expected, I have less desire to embrace these choices as my own, but if I hold to my process of creating an honest, personal gameplay experience then I need to just accept this and move on. I don't even feel right creating a new character and starting over, even if it were just to make all the renegade choices... I'm taking away from the impact these games should have on me, or something.
I guess at the end of the day (which it is long past for me) I'm just a little bummed because I was hoping for a little more closure, and I didn't get. I wouldn't have gotten it anyway, since Mass Effect 3 doesn't exist yet, but not being happy and comfortable with the decisions I made can't be helping.
Who really likes Empire over Jedi anyway?
To say that I didn't like Mass Effect 2 would be an incredible lie - it was awesome. The combat was tight, the conversations and dialogue was honest, and I got my moneys worth for sure with an easy 30 hours. But something isn't sitting right with me right now. I've hypothesized that this is due to this being the "middle child" of the series, much in the same way Empire Strikes Back is the middle child, and because the story line has no definite conclusion, maybe I'm feeling a bit empty. I've also theorized that maybe I rushed it at the end, and didn't take my time to appreciate the world like I did in the earlier parts of the game. I'm really not certain at all.
I don't like the decisions I made, but it seems like I'm in too deep now. This even goes back to the first Mass Effect game. I, being the curious gamer I am, couldn't pass up the opportunity with a romance situation and it's corresponding achievement points. As a result, I ended up creating this weird awkward relationship thing that keeps haunting me. I instantly regretted the decision, wishing I would have forgone the side quest for the sake of being true to the personal choice I was putting into my protagonist, but it won't leave me alone. Even on my desk in my room on the ship, there's a picture of Ashley. Determined not to make the same mistake again, I skipped the relationship missions on this game as well, only to have my main character walk around all lonely in his room before the final suicide run, and gaze awkwardly at his picture of Ashley! I tried so hard to invest my own choices and decisions into my character in hopes of creating a more personal gaming experience for myself, only to find that I'm being alienated by my own choices. I've even been tempted to start the whole experience over, crank through ME 1 and 2 again just so I can remake some of my choices.
This is so frustrating right now. I'm so glad I played both of these games, but the time I was spending playing it was significantly more rewarding than the consequences of my choices. Because the results were different from what I expected, I have less desire to embrace these choices as my own, but if I hold to my process of creating an honest, personal gameplay experience then I need to just accept this and move on. I don't even feel right creating a new character and starting over, even if it were just to make all the renegade choices... I'm taking away from the impact these games should have on me, or something.
I guess at the end of the day (which it is long past for me) I'm just a little bummed because I was hoping for a little more closure, and I didn't get. I wouldn't have gotten it anyway, since Mass Effect 3 doesn't exist yet, but not being happy and comfortable with the decisions I made can't be helping.
Who really likes Empire over Jedi anyway?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Battlefield Bad Company 2 (single player)
So i finished up the single player campaign last night...i wasnt expecting much especially after BC1 SP wasn't much to shout about however, consider me pleasantly surprised. The game takes you through a nice variety of environments, paces the game very well helped by some nice vehicle sections and nice set pieces...it might not be as Blockbuster as MW2's single player but imo it gives it a decent run for it's money. The storyline's a bit wack but it kinda fits in with the attitude of Bad Company and the characters. I love the subtle digs at MW2 which i wont spoil for anyone just listen out for them during some of the cutscenes.
There's one mission in particular that stands out for me and without spoiling too much for those who havnet played it yet it basically reminded me of the old Halo CE missions, wide open areas a joy to play thru, they way the level's designed really made me feel like i was taking part in a proper war, and i had the freedom to go about it how i pleased...kinda wish more of the game was like that. On the other hand there was one mission in particular that wasnt so enjoyable, see if anyone else has the same opinion, but it didnt harm the campaign as a whole.
So all in all, very satisfying experience...i went thru it on normal mode and did my fair share of dying but i could be tempted to go back thru on hard one day even tho there's no achievements expect for one mission.
