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.

All 3 Mass Effect 3 Paid DLC

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

Genre: Third person cover shooter; Sub-Genre: RPG

ESRB: M (same stuff you'd find in ME3)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 10/4

Developer: BioWare 

Wiki page

To clarify, this doesn't include any of the free DLC nor does it include the Javik DLC, or item/skin DLC's. This is just the three released post-launch that fill out the campaign story and I can only think to refer to as "proper DLC" since it actually includes content and costs money (although free DLC is very very nice). That means this review is about three pieces of content: Leviathan, Omega, and Citadel. I've talked a lot about this damn game, but this is a good opportunity for me to review DLC. Other reviewers do that stuff, you know. The thing is, though, I hate DLC. There's a potential in it that I like and I can respect the smart business of giving rich people a way to part with their money for cheater items and vanity crap. But I simply loathe these dinky two hour snippets of gameplay that are intertwined within the normal story. Why? Because I already played through the whole game by the time they come out! I don't want to come back to it just for a measly couple hours, especially after the story is done, and most games I only beat once so I'm not going to replay it just for the sake of DLC. Except with a game like Mass Effect. It's a series I care about enough that I want to come back to it again. Also there is replay value in choosing a new class and seeing the universe with different choices. All that being said, I still hate this method of story-telling. Really, if not for the handicap of "being DLC" I would give this content a 1 out of 3. Didn't expect me to rate this so low, huh? Check it out.

Yay, mystery!

I'm doing these in chronological order of when each piece of content was released. So first up is Leviathan. If I had played this when it first came out, I might have had more hope for the coming DLC's. This is arguably the strongest entry here as it actually assists the story in providing additional lore, fitting tone, and being a kind of long side quest that I wished the game could have featured instead of all those fetch quests on the Citadel. Of course, if ME3 had quests like this in place of ALL the ones it does feature then it probably would need a development cycle that would have been three times longer. Despite all this praise, this doesn't live up to how good the three ME2 DLC's were. I'll talk more about those later, but my last note on this is that some of the acting and writing is awkward in this. Especially at the start of it. I do wish it was better because it's all downhill from here.

Mass Effect's "Mos Eisley cantina." Good for a shoot out.

Next comes Omega, which I would say is as good as Leviathan except for two things: major missed potential and an inexplicable 50% price increase. The latter item is easy to explain by asking, "Why does this DLC cost $5 more?" I honestly don't know the answer to that. But where it missed its potential is in its limited content. Without giving any spoilers, this is about liberating the Omega space station for its owner, Aria (that description is available in the download and is explained when you first meet up with Aria). When it's all said and done, the player is not able to go to Omega. You literally teleport from Citadel space, get locked into this long quest, then teleport back to Citadel space. It is a rather lengthy mission, but for $15? And you can't even bring any squadmates with you and the two the game does give you do not follow you through the rest of the game. That's three things I wanted out of this DLC that I did not get. Leviathan doesn't give me two of those things, sure, but it didn't ask for 50% more money to deliver the same amount of content. But more content isn't always the answer. The next entry is a good example of this.

When I go "duh" it makes a "duh" sound!

Citadel was the most recent release, and what a mixed bag this is. On the one hand, it gives you a beefy amount of stuff that should easily be worth the $15. On the other, it's really ... REALLY dumb. The setup seems simple enough: Shepard tries to take some shore leave but ends up falling into another of his/her bullet-filled adventures. It gives you a house, filling the needs of players who felt they needed a housing feature in a non-open world game that already has infinite storage and a limited continuity. I'm being sarcastic because I really have no idea who asked for housing when all I want is my damn hover tank from ME2's DLC and to get to explore some planets with it. And you can customize it with an incredibly limited pool of swappable furniture, so there you go. There's also an arcade with a few mini-games that aren't terrible for the 5 minutes of entertainment they provide. But the best feature this DLC provides is an arena. A very, very cliche thing for an RPG to have, I know, but I still love it. It provides some quests, rewards, and a way to farm money with a nifty little match customizing interface so it almost redeems this DLC by itself. Almost. Unfortunately, this DLC must have had either the B or C team of writers working on it. Instead of the seriousness and infrequent dry humor of Mass Effect, it has constant bad humor by way of forced one-liners. Seriously, every line of dialogue is a one liner. Just imagine Star Trek: The Next Generation versus the Star Trek TNG movies. Yeah! Out of character, wrong tone, and the story doesn't even make sense. I really don't get the motivations for the villains in this one. And this is coming from a guy who found the cosmic mumbo jumbo from the Reapers and the Leviathan to be acceptable. My only guess is that BioWare realized that ME3 is too much of a downer, so they injected some Jay Leno to lighten up the mood. Naturally that makes it much more depressing so... oops!

