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

Wiki page

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.

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

Wiki page

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.

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!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)#Steam_Box

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Shield

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

Wiki page

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.

Enemy Power Scale for All Video Games

Not every gamer knows all the tropes and cliches that someone like me is used to. So sometimes I feel the need to organize my thoughts into crappy guides. But this isn't just for noobs, this is kinda like a philosophical reflection on the "society" of videogameland. It's also pretty funny to me because video games are freaking silly.

This is a scale I've devised for determining the levels of strength enemies can have. Hey, maybe some developer out there needs a way to measure this stuff! Never know! Here we go!

10. Escorts

Oh, dreaded escort missions. We all understand that these guys are weak and the player character is a bad ass, but why do they always seem so suicidal? This is why I consider them to be the enemy!

9. Mega Giants

If you ever see a bad guy that's bigger than the entire level, you can immediately take a breath of relief. These guys insist on throwing easy mini-games at you instead of just smashing you and the 50 feet around you into oblivion.

8. Defenseless Critters

Don't be fooled, these guys are tactical geniuses. You'll try to take a shot at them with your machine gun, but then they'll skitter away and you'll miss... ten times. Before you know it, you've wasted precious ammo and got the attention of the real bad guys in the room!

7. Shield guys

For some reason blocking is often a waste of time. Unless it's a bad guy doing it. And goodness help you if said enemy has a shield. You'll have to drop everything and dedicate all your attention to getting around that thing.

6. Fat guys

Every male in video games is super buff, and every female is super hot. So when these oddities come around, you better believe they got a lot of hit points and can't be staggered and what-not. How do they even get fat, though? If even book worm mages are totally ripped, does that mean you have to work out and train to become fat? How strong they are compared to musclemen would certainly suggest so.

5. Anyone with a Funny Hat

In movies, if you see a guy with a scar or a missing eye then you know he's a mean customer. In video games, faces can be too far away (or other technical reasons) for you to see stuff like that. But a hat is an easily distinctive trait. Somewhere along the way things went awry and the hats started trying too hard to get your attention. By video game logic, the Pope must be a master martial artist!

4. Small birds/bats

Trying to make a tough jump? Expecting to be able to keep your eyes on the targets in front of you without something swooping down from above to distract you? Too bad!

3. Dogs

Little four-legged creatures can't be grabbed because they're not human shaped. They don't use cover because they're dumb animals. They just charge in super fast- faster than you can strafe or run and turn- and dig into your blind spot, staggering you with their non-assault-rifle-bullet-shooting-mouths-that-are-somehow-more-powerful.

2. Cutscene enemies

It doesn't matter how skilled you are or how decked out your character is, when a cutscene comes up then you can DIE. In one hit!

1. Children

They're invincible! Don't make them mad or they'll destroy the entire world!

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: Platformer; Sub-genre: Stealth

ESRB: E10+ (use of cartoon guns and anthropomorphic cleavage)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 24/16

Developer: Sanzaru Games

Wiki page

The ESRB is flawed. The concept that blood and gore are acceptable while anything remotely sexual is automatically a no-no is nothing new to anyone living in the States. But I don't want to get into that argument. I bring this up because the rating of this game makes no sense. It's too soft for a 10+ kid. When I was that age, I had already outgrown Contra. By 12, I was sneaking in some game time with some blood-soaked first person shooters. What effect that may have had on me is debatable, but the point is that games like this one weren't terribly exciting to me. I can only hope parents pay attention to these ratings, but if this is inappropriate for 5-10 year olds what does that even leave? Bejeweled?

Sly reminds me of cartoons of my childhood. Particularly this one.