I havent mentioned Mulitplayer for the sole reason that it's totally badass, i cant get enough of it, was lucky enough to be playing in a rush game mode the other night and we had a party of 8 screaming orders at each other and we totally destroyed the other team. It deserves it's own post entirely.
There's one mission in particular that stands out for me and without spoiling too much for those who havnet played it yet it basically reminded me of the old Halo CE missions, wide open areas a joy to play thru, they way the level's designed really made me feel like i was taking part in a proper war, and i had the freedom to go about it how i pleased...kinda wish more of the game was like that. On the other hand there was one mission in particular that wasnt so enjoyable, see if anyone else has the same opinion, but it didnt harm the campaign as a whole.
So all in all, very satisfying experience...i went thru it on normal mode and did my fair share of dying but i could be tempted to go back thru on hard one day even tho there's no achievements expect for one mission.
I havent mentioned Mulitplayer for the sole reason that it's totally badass, i cant get enough of it, was lucky enough to be playing in a rush game mode the other night and we had a party of 8 screaming orders at each other and we totally destroyed the other team. It deserves it's own post entirely.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Game Review SCORES
I was just killing some time surfing the web and I went over to IGN's PS3 site and to my surprise they had a review of God of War III. I read the whole thing and they heap praise on it, saying it's an incredible action game, one of the best LOOKING games ever (especially Kratos himself), etc. However, they also said it had a few narrative issues and some character models don't look as good as they could, and in some parts the lighting wasn't as great as it is in other spots of the game. I finally got to the end of the review. Their score? A 9.3/10. I think this is a fair score, considering how much they liked it, but at the same time, taking into account that there were some things they didn't like so much or things that they thought needed work.
Immediately after this, I went over to Metacritic to check if there were other scores posted and there are quite a few. I just read the very first one, a 100/100 from Playstation Magazine, and this is what the tiny caption says: "God of War III is beautiful. It's bloody. It's brilliant. But it's not perfect." There's no link provided to read their whole review, or else I would, but this just bothered me. Why would you give a game a 100/100 (a PERFECT score) if you admit in your review summary that the game ISN'T perfect? Stupidity? Unconditional, blind love for a really solid Playstation exclusive (as it turns out, no, because there are 7 other reviews which give it a 100/100)?
Here's a comment from another review that gave it 100/100 (Gamervision) that I feel is slightly more appropriate: "Kratos is given a wonderfully epic farewell that would truly be a shame to miss, and every aspect of the game, from the controls, to the combat, to the presentation, is as close to perfect as perfect can be." Even with this one, though, they still only say that it's CLOSE to perfect.
Thoughts? What do you think of reviews? Do you trust them? Why do you think reviewers need to give games such high scores even when they have problems?
Lastly, are there any games that YOU think are perfect? A game, where if you had to review it professionally, you would give it 100/100?
As I was writing this, I kept thinking of a certain game that I actually would give a 100/100. Sorry (Amateria) that I'm probably putting what you would put, but I would give the honor to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. As I think back on the many times I've played it, I can't think of a single thing I DON'T like about it. There's NOTHING wrong with it.
Another one for me is Mega Man 2. It's one of the first games I remember playing a lot and mastering, and I can't think of a single thing wrong with it. Perfect controls, awesome music, challenging but never unfair, a classic.
I'll try to think of some more recent games, but in the meantime, I'm anxious to hear what anyone else thinks.
Immediately after this, I went over to Metacritic to check if there were other scores posted and there are quite a few. I just read the very first one, a 100/100 from Playstation Magazine, and this is what the tiny caption says: "God of War III is beautiful. It's bloody. It's brilliant. But it's not perfect." There's no link provided to read their whole review, or else I would, but this just bothered me. Why would you give a game a 100/100 (a PERFECT score) if you admit in your review summary that the game ISN'T perfect? Stupidity? Unconditional, blind love for a really solid Playstation exclusive (as it turns out, no, because there are 7 other reviews which give it a 100/100)?
Here's a comment from another review that gave it 100/100 (Gamervision) that I feel is slightly more appropriate: "Kratos is given a wonderfully epic farewell that would truly be a shame to miss, and every aspect of the game, from the controls, to the combat, to the presentation, is as close to perfect as perfect can be." Even with this one, though, they still only say that it's CLOSE to perfect.
