Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Gears of War: Judgment

Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)
Genre: Third Person Cover Shooter
ESRB: M (machine gun violence and gore, profanity)
Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 8/6
Developer: Epic Games, People Can Fly


I still say it's spelled "judgement!" Spelling arguments aside, I think this might be the best game since the first one. Gears 2 and 3 took themselves too seriously. Although I'd still give all three of them two stars because they all have such polish, this one is stronger because it's simply more fun. I do sense the same problem that God of War: Ascension had in that this is a sequel that was crapped out simply for more money, this time these guys come off as just goofing off rather than lazy. I'm rather pleased with the improvement this attitude has had on the franchise.

This Loomis guy is a real comedian.
Previous games tried to be more "emotional" to connect with the audience. While I love a good story, a story about beefy meatmen with machine gun chainsaws being led by Bender B. Rodriguez lends itself to a light-hearted fun ride. Rather than focusing on how depressing this post-apocalypse is, it's more about shooting the mean aliens in the face and spouting one-liners. The basic premise is absurd off the bat: Baird- the leader of the rag-tag group of player characters- is standing trial right in the middle of a giant battle. From there the team recollects all the events that led to the trial. There's a bunch of cliches and "you're a loose cannon!" type shouting. Truly a narration befitting the ridiculousness of video game nonsense.

The enemy: slightly more monster-ish than the good guys. Clearly evil!
I have nothing to say about gameplay in this game other than that is is identical to the previous three games. Really. We've got some Dynasty Warriors-level change-ups going around. There are extra challenges during the levels and you can carry one less gun, that's about all I can remember. It's still good, though. Possibly the cleanest animations and smoothest controls in a third person shooter out there. But one thing they could have changed more is the button configuration. I want to click the left stick to run and have moving to cover be another button. I am freaking tired of getting stuck to cover when I'm trying to run and dodge around!

My notes on multiplayer are even shorter. I'm not really sure what's different here. Some of the names seem different. None of the modes are called "Horde mode," but I'm pretty sure that's what "Survival" is now. They all proved to be fun in co-op (Although me and my co-op partner were inexplicably locked out from earning achievements when doing so in split screen. I guess all people in the group need to be on Gold accounts? Regardless, it was annoying.) but even just a few months out I found the number of players to be too thin to use the matchmaking system. Not only that, but it kept telling me I didn't have all the DLC so I wasn't allowed to play. It was too much effort to even find a game, so I gave up.

Conclusion:
A well-polished shooter for everyone, but I recommend it most as a fun co-op adventure if you're the type who has a buddy to play some split-screen with.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

BioShock

Rating: 3 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)
Genre: First Person Shooter; Sub-genre: Survival Horror
ESRB: M (machine gun violence and gore)
Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 40/16
Developer: Irrational Games


What's great about this retro-review is that I get to totally cheat at my recommendation. Personally I would consider this a weak three stars, maybe even a two, just because the game relies on a lot overly video game-y stuff and it relies on them again and again. But the past six years have shown that pretty much every one loves this game. Funny story, though, I only just played this game within the past few weeks for the first time. So I'm a big, fat fraud and stuff! Wakka wakka!

Andrew Ryan. He's inside your brain or something.
By today's standards, the story is missing some important components. Namely the lack of cutscenes, both in-game and pre-rendered, to tell the story. While it does feel like both a cute throwback and allows the game to flow more naturally, it does have the downside of being unable to show full range of emotions and- possibly more importantly- it is unable to properly tell a story through visuals. That might be fine and dandy by the book-reading types, but this is a visual media! My last complaint is that the story contains twists that don't completely work. On the one hand, the game is good to explain how the player character is so capable. On the other, there are pivotal moments when the bad guys don't use this knowledge to their advantage. Even despite these things, the story flows from level to level and keeps you attached, motivated, and included. I even played the game by ignoring those stupid recordings that people always leave behind in video games.