Here's where the rating starts to matter: the story and tone. This game has such long cutscenes filled with over-redundant dialogue and slow moving actions that it feels like it's for really little kids. And nothing of consequence ever happens; IE no one dies. Sorry if that's a spoiler. But come on. Anyway, when I was 10+ I was at a stage where I would have skipped every long cutscene I could. The game is definitely made of child-proof cushioning so it's hard to find any depth in anything. Every character just wants to steal something and only has to fear being sent to jail (from which they can immediately break out). There's a lot of creativity given to establishing each villain, but the motives and powers/abilities attributed to them are completely arbitrary. Why would an armadillo be able to grow in size? I have no idea. And that's something I can't stand: using "it's for kids" as an excuse to be lazy. Having wacky ideas is nice, having wacky ideas that click and are clever is better.  I will give points for the conflicts of the love interests. The two relationships in this game are simplistic, like everything else in this game, but they are surprisingly human at times. It's funny that such an obvious thing is barely touched by video games, but movies lean on it like a crutch 100% of the time. The use of boobs could have been toned down a little, though. But it doesn't shine through in subtle jokes that only the adults will get. Sly 4 sticks to acting silly, making light of serious situations, and word puns. Although one time Carmelita turns down Sly's help during an ice age level and explains that her Shock Pistol will keep her warm. Ladies? Is that a thing? Do you ever call your "best friend" a Shock Pistol? Pretty sure I'm just stretching... mostly sure. One last thing: Sly never gets to go to the future! That could easily be explained with more nonsense!

She's actually wearing more clothes than the other characters. So... something.

I really couldn't get into the gameplay on this one. There were glimpses of challenge and diverse tactics needed, but too many things were watered down to Prince of Persia-style auto-pilot. And, as I mentioned, the lack of any consequences or connection with the action going on on-screen dimmed the value of it. For the beefy gameplay hours, this game relies on two things: hard to find collectables being spread out across large sandbox-type levels along with many of them requiring late-game upgrades to reach and long, numerous cutscenes. To sum up, this game is too dumbed down. Which is a mistake because anyone who's played a multiplayer game over XBox Live knows that kids are really freaking good at video games these days. Add that to some missed opportunities for fine tuning- like the camera fighting me when I try to point it down to make hard jumps and the clunky combat- and the end result is two stars: good, but not extraordinary. Ugh, the combat. I understand you want us to use stealth, Sanzaru, but why is the brawler (Murray) victim to the awesome uber timing and priority of all the enemies? I had to kite and pick at a certain boss with the edge of my elbow drop explosions because he couldn't go toe-to-toe with another boxer. And Sly himself is the world's greatest beat-'em-up character (he only attacks by swinging side to side and has no downtime because his combo is infinite AND he can attack while walking and sprinting), but every enemy has unbeatable priority! You're just taunting us, Sanzaru!

The 2D animated cutscenes are the real deal.

Conclusion:

I'm not sure who this game is for. It's well-made, but the ESRB is misleading. I'd say it's a great game for the little ones and anyone with more patience for kiddie stuff than me. You'll need a PS3 to play it, though.

Farcry 3: Blood Dragon

Rating: 3 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: First Person Shooter; Sub-genre: Sandbox

ESRB: M (excessive profanity, neon blood spray, unnecessary sex scene)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 10/3

Developer: Ubisoft Montreal

Wiki page

I want to start off by pointing out that this DLC is a stand-alone item. So that means you can get it WITHOUT having to get Farcry 3. No tricks or mods or whatever. It just runs by itself. Which is super great because after watching a majority of the gameplay in Farcry 3, I have zero desire to play it. It's completely overrated. So how does a boring game end up making a good DLC game? It's not because it's completely different. The gameplay is identical, just with a bunch of neon lights on everything. It certainly helps that this is an inexpensive and short adventure because the original has just as much content that Ubisoft just repeats over and over for four times longer gameplay.  It's more than that, though. And it's simple to explain, really.

The cutscenes run a little long and are too advanced for 8-bit, but that's just nit-picking.