Thoughts? What do you think of reviews? Do you trust them? Why do you think reviewers need to give games such high scores even when they have problems?
Lastly, are there any games that YOU think are perfect? A game, where if you had to review it professionally, you would give it 100/100?
As I was writing this, I kept thinking of a certain game that I actually would give a 100/100. Sorry (Amateria) that I'm probably putting what you would put, but I would give the honor to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. As I think back on the many times I've played it, I can't think of a single thing I DON'T like about it. There's NOTHING wrong with it.
Another one for me is Mega Man 2. It's one of the first games I remember playing a lot and mastering, and I can't think of a single thing wrong with it. Perfect controls, awesome music, challenging but never unfair, a classic.
I'll try to think of some more recent games, but in the meantime, I'm anxious to hear what anyone else thinks.
This week in games....
So I was doing my little bit of browsing this morning before heading into work when I got reminded of something that amidst the onslaught of new games, I had completely forgotten about: Final Fantasy XIII.
Anyone getting it on Tuesday?
I had been planning on it since the day I purchased my PS3 but now... I think I'll wait. I'm already up to my ears in games and am currently in the middle of trying to play through 3 all at the same time: Dark Void, Assassins Creed, and Bad Company 2. To be fair to these, I'm gonna hold off on the 847hrs worth of cut-scenes that is FFXIII.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Good news!!!
"Pete killed the psycho Berg!" (BJ at time and place of your choice if you get that quote. It does include the title of the post btw.)
Good news is that I'm off this weekend, but have a ton of homework and getting the babies room ready and praise and worship for church, BUT I have Monday off and I get to play all day (until class that night), but I'm still really excited! Been forever since I've been able to sit and play for more than an hour anytime earlier than 11PM.
BOOYAH!
Good news is that I'm off this weekend, but have a ton of homework and getting the babies room ready and praise and worship for church, BUT I have Monday off and I get to play all day (until class that night), but I'm still really excited! Been forever since I've been able to sit and play for more than an hour anytime earlier than 11PM.
BOOYAH!
Just something I've noticed....
I personally have traded out MW2. People in this blog are playing it less and less and as of yesterday I was getting message in my Facebook inbox of people (some friends and some not) inquiring about BC2. I'm not joking almost everyone of them said they're over the instant satisfaction of MW2 and one guy said he, "wants a grown ups shooter." I just wanted to mention that to you guys because the people making these comments are completely unaware of this blog or my thoughts on MW2.
BOOM!
*This isn't meant to start another war....just an observation.*
BOOM!
*This isn't meant to start another war....just an observation.*
Thursday, March 4, 2010
5 Min In.... Review: Dark Void
Ok, so I've only played through the prologue and watched the opening cinematic but I feel like I needed to write about the first 5 minutes of the game.
The prologue begins with you flying in your jet pack killing these "UFOs". Immediately this felt familiar. It controlled very similarly to Crimson Skies (and for good reason) except that I resembled a flying Marcus Fenix.... oh good one Unreal Engine.
But my main reason for writing this is because as the opening cinematic begins and this somehow familiar pilot begins flying one of those old 1930's boat planes (you know, the ones that land in water) that ends up crash landing into the jungle. Then it suddenly slapped me in the face. Am I dreaming or have I seen.... AND HEARD this exact thing before? The answer is, YES. A very similar scene takes place in Uncharted 1 and the lead voice actor is none other than Nolan North... aka Nathan Drake. I guess if they were looking to get a gamer like myself interesting in this game, they have succeeded twice with the similarities to Crimson Skies and Uncharted. Guess we'll see if this is just a one time thing or if it plays out throughout the rest of the game....
Now... back at it... for another couple minutes at least.
Way too juicy to not post.
I know we've been getting away from linked stories, but this is too awesome. The ex heads of IW are suing Activision and it makes Bobby Kotick and Activision look every bit as evil and terrible to games as we've always hoped they would be! Recently I've been buying so many EA games I don't really need anything else: Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Dantes Inferno and Bad Company2. Down with Activision!