There's these big guys that have way more hit points than anything else.  Look out.
Going back and playing this game and knowing of its commercial and critical success, I can see how so many games have tried to copy it. Certain things were easy to improve upon. The gun handling and powers feel clunky at times, and money management is so obviously made challenging with a simple $500 limit on your wallet. And then there's the hacking; it's the same mini-game for everything throughout the entire game. What games haven't perfected is the level of exploration afforded combined with the mechanics introduced: photography, crafting, and weapon upgrades. If it weren't for the outdated controls, it would still be a top-quality shooter today.

Conclusion:
While I don't think the game is as mind-blowing as people who don't play that many video games say, it certainly contains top quality craftsmanship through and through that will leave most anyone satisfied.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Console War 2013

It's time once again for a new generation of consoles! The current generation will have been a good 8 years long (which is about 3 years longer than average) and was deeply satisfying. Such stellar graphics and immersive storytelling in addition to being catered by state-of-the-art matchmaking and online features; we truly are completely spoiled compared to the days when $50 bought you five minutes of frustration with an impossibly difficult game. I found myself dreaming just how much better things could get in the next generation. And yet somehow people (read: Microsoft) seem to be trying their hardest to piss us off!

Rather than cover E3, I decided to write out my thoughts on this coming generation. Maybe it'll make me feel better to talk it out.


First up, Nintendo:
These guys have an entire year head start on the new generation of consoles. That would be a great boon if they didn't put out a complete disaster. If you have a Wii U and are happy with it, that's good. But there are some huge problems with this thing, so maybe you should mentally prepare yourself for the possibility that Nintendo could fold this console. They won't go away, no no, but none of the decisions they have made here are paying off.

This system was made so that Nintendo would be able to deliver HD graphics and triple-A titles from third party developers. Already these are two things that it will not be able to offer. Third party developers are giving up on this thing faster than they did the original Wii. And the graphics only shape up compared to the XBox 360 and PS3. That means that when the XBox One and PS4 come out, this console will have last gen graphics. And this is a lot worse than the Wii. I can at least say that the Wii did look a little better than the XBox and PS2. Topping things off, I've read that the OS and online features still aren't that great. Nothing as bad as the friend codes from the Wii, and hopefully matchmaking is less laggy than before. But no reviews point these out as being solid.

I haven't been happy with Nintendo's consoles since the illustrious SNES. Boy, that thing was swell. I can see that the N64 had strong points to it, but I (and third party developers) preferred the PS1. The Virtual Boy was a total failure and the GameCube couldn't touch the PS2, so I think this is the end for Nintendo as a console. Too many mistakes, my old friend. We don't hate you, though. In fact, seeing as how strong the Wii's sales were, it's clear we still want to like you, buddy! Hell, I bought one. I've mostly used it as a dust gatherer but I still own one. And your handhelds are still strong... although you should watch out for those smart phones digging into your territory. But my point is: we'd all welcome you as a third party developer. I promise we won't treat you as poorly as you treated your third parties. We'll be nice!



Next up, Microsoft:

Ah, the XBox One. Not sure if anyone's said this yet, but this is the dumbest name for a console that Microsoft has come up with. Maybe the next one will be the XBox RoX or something. It'll wear sunglasses and crap. Anyway, I don't hide that the XBox 360 is my preferred way of gaming. So my bias is to hope for the best on this guy, but MAN are they trying hard to lose my vote. If you haven't heard yet, Microsoft made it official that this system will require constant online connection to play. Worse yet, it has some kind of system that limits your ability to get games used, borrowed, or rented.

The thing is, for many XBox fans (myself included) the "always on" feature will make almost no difference. When my XBox can't connect to Live- which is very infrequent and usually my crappy ISP's fault- I don't want to play my games anyway. I want to know my game's are up-to-date and keeping proper track of all the odds and ends. Paranoia about it recording your illicit perversions is just that: paranoia. I bet MS is well aware of how perverted people are, I doubt they want to know more about it. Joking aside, I doubt that it will be stealing your privacy in any way. At least, not any more than a website that makes ad's based on your location and cookies. Being forced to pay for the games I play is unfortunate, but not terrible. It will mean I will play less games than now. But there are people who buy every game new anyway. I know because those used games you buy at GameStop were new at some point! So it's possible this won't be as unbearable as people think. It won't be as good, of course, but it won't be horrible. The biggest hit taken will be Microsoft themselves. Do they really think this will do anything besides hurt their numbers? I mean, it will REALLY hurt their sales.