Maybe there's something wrong with me. I watch games like Farcry 3 and Bioshock Infinite and hear about how good the story is. I see certain elements are good: characters, premise, arc potential. But the same thing always happens and I can only think to refer to it as "video game stuff." It happens too often when I'm playing a game and I get to a point where I roll my eyes and sigh, "So now I guess video game stuff is gonna happen." Like in Farcry 3, there are these weird hallucination scenes that stab HUGE plot holes and jump the player around the world like a tornado. And the latest Bioshock starts off with a Han Solo type guy extracting a well-read lass but then the whole world becomes at stake and several twists and continuity jumps later, I stop paying attention. You can assume I just like simple stories. But the thing is... I understand Rex Colt's character, motivation, arc, and how he gets from point A to point B in the story. It's a remarkably STUPID story, but at least it's meant to be stupid. I can't understand the pretentiousness of some writing in video games. I do have a criticism on it, though. It tries WAY too hard to be funny. I really, really would have appreciated this game more if it was just played straight-faced. We all got excited when we saw this throwback to 80's sci-fi movies. We get it. You didn't have to throw a hundred dick jokes and 4th wall breakers at us to make us laugh, Ubisoft. The end result is good, though. Being able to cheer on a character and enjoy each note of a story and smirk at the ending... yeah, that's all that matters. Don't be afraid of schlock, I say.

I do wish there was fully animated stuff like in the trailers.

While the story and tone are completely different from Farcry 3, the gameplay is the same. The stealth, gunplay, and upgrades all fit well but being on an island liberating bases and doing the EXACT same side quests as Farcry 3 is where things felt awkward. This would have worked better as a purely linear story. All the side stuff just serves to beef up the gameplay hours given. Granted, it's kind of got a cute John Carpenter feel when I think about the dev's throwing a bunch of filters onto a Farcry level and calling it "post apocalyptic." But that's rather meta to be thinking about things like cutting corners and making it look good. The bottom line is, I hated moving about on the island because the hilly terrain slowed me down. And I could tell it was a tropical island under all that jazz. Which didn't have the same feel as a planet nuked into a barren wasteland. It doesn't matter, though, because as I said the side quests are boring. Once you get into the story quests, that's where you'll get to tear through a bunch of 80's labs and bad guy bases.

The guy on the left (main antagonist) and the love interest have no in-game models. Cutting corners, indeed.

Conclusion:

If you want a cheesy 80's movie transformed into a modern video game, this is the place to go! Just don't let yourself get too dragged down by the superfluous sandbox content.

Tomb Raider 2013

Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: Third Person Shooter; Sub-genre: Survival

ESRB: M (profanity, very high levels of gore and gritty visuals)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 12/8

Developer: Crystal Dynamics

Wiki page

Sometimes the difference between a good game and a great game is incredibly slight. Before I was even done with my playthrough, I was already thinking of things that would have improved the game. I'm sure many other critics have as well, too, because they are kind of obvious. While certain things like "be as good as Uncharted" can be a tall order for any developer, the criticisms I have for this game are simpler. Although I would have loved if this game was as good as Uncharted, heh. Before I start, I should mention that I am not a fan of this franchise. I briefly played the first Tomb Raider for about 30 minutes. Probably still as a kid wandering around Wal-Mart's displays in their electronics section. I found it to be another case of a game that's victim to the clunkiness of the transition into 3D graphics. So I'll only be able to talk about this game by itself. What I do know, though, is that this game is about a thousand percent darker than the originals.

Tomb Raider or Slayer album cover art?

Lara Croft is no longer a seasoned bad ass slayer-of-man-and-beast that she once was. At least she isn't for the first few seconds of the game. Both the character and the player adapt to becoming killing machines in about as much time as it will take one to get accustomed to the controls and physics of the game. That sounds like a good thing, and it definitely is good because a game should be understandable, but it does detract from the story. Couple her innocence with the fact that she is a tiny, TINY girl and it just elicits laughter when I watch some of the cutscenes. The reason this is a problem is because this game is so serious. If it were silly like the other ones? Sure, it's fine that a 5'2" skinny teenage girl (early 20's?) can overpower a six foot, burly, psychotic killer MAN. For all the grit and realism the game builds, some wacky action hero scene shows up and destroys the mood. This is consistent with the gameplay. By that I mean the gameplay is inconsistent. At first glance it seems like scavenging, exploration, and problem solving might be an important factor in a survival game. But almost immediately the game turns into a normal action game. I feel this way because the exploration and skill ups are so capricious in depth and length. Most skills and upgrades come in two flavors: "more damage" and "things you can already do but are now highlighted." And there's no decisions to be made. If you are diligent, you can just buy everything. And how does she turn a WWII submachine gun into an AK47? That is some Army of Darkness level silliness right there. Exploration devolves into finding collectables and backtracking. Each "zone" is only as big as a standard video game level, just less linear.