1 for 1
I hate sounding like a broken record on this, because it was already brought up in a previous post, but what is with the traded kills?
I've only had BFBC2 for 2 days now, and I bet I've already had more 1 for 1 moments than my entire ownership of MW2. I know that it should be seen as a semi-positive attribute, but what does it mean in terms of gameplay? 3N3MY definitely hit my initial instinct right on the money, it's definitely better than not getting anything for the death. Unlike MW2, there are no real bonuses for working up a killstreak, so a death means a lot less in this game than in others, but it's still a drag to die like that.
We've been playing conquest mode a great deal. To those unfamiliar, it's very similar to the Domination in the Call of Duty games. Unlike Domination, however, Conquest rewards teamwork and cooperation because the flags take a significantly longer time to capture. The capture "zone" is also significantly larger, which also rewards teamwork, because if someone from the other team is in the capture area with you as well, more people can look to clean it out, or overpower their presence, whichever is more relevant to the moment.
The 1 for 1 kills really make this a frustrating process. It might be comforting to at least know that this encounter isn't going to be affecting your K/D, but it also prevents the game from moving forward. Neither team is allowed to make progress, neither team is any closer to their goal, either defending or attacking.
Even as I'm writing this, I'm having trouble coming to a definite conclusion on whether or not this is something I appreciate or not. Is this intentional design, used to create a better sense of fairness, hoping to curb the "no way" sorts of moments we all have, or is this sloppy hit detection or health depletion, inadvertently creating 1 for 1 moments? Despite the fact that I appreciate what it means for the gameplay, I can't shake the feeling that this is accidental - last night I traded kills with my SMG and a combat knife... I suppose in real life that makes more sense then 2 people simultaneously shooting each other in the head, because after the one with the gun killed the other, the dead body could at least fall on the other with the drawn knife... no! See? It happened again?
Help? Anyone else have thoughts on these sorts of moments? It's not like this is breaking the game for me, but I can't figure out why it's their, much less, if I like it or not...
EDIT: Let me also remind everyone they should get this game. It's super fun to play as a group, and I can't think of anything better than having a group of 6-8, 2 different squads, all in the same party chat... awesome!
I've only had BFBC2 for 2 days now, and I bet I've already had more 1 for 1 moments than my entire ownership of MW2. I know that it should be seen as a semi-positive attribute, but what does it mean in terms of gameplay? 3N3MY definitely hit my initial instinct right on the money, it's definitely better than not getting anything for the death. Unlike MW2, there are no real bonuses for working up a killstreak, so a death means a lot less in this game than in others, but it's still a drag to die like that.
We've been playing conquest mode a great deal. To those unfamiliar, it's very similar to the Domination in the Call of Duty games. Unlike Domination, however, Conquest rewards teamwork and cooperation because the flags take a significantly longer time to capture. The capture "zone" is also significantly larger, which also rewards teamwork, because if someone from the other team is in the capture area with you as well, more people can look to clean it out, or overpower their presence, whichever is more relevant to the moment.
The 1 for 1 kills really make this a frustrating process. It might be comforting to at least know that this encounter isn't going to be affecting your K/D, but it also prevents the game from moving forward. Neither team is allowed to make progress, neither team is any closer to their goal, either defending or attacking.
Even as I'm writing this, I'm having trouble coming to a definite conclusion on whether or not this is something I appreciate or not. Is this intentional design, used to create a better sense of fairness, hoping to curb the "no way" sorts of moments we all have, or is this sloppy hit detection or health depletion, inadvertently creating 1 for 1 moments? Despite the fact that I appreciate what it means for the gameplay, I can't shake the feeling that this is accidental - last night I traded kills with my SMG and a combat knife... I suppose in real life that makes more sense then 2 people simultaneously shooting each other in the head, because after the one with the gun killed the other, the dead body could at least fall on the other with the drawn knife... no! See? It happened again?
Help? Anyone else have thoughts on these sorts of moments? It's not like this is breaking the game for me, but I can't figure out why it's their, much less, if I like it or not...