Vehicle exploration is officially completely absent from ME3 and its DLC.

To restate, I really don't know how to rate DLC because I don't like how it's executed. But you know what actually convinced me to keep giving DLC a try (when it's for a game I like)? Mass Effect 2. Yup. All three of its DLC pieces were solid. Overlord featured vehicle exploration and a cool Tron-like section. Lair of the Shadow Broker had some great set pieces and had a car chase, offering the most thrilling adventure of the three, and also gave the player additional little features like a form of housing (sorta) and the ability to see Liara again (although she doesn't stay with your team). Lastly, Arrival was completely essential to the story in bridging ME2 and ME3, in addition to just generally being an acceptable piece of DLC. Also, these were priced at $7, $10, and $7 respectively.

I don't blame BioWare, though, I blame EA. BioWare gets rushed to death to make these games.

Conclusion:
If you really love Mass Effect or love it a little and love the concept of DLC then these are all decent entries. None of them stand out as fully adding to the game or being exceptional on their own, so don't get too excited.

WWE '13

Rating: 1 out of 3 Stars (why only 3 possible stars?)

Genre: Fighting; Sub-Genre: Sports Sim, Wrestling

ESRB: T (Lots of shirtless dudes getting hit with stuff)

Estimated hours of gameplay (thorough play/quick play): 8/2

Developer: Yukes 

Wiki page

I'm done with this game series. Get a new developer, please. Many games are accused of just releasing the same game over and over but with minor tweaks so they can call it a sequel (Call of Duty, Madden, Dynasty Warriors, etc), but this series takes the grand prize for it. Why? Because the games have gotten WORSE. I should be able to put "infinite" up there for gameplay hours, but it can't even hold my attention through the campaign. And the 2 hour mark is just the amount of time you can spend screwing around in create-a-character before getting bored since that's the best thing to do in these games. I'm guessing the only reason other critics don't pan it as much as I do is because there aren't other wrestling games out there to compare it to. Unless you have a freaking memory like I do. Just from starting this game up I found six major things to be missing from previous iterations:

1. Create-a-taunt

2. Explore 100% of backstage area

3. 4 player campaign mode

4. Targeting that worked

5. Hit point system that made sense

6. Full UI

Tearing it up backstage...yes! And this is PS1 era!

Here's an inherent problem with any wrestling game: they don't care about hit stun mechanics. See, in a proper fighting game there is attention to how easy it is for one fighter to lock the other down with a barrage of attacks. Typically attacks will push the fighters apart so eventually they can't reach one another and the recovery from being hit leaves enough time to evade damage from improperly timed combos. In a wrestling game, EVERYTHING can be used to stun lock an opponent. And, of course, you can hit your enemy when they are on the ground or getting up. The only feature in place to prevent every single battle from devolving into "he who lands the first punch wins" is an incredibly awkward and random counter system. And WWE '13 has done nothing to improve on this situation. On top of that, the targeting system in this game is remarkably unresponsive, slow, and ultimately useless. Seriously. If I'm targeting my opponent and perform a grab I can accidentally grab my own teammate if he's close enough. Instead of the game understanding that I seriously do not want to DDT my tag partner, leaving myself vulnerable and alone, my guy just follows through while thinking, "Oops, might as well. Not like I could just let go of him or something." The best way to avoid this is to fight in one-on-one, but then you'll still subject yourself to all the other terrible gameplay decisions. Animations are more "realistic" these days, so that means they are stupidly awkward, lethargic, and difficult to connect. Damage is not explained at all. Back in the day everyone just had a life bar like in Street Fighter or what-have-you. Hit a guy in the head 35 times with a steel chair and he still will get back up after being knocked out for approximately zero seconds. Oh, but he'll clutch his temple in pain, I guess.

Generally the audience believes that this would hurt. Video games disagree.

For some reason it was decided that campaign modes would be added to recreate the mid to late 90's storylines going on in the WWE. There was a heated ratings war with WCW and it lead to an amazing jump in viewership for the program, sure, but why is this the foreground in a game named after the current generation? Games like Legends of Wrestlemania are a celebration of nostalgia, and that's cool, but why drag the kids through this when they paid to see CM Punk or whoever? My best guess is that the people who watched back then were teenagers and are now adults. Or, more specifically, adults within the specific demographic that spends the most money on video games. So... marketing. Whatever. What does this mean for the game? Nothing much, really. It's an idea. But I really didn't care about it at all. I want to run my create-a-character around and mess up the WWE universe. If you don't do the objectives it's fun to think that you're messing up history by ending matches differently than they're supposed to and causing paradoxes, but time won't actually implode on itself. Missing objectives just means missing unlockables. WWE has some good archivists to dig up all this stuff, so I'll give them that.