When I think "gritty realism," scenes from Army of Darkness come to mind. CLEARLY.

So what. So it's another dumb video game after all. I guess I'll just have to live with that. I shouldn't question the logic of the game so long as it's fun, right? Right. But backtracking isn't fun. Especially when strange respawn bugs occur for doing so (I once killed the same guy three times in a row because he kept popping into existence right in front of me!). Why can't I just access all these sub-areas right away? Why must I come back once I have a late-game upgrade? Because they're just beefing up the gameplay hours. Okay, so maybe it's my fault for being thorough then. I should just play the game straight through. Well, then I'm just doing another video game story where the player character keeps surviving explosions and giant falls in order to uncover some absurd megalomaniac's plan to rule the world with his small army and easily-defeated-by-machine-gun magic powers. My point is this game is confused. It sold me on the idea of Lara Croft as a survivor but then it gave me "Uncharted with more backtracking and less fun." But really I'm more disappointed than anything. It's still a good game and a successful reboot.

Lara's friends are quite alright with her descent into becoming a murderbot.

One last thing: apparently there's a multiplayer mode! I really had no idea or expectation for such a thing in this game. And the design of it is in the same thought process as me, which I'd describe as: "Huh? Sure, whatever." It's not the worst tacked-on head-to-head mode I've seen recently. That title goes to Spec Ops: The Line. But it definitely isn't as stellar as Fall of Cybertron. There are two factions to play as, and they are different from one another in ways that are stupid and pointless. One side are the "Survivors" (or "Dorks", which is what I call them) and the other are the Solarii (who I call the "Bad Guys" or "Psychos"). A good example of these bemusing changes is that the Dorks start with submachine guns while the Psychos use assault rifles. Huh? And the matches have rounds and respawn timers for no reason. I can understand in a game mode where one side defends and the other attacks that you could switch back and forth, but why have that in team deathmatch or free-for-all? It just makes the game take longer and adds more loadscreen time to wait through. Guys, just give us a good ~10 minute deathmatch. The spawning uses bases rather than random locations, so that means an uneven match will result in indefinite camping. That coupled with powerful late-level upgrades makes this game very unfriendly to newcomers. There's also feats and setbacks, which are only explained if you browse around a few menus. Those are killstreaks and deathstreaks... important! Lastly, no icons come up when you hit resistant enemies (there are perks that make you take less damage from things like bullets... bullets for crying out loud!) so that pretty much sums up how freaking bewildering these matchs can be with all these concepts flying at the player to learn and figure out. It's still a touch unique and interesting, so if you want to try it my advice is to do so sooner rather than later. I doubt people will play enough to keep the servers full for too long.

Every game should have multiplayer... apparently.

Conclusion:

Lara Croft is still a sexy, squeaking, action hero. If you want to see her in a decent action game with triple A graphics, go right ahead. You'll have a good enough time. If you want a stealth game with exploration and survival, well... I've been meaning to play that Farcry 3 game. I'll get back to you on that.

Bonus note:

Hey, Crystal Dynamics! I can't change the buttons to your game! That's fine and all, so long as you're willing to piss people off when you make changes from the norm. It's mostly fine in single player, but in multiplayer you've screwed up royally. Clicking the left stick and holding it to switch shoulders? B to run? What is this?! Here's what you do:

-Running and aiming are exclusive. So there is no reason you can't put sprint on clicking the left stick. Just make aiming transform the button to "switch shoulder." Also, don't require the player to hold that click down to run continually. That is kinda hard to do. One can stop running by easing off from pushing forward.

-B is now crouch.