EDIT: Let me also remind everyone they should get this game. It's super fun to play as a group, and I can't think of anything better than having a group of 6-8, 2 different squads, all in the same party chat... awesome!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Zelda: OoT for the Blind
Check out this video I saw on the front page of CNN.com
I'll save my thoughts for the comments. But seriously, check it out.
Infinity Ward...goodbye quality control in Call of Duty?
Don't know if you guys have been keeping up with the mess that's going on between Infinity Ward and Activision, but apparently 2 high level employees with IW are no longer working there and Activision is suing for insubordination. Not long after this Activision announced it's plans to basically whore out Call of Duty not only to even more developers, but also into additional genres like "action adventure." My guess was that IW didn't want this to happen so Activision told them where they could stick it.
Anyways....a guy in the comments left what I found to be a funny dialogue of what may have been said between IW and Activision.
Is this how it went down?
IW: As the creators of "Call of Duty," we think it should have a two year release cycle to keep things fresh.
Activision: Two a year? Sounds great.
IW: No, no. One game every two years.
Activision: What? No. That's not maximizing profitability and brand awareness!
IW: ......
Activision: Don't look so glum! OK, compromise time: we'll just release an inferior iteration of the series by a mediocre developer every year you don't deliver a completed game to us.
IW: Look, we just don't want you to ruin Call of Duty the way you did Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.
Activision: Don't worry, I'm sure we'll find new and completely different ways to ruin Call of Duty. How about a third person action adventure title?
IW: What? No. That's not Call of Duty.
Activision: This preliminary box art sure says it is!
IW: Oh look, you put a "Call of Duty" sticker over the words "Uncharted 2." I'm sure Call of Duty: Among Thieves is going to go over really well with the gaming public.
Activsion: If you don't drop the sarcasm we're not even going to bother showing you Call of Duty: Xtreme Beach Volleyball. It's explosively jiggly!
IW: See, this is what we were afraid of. You're not just mishandling "Call of Duty," you're exploiting it... You're abusing it... You're raping it.
Activision: So? We here at Activision believe it would be downright irresponsible to our stock holders if we didn't rape our intellectual property as hard and as often as possible. Market research shows that "Call of Duty" has several years of quality rape left in it and it is critical that we don't miss a single rape-ortunity.
IW: We never thought we'd say this, but we miss EA.
Activision: Oh, boo hoo. Quit your crying or we'll rape you too!
IW: *Leaves*
Anyways....a guy in the comments left what I found to be a funny dialogue of what may have been said between IW and Activision.
Is this how it went down?
IW: As the creators of "Call of Duty," we think it should have a two year release cycle to keep things fresh.
Activision: Two a year? Sounds great.
IW: No, no. One game every two years.
Activision: What? No. That's not maximizing profitability and brand awareness!
IW: ......
Activision: Don't look so glum! OK, compromise time: we'll just release an inferior iteration of the series by a mediocre developer every year you don't deliver a completed game to us.
IW: Look, we just don't want you to ruin Call of Duty the way you did Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.
Activision: Don't worry, I'm sure we'll find new and completely different ways to ruin Call of Duty. How about a third person action adventure title?
IW: What? No. That's not Call of Duty.
Activision: This preliminary box art sure says it is!
IW: Oh look, you put a "Call of Duty" sticker over the words "Uncharted 2." I'm sure Call of Duty: Among Thieves is going to go over really well with the gaming public.
Activsion: If you don't drop the sarcasm we're not even going to bother showing you Call of Duty: Xtreme Beach Volleyball. It's explosively jiggly!
IW: See, this is what we were afraid of. You're not just mishandling "Call of Duty," you're exploiting it... You're abusing it... You're raping it.
Activision: So? We here at Activision believe it would be downright irresponsible to our stock holders if we didn't rape our intellectual property as hard and as often as possible. Market research shows that "Call of Duty" has several years of quality rape left in it and it is critical that we don't miss a single rape-ortunity.
IW: We never thought we'd say this, but we miss EA.