Moving on from the obvious stuff, what else is there? Really, I do mean that question. They're forcing a Kinect on everyone. Which is a cool trinket but still useless to me. Which is another headache for XBox sales because it directly affects its price along with delaying its release in some places in order for work to be complete on voice recognition localization (hey, while you're "making sure it works right for everyone" can you double check to make sure there aren't any red rings this time around?). All I know is that everything is "better" or "richer" or "deeper" but I have no clue how. And a lot of the features I see them promoting aren't related to gaming. With all this DRM, streaming videos, and social crap going into this generation it seems like they're just selling us a freaking PC.



Lastly, Sony:


It's $100 cheaper than the XBox One, doesn't require you to be "always on," and doesn't have any inbred coding to combat used/borrowed/rented games. Because of this, many are declaring this to be the clear winner. Here's my thing, though: is that it? Great, you guys aren't being jerks like Microsoft. Although Sony has said that publishers will be allowed to make their own policies on DRM (also, Sony still uses online passes in their games- like in God of War: Ascension and Last of Us- so they are simply more clever at dealing with used/borrowed/rented games) But my question is: will PS4 suck less than the PS3? Who knows! If it doesn't, then it LOSES. And that means all three of the major players will have disappointments on the market. What a bleak generation this will be, huh?

I know a lot of people are happy with their PS3's. I tend to attribute this to either stubbornness or ignorance. Especially if said PS3 owner has never played the Uncharted series. Seriously. If you're a PS3 fan and you haven't played those games, don't even talk to me. Heh, sorry that was harsh. I don't mean that. It's just.... why do you have a PS3!? Ugh. But I suppose that's Sony's market: people who aren't super in-the-know or critical thinkers. See, I loved both the PS1 and PS2. The original XBox was cute, but it couldn't compete with Sony's beefy exclusives. So, if anything, I came into this generation regarding Sony as the leader in the industry. It was only after playing both systems that I discovered how inferior the PS3 is. And looking at how incredibly stupid the PS4 controller is, I'm very wary that this new system will still feature just as many missteps as this one. Like how clunky the OS is on PS3 (slow and unflowing menus, trophy system that takes forever to load and isn't as apparent as MS's point system, saving games takes forever, updating takes forever, friends list not as clean, etc). That's something that could easily happen again. I mean, they put a screen in their controller based on what? Because Nintendo did it? Because of iPhones and iPads? And look how tiny that screen IS! Without going off on a rant, there's one fundamental problem with this design really sums it all up: you are NEVER supposed to look at your controller when playing. Although I guess Playstation players do it a lot because the face buttons have confusing shapes on them instead of letters coupled with primary colors.

The last thing I need to mention is that Sony is Japanese. This is kind of a problem since the majority of games out there come from "western" developers. The reason being- to over-simplify it- is that "eastern" developers are behind the times. And I have a hard time seeing a system coming from a region that's behind as a system that's going to be top notch. For example: Epic Games. They're American and they made the XBox exclusive series "Gears of War." Know what else they make? Unreal Engine. Do you have any idea HOW MANY games come out that use the Unreal Engine? Microsoft and these guys are pretty close. That's a nice advantage to have when designing your console, don't ya think?



Conclusion:
I am entirely satisfied with this console generation. I hope that feeling doesn't become nostalgia, but it seems impossible that SOMEONE won't come away with something awesome for this generation. I'm going to hope Microsoft isn't as bad as it sounds. Sony can still win it, especially in sales, but I'm not betting on their system. Not until I see the results, anyway. There could actually be a changing of the guard, though....



...because there are some new challengers on the field!

Valve has plans for a console. Those guys have their heads in the game, just look at Steam! And hey, maybe they'll be smart asses and finally release Half Life 3 as an exclusive. Wakka wakka!