-Aiming and melee are also exclusive. There is no reason clicking the right stick can't be melee. When aiming, this is now transformed to zoom.

-Second option! There is no hipfire in this game. When not aiming, R trigger could become melee. Just like Dead Space.

-Either way, Y is now switch weapon.

How easy are these changes? How much less clunky does this make your multiplayer? Come on!

Singularity

Rating: 3 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: First Person Shooter

ESRB: M (machine gun violence and profanity)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 10/6

Developer: Raven Software 

Wiki page

Here's another in my "just a good game" category. This one went somewhat overlooked back in 2010, but it's not the most underrated game ever made; it's derivative and doesn't shine as brightly as the other stars out there. In fact I'm having trouble remembering some details since it wasn't entirely memorable. But it definitely was a satisfying and well-made adventure. I sometimes wonder what makes a game like this go relatively unnoticed while something like Bioshock Infinite makes people lose their damn minds. My own answers are simply marketing and game setting, since this did not get advertised nearly as much and looks drab and generic on the surface. I also personally feel people don't play enough games. There are lots of good games out there! Try to get excited over something that isn't a triple A franchise, people!

This game has a lot of similar concepts as Bioshock. Now the latest Bioshock is similar to this!

I do remember a good portion of the story and the ending, too. It is all rather silly and video game-y, but it all makes enough sense. Which is something of an accomplishment when we're talking about a confusing time travel adventure. The enemy design and events all tie into the plot to logically compliment one another. Which is great because I hate when a game gets overly "creative" with its design ideas that it holds no boundaries and feels like a mish mosh of gibberish. I wouldn't say it excels in this department but rather that everything fits together well enough. And I found that having both monsters and regular human enemies offered some variety in the types of combat encountered. Speaking of which, this game plays like a combination of Bioshock and Call of Duty by offering an assortment of powers, consumables and upgrades along with some militarism and familiar controls and pacing. Oh, and there are zombie-like things and Soviets. Everybody loves those two things.

Powers! Soviets!

A healthy dose of variety keeps the gameplay fun throughout: both practical and wacky guns (although I used the assault rifle through most of it) are employed against both monsters and mortals. This also continues on into the player versus player side of things. Like Left 4 Dead, the sides are actually humans versus monsters. The monsters are all different shapes and sizes with different functions and the humans are different classes of soldiers as well. Unfortunately the servers stopped functioning shortly after my play time with it years ago, so I doubt they'll ever let me in now (I tried to get in for about 10 minutes with zero progress). If they did, I would definitely recommend this part of the game just for being a different take on a Call of Duty type multiplayer. Who doesn't want to play as the monsters? No one!

Zombie man just wants a hug, machine gunner!

Conclusion:

Just a solid, fun game. Nothing incredibly outstanding, but something that left me with all positive feels for it.

5 Favorite VG Original Soundtracks

It's high time I shoot myself in the foot! Not only is this a numbered list of things people can actually comprehend and have their own opinions on, but it's about music! Something no other person in the world will agree with!

Just take this time to see if there's something new out there to hear. I'm trying to pick things that are less popular (IE no Zelda, Metroid, Halo, Call of Duty, or God of War) although- admittedly- a couple of these are extremely popular and well known for their music. Also, each soundtrack has to have at least THREE good songs.

Whatever the case, just click the links!

5. Double Dragon

Here's a good example. This was a pretty popular game, but I don't think it's held in people's memories for its music nearly as much as it should. Definitely as good as Zelda, just that this stuff is more about fist-fighting and mayhem instead of a hero's journey.

Try to not bounce up and down when you hear Mission 4.

It's also a good soundtrack to demonstrate the limitations of video game hardware and software of the time. Mission 1 showcases some of the most memorable ideas, but what the hell is up with the beat? The "drummer" is just beating the crap out of ONE cymbal. You can hear how thin the sound is from an NES since there's only four channels (five if the developer uses the Sample channel, which most didn't) and each one can only play a single note at a time. Chords and echo required using up those other channels. Listening to this, I'm guessing the composer is just some coder guy with little to no musical training. Which is actually another limitation some games had since games back then had no budget.