Activision: Oh, boo hoo. Quit your crying or we'll rape you too!
IW: *Leaves*
It's the Summer of Battlefield...
But in September, it'll be the Fall of Reach.
Seriously though, this was "leaked" earlier in the week, and now it's official. I'm personally stoked. Some of the new features look like they could be a little bit gimmicky, but at the end of the day, looks like a refreshing breath to a consistent, but undeniably tired Halo experience.
Seriously though, this was "leaked" earlier in the week, and now it's official. I'm personally stoked. Some of the new features look like they could be a little bit gimmicky, but at the end of the day, looks like a refreshing breath to a consistent, but undeniably tired Halo experience.
BC2 First Impressions Go Here....in this post
I played for just over 3 hours last night and while some others in the blog had some pretty consistent problems with finding and staying in matches my experience was nothing but flawless. I never waited more than 5 seconds tops to find a match.
All I played was Conquest mode and I'm happy to say it's just as awesome as it's always been. They obviously stuck with the tried and true methods they've used in past games and it shows.
They streamlined the spawning this time. Unlike 1943 (XBLA) and BC1 where you have to go to a different menu to select to spawn with your squad now everything is on the same list. Playing with and finding Amateria in the battlefield was easier than ever.
Class based combat is STILL awesome. I was surprised to find myself playing as and loving the hell out of the engineer class. I was running Amateria and myself around the maps and repairing our vehicles while he was C4ing the crap out of enemy positions and tanks. It was ridiculous amounts of fun. Glad to see that the RPGs for the engineers do a fair amount of damage to tanks and that you actually get 4 when you spawn and not just 2.
Only quasi complaint is the sometimes shocking amount of traded kills (you and an enemy kill each other at the same time). I guess I'd rather have this than just being killed every time.
Bottom line. The game is awesome and I'm glad that I made a stink about it this past month because I really feel it's the kick in the pants we need out of a shooter. Something big and different and team based....and....destructible everything!!!
All I played was Conquest mode and I'm happy to say it's just as awesome as it's always been. They obviously stuck with the tried and true methods they've used in past games and it shows.
They streamlined the spawning this time. Unlike 1943 (XBLA) and BC1 where you have to go to a different menu to select to spawn with your squad now everything is on the same list. Playing with and finding Amateria in the battlefield was easier than ever.
Class based combat is STILL awesome. I was surprised to find myself playing as and loving the hell out of the engineer class. I was running Amateria and myself around the maps and repairing our vehicles while he was C4ing the crap out of enemy positions and tanks. It was ridiculous amounts of fun. Glad to see that the RPGs for the engineers do a fair amount of damage to tanks and that you actually get 4 when you spawn and not just 2.
Only quasi complaint is the sometimes shocking amount of traded kills (you and an enemy kill each other at the same time). I guess I'd rather have this than just being killed every time.
Bottom line. The game is awesome and I'm glad that I made a stink about it this past month because I really feel it's the kick in the pants we need out of a shooter. Something big and different and team based....and....destructible everything!!!
Monday, March 1, 2010
OGO PS3
Have you guys been keeping up on this PS3 outage???
I'm a PS3 fan and all but WTF!?!? It's like Y2K all over again. Best part is that it is an internal flaw in the system and completely unrelated to PSN (at least at the time of posting this). But, despite all the flaws with the 360, none of them were big enough to take ALL PS3s ON EARTH out at once.
Forgive me for laughing a bit inside.
Thoughts?
2 things....
1. Dante's Inferno is a good time. I picked it up on Friday and have really been enjoying it. I would have borrowed it from my bro, but seeing as to how there's some awesome DLC coming out at the end of April I got it for myself. Mainly because it adds coop challenge rooms and even better is user created challenge rooms which sky rockets the replay value. Since my bro and I both love action games...it seemed a perfect fit.
2. Bad Company 2 comes out tomorrow and it's getting awesome reviews. Looking forward to conquest and squad on squad combat.
That is all.
2. Bad Company 2 comes out tomorrow and it's getting awesome reviews. Looking forward to conquest and squad on squad combat.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