Nvidia is also making... a thing. It can play current gen games, but is a hand held or something. Check it out.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

God of War: Ascension

Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)
Genre: Beat-'em-up; Sub-genre: Platformer
ESRB: M (extreme violence and gore, excessive use of boobs)
Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 9/4
Developer: SCE Santa Monica Studio


Here's the short version: play the first game in the series and then be done with it. It's a complete story with a definite ending. They must not have expected it to be such a big deal because now they've had to crap out 3 sequels (a couple more on handhelds, but whatever), none of which make any sense in regards to that first game. AND none of which are that different. The buttons change, the weapons change, the items change, but the gameplay is too close to the same every time. Hell, we're all horribly tired of quicktime events. But God of War 4 doesn't care, "Here's more overlong animations that require you to match buttons!" I've pretty much summed it all up, but I'll elaborate more anyway.

This image summarizes the plot of God of War 2 and 3. Now you're caught up!
There's a point in this story where Kratos says that too much innocent blood has been spilled that day, so it's good that this game goes back to showing him as being some manner of human type of being. It's nice to think that this is someone that has some kind of goals and motives that fit into a coherent plot, but I can't give it any credit there. This game had me constantly asking questions: "Where am I? What am I doing? How does Kratos know where to go? DOES he know where to go? Where are the other people? Wait, how did a person get HERE? Does Kratos know these people?" It also didn't help that the story is arbitrarily told out of order. I couldn't help but notice laziness abounds: dialogue that was so to-the-point it sounded like a storyboard note, a shrine that was placed inside of a machine where no humans could possible visit it just to give Kratos a timely upgrade, and on and on. It's not as head-bludgeoningly dumb as the last two console sequels, it just feels like they didn't care. Like Santa Monica Studio just wanted to dump this game in our laps and move on to the next thing.

Naming a place? Just mash the keyboard!
My own personal disappointment with this game has always been the gameplay. For being so hyped and triple-A budgeted, I hope for something like Batman: Arkham Asylum. That wasn't the case in the first game, and it never improved from game to game. Sure, each one has some fun and interesting gimmick, but zero polish and fundamental design changes have occurred. It's more than the average Dynasty Warriors sequel, but still in the "pointless re-arranging" design philosophy. Screw it, I'm just going to itemize the problems I have with the gameplay:

-Button lockup and timing (might be a PS3 issue). Not able to always smoothly go from one thing into the next.
-Dodge cancel is most reliable during first three square attacks. This makes them a million times better than all other attacks
-Weird jump arc. Kratos almost goes straight up and down and doesn't fully articulate his legs.
-Elements do nothing. Forget what Pokemon taught you, don't expect any depth. Ex: don't bother hitting icy enemies with fire or whatever. It's just to show off different graphical effect shinies and rewards different orbs based on element. 
-Once again: button memory. Mash square ten times, Kratos attacks three to five times before noticing I'm pressing triangle. Do the thing assigned to the button I am currently pressing, please!
-What does rage mode do? (game hint: lightning element allows you to do an attack with invincibility frames)
-Bad footing detection.
-Bad grappling hook detection.
-Too dark to see at inappropriate times... which is a lot of the time.
-New Quicktime Events are just confusing; can't know when player is in control
-Using circle to climb down does nothing most of the time. It becomes entirely disabled.
-Amulet of uruboros item has bad targeting during puzzles
-Too many moves, most have no use.
-Camera is too far away!!!!

Borrowing from "Where's Waldo," apparently.
I was actually super excited to try out the multiplayer part of this game. My understanding is it is PvE (player versus environment, the opposite of PvP) and I figured it might be the Beat-'em-up version of Mass Effect 3's horde mode! Sadly, I rented this title and the multiplayer requires an online pass to access it, so I did not get to try it. That's not entirely my fault, though, man. Games that do this usually let you try it out or get to like "level 5" or something. I blame Sony!

Conclusion:
Still a feast of a game for anyone who wants to control a man who punches mountain-sized monsters. Personally, I wanted to go lower than two stars but it is still a beautiful, ton of work to behold.