But man. Whoever this guy is, he's got some great ideas. Just listen to Mission 2. It sounds like a tense fight is about to break out, but then everyone must be break dancing or something. Then things get tense again before some fanfare lights up out of nowhere.

This is also an example of a game where I remember most of the music, but not a lot of the game. Video games were stupidly difficult to the point of being almost unplayable back then.

4. Dynasty Warriors 4

How can I not talk about this game? If you know me, you know I love metal. But it takes effort for me to notice a metal soundtrack. You can't just have distorted guitars mashing power chords alongside double kicks. No, you've got to have MEANING and SUBSTANCE. Like Struggle for Existence. It conveys exactly what the title says... only with guitars! And that weird Chinese violin thing.

There's even a sense of nostalgia when I listen to Look Back on Your Way; thinking on all the thousands of people I killed... uh, I mean KO'ed... just to achieve victory. But for whaaaaat? I suppose that question would be deeper if I wasn't sincerely confused on what was accomplished in all these battles.

And who could forget good ol' Lu Bu's Theme? This is the best version of it that I've heard.

3. Contra

Here's another one that's really big. Arguably another metal entry, too. But I don't think this game gets nearly enough credit. I often measure how popular a game is by how well I feel people remember it versus Legend of Zelda's theme. And Contra is not remembered nearly well enough! It's got like 6 Zelda theme quality songs in it! Start of with Waterfall. The tense intro, the funky bass call and return, and those awesome dual "guitars."

And I can't think of a song that has more gung ho, charging-into-battle feel to it than Energy Zone. That song is as masculine and heroic as the two protagonists on the cover.

Now, I wanted to avoid talking about Enemy Base. But I don't think I can, man. It's burned into my brain with how often it plays in the game and how repetitive it is by itself. I hope it's the first time you've heard it, because I remember back when this was the perfect theme to come on when blasting my way through a pseudo-3D enemy base.

2. Castlevania 3

This is supposed to be a big franchise. But for the life of me I never seem to meet people who have played the Castlevania games. I never did as a kid. So this gets bonus points for finding me without the aid of nostalgia. I've started thinking of this franchise as being like the cool kid game... or something. It was dark and had evil monsters, so maybe most parents didn't want us kids playing it. At any rate, tell me this isn't the most gangster vampire slaying music you've ever heard: Stage 3. Blade would be proud.

The way these songs swerve and dance around the beat so fancifully, I really can't help but think of these as being some kind of super technical rap songs. Like, if rap had melody and structure. You know? If it was a form of music that was performed by professional adults rather than buffoonish children. Uh, that was harsh. Here's another of the break-dancing gangster style: Stage 1.

There was that time when rap and rock were merging together. I guess that still happens. Why not classical music and rap? Am I completely crazy to think these things? Yeah, more than likely. Don't forget Stage 7, yo.

1. Silver Surfer

Holy crap! To me, this is the granddaddy of the lost NES soundtrack classics. I think it has some cult following, but not enough to where your average Mario fan recognizes it. So it belongs at the damn top! I can never get over this thrash-metal-fusion-cosmic-what's-it stuff! Listen to Level 2 and compare it to the other NES tracks here. While Mr. Follin has the advantage of using the Sample track, you can hear just how much fuller and more alive his songs are. He's a technical wizard, he is, and even uses audio illusions to achieve some of his stuff.

I'm not too informed on the electronica scene, but the Title Screen sounds like the genre's posible conception. Is 1990 far back enough to take credit for that? Doesn't really matter either way since this is just like Castlevania in that it goes way outside the contraints of the genre I'm talking about. Man, you can just hear the story unfolding just from the music!

And, of course, what would Silver Surfer be without funk? The High Score lets the player know just how funky you gotta be to hang with this space-truckin' groovemaster.





WAIT?

No Mega Man?!

Yeah, I think... I HOPE Mega Man gets enough credit. I think he does. Two and Three are like the modern day Beethoven's 5th... of video game music. Here, let's end this post with the best ending/credits theme of all time: Ending Part 3!