Oh man! Do you remember when this happened? Do you, huh huh huh?! REMEMBER!!!

One great thing about modern gaming is online multiplayer. Unfortunately I don't have a code to access it fully so I was limited to the trial stuff. It doesn't matter, though, because in my first match I realized that my opponents were taking the fight seriously. So I picked up the steel steps and hit the ref with them, rendering myself disqualified. I did this because I had already had enough of the game and this was just the last stop. It's unplayable, in terms of being a fighting game, so my patience for trying to actually fight anyone had run out. 

I also want to add real quick that the graphics in this game are bad. Vince McMahon looks like a mutant, no one has detailed texturing, and the audience is as blocky and fake as ever. This seriously looks like a last gen game with HD resolution. Garbage.

Conan, Val Kilmer, and a caveman in a suit? Who?
(Supposed to be Triple H, HBK, and Vince McMahon)

Conclusion:

Don't play this game. Either get an emulator and pick something out from the past (like RAW for SNES or Smackdown 2 for PS1) or wait indefinitely for some other developer to make a wrestling game that's actually fun.

5 Catch Phrases to Yell at Video Games

For all my knowledge and critical analysis powers, I actually have a different skill that I am much more adept at. And that is yelling at video games. Some of you casuals and novices don't grasp this yet. Hell, you probably think it's awkward and embarrassing. Well, friend, this is what it means to be a master. So take note and remember these; try 'em on. I guarantee you'll be 100% better at video games once you do, and then your ability will sky rocket as it grows on you.

Here are just five examples you can take home with you. You'll want to develop your own, but just take these for starters.

(On a side note, I'm tired of running image searches. Can you tell?)

5. "It's the only way!"

This one can actually either be sarcastic or a war cry. Surrounded by Banshees on a gold map in Mass Effect 3? Use the rocket launcher consumable, it's the only way! More often, though, I'll see someone use the same valuable resource to get rid of the last Atlas on a bronze wave, "It was the only way, I guess" I'll tell myself.

It can also be both at the same time! It's great to shout this in Call of Duty while cooking a grenade in your hands, charging into an enemy to blow both of you up. Some will say you could have, like, just used a machine gun, you know, like the one in your hands. But what fun would that be?

4. "Do what I am telling you to do!" 

or "No one said to do that!"

When button presses don't equate to the things those buttons are assigned to, there is always anger. There are a lot of things that can cause this: lag, having several different actions assigned to one button, clunky animations,  games that recall press sequence, or just bugs in the way the game receives input from your controller or keyboard.

But sometimes one starts to think the game is just being disobedient. When that happens, you gotta tell 'em to knock that crap off! Stupid game!

3. "Son of a bitchin' son of a bitch!"

I consider this to be the most philosophical of the bunch: a declaration of acknowledgement of the unending cycle of problems that is the human condition, stemming from our own flaws and insecurities.

Or maybe I'm just stuttering from frustration when I say this. I prefer the former.

2. "Hiya!" (release your chi!)

Eeeyah! I-yah! Hoo, ha! Ho weeeeeeyagh!

In martial arts, some teachers will tell you to shout out as you exert force in your strikes. To put it more poetically, this is called releasing your chi. It sounds silly (literrally, hearing people do this makes me chuckle) but it actually works. Personally, I think it's the act of letting go of the super ego and giving in to one's id so that destruction will be wrought without remorse. As humans, holding back is required to co-operate with the rest of society so it becomes ingrained in our minds.

But the old teachings claim that there is some kind of spiritual energy that everyone can tap into to become stronger. If that's the case, then it definitely works in video games, too! Try it sometime! Especially if you're doing something like rolling dice in a table top game or something in public. You will do more damage!

1. "Come on, game!"

At first glance this one is just too simple. But the pure mileage this one runs earns its reputation for being the best and horribly infectious. It applies to anything that happens in a game that doesn't agree to your tastes, regardless of the situation: disconnects, bad rolls, lag, choppy frame rate, enemies with one hit point left, insta-death, bugs, clearing an entire level then dying to some random land mine... you name it.

I probably say this one at least a couple times a session, regardless of what's going on. And I've been told by at least one person that he found himself saying it after he heard me. Honestly, I didn't even realize I said it that much until I thought about it. Especially as I play this Avengers Alliance game. There are a million random factors that can either go my way or for the enemy! It can't be helped!