Halo 4

Rating: 2 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: First Person Shooter

ESRB: M (For firing lots of bullets at weird abstract art)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 16/6 (including Spartan Ops for thorough)

Developer: 343 Industries 

Wiki page

The fight was over only if you don't understand how business works. Microsoft has a top-selling product here, so of course there was going to be another sequel. It's said that video games cost three times that of a movie ticket, so consumers are three times pickier when it comes to buying them. This, in turn, is why publishers are so obsessed with putting out sequels since they know it'll sell. So 343 Industries has been tracing the steps of Bungie in order to prepare themselves for when they would inevitably take the reins. These guys have been pretty humble about it, too. When you beat the game there's a note from the team thanking the player for going through their version of Halo. Imagine my surprise when I find out how superficial their knowledge of Halo is.

By the way, Master Chief's name is apparently "John." John... Spartan?

From what I remember (and what I read on the Halo 3 wiki) the war with the Covenant had ended. Especially of note was that the Elites had dropped out of the Covenant. But wouldn't you know it? They're somehow back and shooting bullets at the space-wandering Master Chief. Not that the lore or story to Halo has ever mattered to me. Master Chief shoots aliens and not much else makes sense about it. Like that Gravemind thing in Halo 2. What was THAT? Anyway, I won't go into any spoilers (as usual) but this game seems to be all about pushing buttons. Basically, the Forerunners and the Covenant make it a point to install "make us lose" buttons all over the damn place. Cortana just keeps telling the player which button needs to be pushed next. And then when you do, a bunch of monsters spawn all around you. It's one thing to make a game a forgettable, plotless action game. But to make it feel redundant and pointless is a problem. The ending of this game is mind-blowingly stupid, too, and it involves this big, bad final boss that you defeat with an incredibly simple and anti-climactic mini-game. Easily as bad as Mass Effect 3's ending. I'd say WORSE. Although it's obvious I'm biased for Mass Effect... come on.

And "Forerunner" sounds like "Foreigner." I don't want to shoot at Foreigner!

Gameplay remains the strongpoint of the franchise. But only because of all the things that were already in place. All the bad guys, vehicles, guns, and physics tuning were designed in previous games by Bungie; the original developer of the series. The new enemies in this game are incomprensible in appearance and story. I can't tell the different Knights apart, I didn't know they had shields until I looked it up, they have a confusing not-dead-yet animation, and they disintegrate when they die. They're supposed to be digital people or something? And there are dogs that bark bullets at you? The guns they use have floating parts that transform for no reason. The new guns in this game are simply other guns in the game but with tweaked stats. For example, the Boltgun is a pistol that can be charged up so it's a combination of the Magnum and the Plasma Pistol. And the Forerunner rocket launcher is jut like the human rocket launcher except it hits HARDER.

Yay loadouts!

What would a Halo game be without multiplayer? For the first time, Halo sports customized loadouts. Unlike Halo Reach, which only pretended to have loadouts. They've also introduced ordinance drops, perks, and kill cams so it's more like Call of Duty. But don't worry, the game is still exactly like Halo; just with more stuff. If I were to rate just this one section of the game, I would have given it three stars. But there's another multiplayer feature that's been introduced: Spartan Ops. And it's inexplicably come at the cost of removing the Firefight mode. It's a cool idea, but the execution is so repetitive, lazy, and badly written that it's not even worth the time to play. It's little missions that play like extensions of the Halo 4 campaign, but guess what it has you do? Push more buttons. Buttons... buttons everywhere. Your commanding officers are bored and disinterested as they yell at you to push the next button, not offering any kind of depth or characterization. I don't know why 343 even bothered with any story at all. And to top it all off the maps used are very limited and are copied from other parts of the game.

Conclusion:

While Halo 4 offers a robust amount of gameplay and endless multiplayer fun featuring triple A polish, so much of the game is a blunder that I can't give it a full recommendation. If you haven't played it already, don't worry too much about it.